Document ID: FAA-2016-8181-0001
Agency: faa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes
Posted Date: 2016-07-28T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49572-49575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17718]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8181; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-002-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 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-
200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, 
and 747SP series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an 
evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the nose 
wheel well is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed 
AD would require modification of the nose wheel body structure; a 
detailed inspection of the nose wheel body structure for any cracking; 
a surface high frequency eddy current inspection (HFEC) or an open hole 
HFEC inspection of the vertical beam outer chord and web for any 
cracking; and all applicable related investigative actions including 
repetitive inspections, and other specified and corrective actions. We 
are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the 
nose wheel well structure; such cracking could adversely affect the 
structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 12, 
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-2016-8181.

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. 2016-8181; 
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,

[[Page 49573]]

any comments received, and other information. The street address for 
the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. 
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email: Nathan.P.Weigand@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or 
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed 
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. 2016-8181; 
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-002-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

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural 
design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage 
is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as 
a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. 
Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent 
frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage 
cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with 
normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will 
grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the 
airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is 
associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with 
similar structural details and stress levels. 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.
    We received an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the nose wheel 
well is subject to WFD. This condition, if not corrected, could result 
in cracking in the nose wheel well structure; such cracking could 
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated 
December 2, 2015. The service information describes procedures for 
modification of the nose wheel body structure; a detailed inspection of 
the nose wheel body structure for any cracking; a web surface HFEC and 
an open hole HFEC inspection of the vertical beam outer chord 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.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated December 2, 2015, 
specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but 
this AD requires accomplishment of repair methods, modification 
deviations, and alteration deviations 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 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 107 airplanes of U.S. 
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

[[Page 49574]]

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                   Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification.................  408 work-hours x $85          $15,743  $50,423.............  $5,395,261.
                                per hour = $34,680.
Part 2 detailed inspection...  140 work-hours x $85                0  $11,900 per           $1,273,300 per
                                per hour = $11,900                     inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                per inspection cycle.
Surface HFEC inspection......  4 work[dash]hours x                 0  $340 per inspection   Up to $36,380 per
                                $85 per hour = $340                    cycle.                inspection cycle.
                                per inspection cycle.
Open hole HFEC inspection....  4 work-hours x $85                  0  $340 per inspection   Up to $36,380 per
                                per hour = $340 per                    cycle.                inspection cycle.
                                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

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness 
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. 2016-8181; Directorate Identifier 
2016-NM-002-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 12, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in 
any category, identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2887, dated December 2, 2015.

(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 nose wheel well is subject to widespread 
fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue 
cracking in the nose wheel well structure; such cracking could 
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

(g) Modification for Groups 1 and 4 Airplanes

    For groups 1 and 4 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated December 2, 2015: Except as 
required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time 
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated December 2, 2015, modify the nose wheel 
body structure, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions 
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated December 2, 
2015.

(h) Inspection for Groups 1 and 4 Airplanes

    For groups 1 and 4 airplanes on which the actions of paragraph 
(g) have been done: Except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this 
AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., 
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated 
December 2, 2015, do a detailed inspection of the nose wheel body 
structure for any cracking; do a surface high frequency eddy current 
inspection (HFEC) or an open hole HFEC inspection of the vertical 
beam outer chord and web for any cracking; and do all applicable 
related investigative, other specified actions, and corrective 
actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instruction of Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated December 2, 2015; except 
as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable 
related investigative actions, other specified actions, and 
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the detailed 
inspection of the nose wheel body structure, and either the surface 
HFEC or the open hole HFEC inspection of the vertical beam outer 
chord, thereafter, at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, 
dated December 2, 2015.

(i) Inspection for Groups 2, 3, 5 and 6 Airplanes

    For groups 2, 3, 5 and 6 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated December 2, 2015: Except as 
required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time 
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated December 2, 2015, do a detailed 
inspection

[[Page 49575]]

of the nose wheel well body structure for any cracking, and do