51488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

AHRI and Raypak Inc. Raypak argued 

that the industry has recognized, and 

there should be no question, that natural 

draft boilers have been covered under 

EPCA for many years. (Raypak, No. 35 

at p. 2) AHRI commented that the 

minimum efficiency standards specified 

for commercial packaged boilers in 

EPCA have been applied to all models 

including natural draft for the past 20 

years. AHRI also restated its position 

from previous comments (discussed 

above) that there should be no question 

that natural draft commercial packaged 

boilers are covered equipment subject to 

DOE’s standards. (AHRI, No. 37 at p. 2) 

In summary, comments received from 

interested parties, both from the August 

2013 NOPD and the November 2014 

NOPM, support DOE’s understanding 

that packaged boilers, as currently 

defined under EPCA, include natural 

draft packaged boilers. Therefore, DOE 

concludes that it is not necessary to 

publish a final coverage determination 

for natural draft commercial packaged 

boilers and is withdrawing its notice of 

proposed determination. 

IV. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this withdrawal notice. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 14, 

2015. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20970 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–3146; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–249–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 777–200 

series airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by an evaluation by the 

design approval holder (DAH) 

indicating that the skin lap splices at 

certain stringers in certain fuselage 

sections are subject to widespread 

fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed 

AD would require inspections to detect 

cracking of fuselage skin lap splices in 

certain fuselage sections, and corrective 

actions if necessary; modification of leftside and right-side lap splices; and postmodification repetitive inspections for 

cracks in the modified lap splices, and 

corrective actions if necessary. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

fatigue cracking of the skin lap splices, 

and consequent risk of sudden 

decompression and the inability to 

sustain limit flight and pressure loads. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 9, 2015. 

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. It is also available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

3146. 

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–2015– 

3146; 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: 

Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6573; fax: 

425–917–6590; email: Haytham.Aaidy@

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– 

2015–3146; Directorate Identifier 2014– 

NM–249–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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51489 

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 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. 

During Model 777 fatigue testing, skin 

cracks were found at the stringer S–14 

lap splice. These cracks initiated at 

scribe lines that were made 

inadvertently in production when 

maskant was removed from the skin 

panels. This condition, if not corrected, 

could result in fatigue cracking of the 

skin lap splices, and consequent 

reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane and could cause sudden 

decompression and the inability to 

sustain limit flight and pressure loads. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 777–53A0052, dated October 

10, 2014. The service bulletin describes 

procedures for inspections to detect 

cracking of fuselage skin lap splices and 

repairs, modification to the skin lap 

splices; and repetitive inspections for 

cracks in the modified lap splices and 

repairs. 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 of this NPRM. 

Other Related Service Information 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777– 

53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, 

specifies concurrent accomplishment of 

an inspection of the fuselage skin for 

external scribe lines, skin cracks, and 

repair, which are described in Boeing 

Service Bulletin 777–53A0054, Revision 

1, dated November 4, 2010. The actions 

described in Boeing Service Bulletin 

777–53A0054, Revision 1, dated 

November 4, 2010, are required by AD 

2013–07–11, Amendment 39–17415 (78 

FR 22185, April 15, 2013); therefore, 

those actions are not required in this 

NPRM. 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777– 

53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, 

describes doing inspections for cracks in 

the skin of the stringer lap splices and 

repair, which are also described in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777– 

53A0043, dated November 9, 2011. The 

actions described in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 777–53A0043, dated 

November 9, 2011, are required by AD 

2012–14–03, Amendment 39–17117 (77 

FR 42962, July 23, 2012); therefore, 

those actions are not required in this 

NPRM. 

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.’’ Refer to 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777– 

53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, for 

information on the procedures and 

compliance times. 

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. 

Explanation of Compliance Time 

The compliance time for the 

modification specified in this proposed 

AD for addressing WFD was established 

to ensure that discrepant structure is 

modified 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 bulletin related to 

WFD without extensive new data that 

would substantiate and clearly warrant 

such an extension. 

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 ‘‘RC (Required for 

Compliance)’’ Steps in Service 

Information 

The FAA worked in conjunction with 

industry, under the Airworthiness 

Directive Implementation Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to 

enhance the AD system. One 

enhancement was a new process for 

annotating which steps in the service 

information are required for compliance 

with an AD. Differentiating these steps 

from other tasks in the service 

information is expected to improve an 

owner’s/operator’s understanding of 

crucial AD requirements and help 

provide consistent judgment in AD 

compliance. The steps identified as RC 

(required for compliance) in any service 

information identified previously have a 

direct effect on detecting, preventing, 

resolving, or eliminating an identified 

unsafe condition. 

For service information that contains 

steps that are labeled as Required for 

Compliance (RC), the following 

provisions apply: (1) 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

AD, and an AMOC is required for any 

deviations to RC steps, including 

substeps and identified figures; and (2) 

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. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 21 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 

Inspection and modification 2,713 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $230,605.

$0 $230,605 ............................ $4,842,705. 

Post-modification inspection 1,391 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $118,235 per inspection cycle.

0 $118,235 per inspection 

cycle.

$2,482,935 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. 

According to the manufacturer, some 

of the costs of this proposed AD may be 

covered under warranty, thereby 

reducing the cost impact on affected 

individuals. We do not control warranty 

coverage for affected individuals. As a 

result, we have included all available 

costs in our cost estimate. 

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– 

2015–3146; Directorate Identifier 2014– 

NM–249–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by October 9, 

2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 777–200 series airplanes, certified in 

any category; as identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 777–53A0052, dated October 

10, 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 (DAH) indicating 

that the skin lap splices at certain stringers 

in certain fuselage sections are subject to 

widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue 

cracking of the skin lap splices, and 

consequent risk of sudden decompression 

and the inability to sustain limit flight and 

pressure loads. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspections and Corrective Actions 

Except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of 

this AD, at the applicable time specified in 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0052, dated 

October 10, 2014: Do Part 1, inspection ‘‘A,’’ 

of the modification area for cracks; Part 2, 

inspection ‘‘B,’’ of the modification area for 

cracks; and Part 3, inspection ‘‘C,’’ of the 

modification area for scribe lines and cracks; 

as applicable; and do all applicable 

corrective actions; in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 777–53A0052, dated October 

10, 2014, except as provided by paragraph 

(h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective 

actions before further flight. 

(1) Inspection ‘‘A’’ includes an external 

phased array ultrasonic inspection for cracks 

in the lower/overlapped skin of the stringer 

S–14 left and right (L/R) lap splices between 

fuselage station 655 and station 1434, and an 

open hole high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspection for skin cracks at the 

upper and lower fastener rows of the stringer 

lap splices. 

(2) Inspection ‘‘B’’ includes the inspections 

specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through 

(g)(2)(iv) of this AD. 

(i) A detailed inspection for cracks of any 

skin panel common to a stringer lap splice 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51491 

between fuselage station 655 and station 

1434 that has a scribe line 0.001 inch or 

deeper. 

(ii) Either an ultrasonic inspection or a 

surface HFEC inspection for cracks 

(depending on the location of the scribe 

line(s)) of any skin panel common to a 

stringer lap splice between fuselage station 

655 and station 1434 that has a scribe line 

0.001 inch or deeper. 

(iii) An external phased array ultrasonic 

inspection for cracks in the lower/overlapped 

skin of the stringer S–14L/R lap splices 

between fuselage station 655 and station 

1434. 

(iv) An open hole HFEC inspection for skin 

cracks at the upper and lower fastener rows 

of the stringer lap splices. 

(3) Inspection ‘‘C’’ includes the inspections 

for scribe lines and cracks specified in 

paragraphs (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), and (g)(3)(iii) of 

this AD on stringer S–14L/R lap splice 

between fuselage station 655 and station 

1434 on both sides of the airplane. 

(i) A detailed inspection for scribe lines. If 

any scribe line is found during the inspection 

required by this paragraph, the actions 

include the inspections specified in 

paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A) and (g)(3)(i)(B) of this 

AD. 

(A) A detailed inspection for cracks of the 

scribe line area(s). 

(B) Either an ultrasonic inspection or a 

surface HFEC inspection for cracks 

(depending on the location of the scribe 

line(s)). 

(ii) An external phased array ultrasonic 

inspection for cracks in the lower/overlapped 

skin of the stringer lap splices between 

fuselage station 655 and station 1434. 

(iii) An open hole HFEC inspection for skin 

cracks at the upper and lower fastener rows 

of the stringer S–14L/R lap splices. 

(h) Exceptions to Service Information 

Specifications 

(1) Where Paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0052, 

dated October 10, 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.’’ 

(2) If, during accomplishment of any 

inspection required by this AD, any 

condition is found for which Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 777–53A0052, dated October 

10, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for 

special repair instructions or supplemental 

instructions for the modification, and 

specifies that action as ‘‘RC’’ (Required for 

Compliance): Before further flight, do the 

repair or modification using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. 

(i) Lap Splice Modification 

At the applicable time specified in 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0052, dated 

October 10, 2014: Do the left-side and rightside lap splice modification, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0052, 

dated October 10, 2014, except as provided 

by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. 

(j) Post-Modification Inspections and 

Corrective Action 

At the applicable time specified in 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0052, dated 

October 10, 2014: Do a post-modification 

internal surface HFEC inspection for skin 

cracks in the modified lap splices on both 

sides of the airplane; and do all applicable 

corrective actions; in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 777–53A0052, dated October 

10, 2014, except as provided by paragraph 

(h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective 

actions before further flight. Repeat the 

inspection of the modified lap splices 

thereafter at the applicable intervals specified 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0052, dated 

October 10, 2014. 

(k) 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 

paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9–ANM–Seattle–ACO–AMOC– 

Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) 

of this AD: For service information that 

contains steps that are labeled as Required 

for Compliance (RC), the provisions of 

paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(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. 

(l) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917– 

6573; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

Haytham.Aaidy@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 August 

17, 2015. 

Kevin Hull, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20853 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–3147; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–094–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 all The 

Boeing Company Model 777–200, 

–200LR, –300, and –300ER series 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports of fractured 

forward attach fittings of the inboard 

flap outboard aft flap track. The 

fractured fittings were determined to be 

the result of corrosion pits forming on 

the inside diameter of the fittings. This 

proposed AD would require an 

inspection for the affected part number 

and serial number of the main flap; 

various additional repetitive inspections 

of the fitting, if necessary; and 

replacement of the fitting or nested 

bushing installation, if necessary, which 

would terminate the inspections. This 

proposed AD would also provide for 

optional terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections. We are proposing 

this AD to detect and correct fracture of 

the fitting, which could result in the 

loss of the inboard aft flap and could 

lead to a punctured fuselage, causing 

injury to the flightcrew and passengers, 

and damage to the airplane. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS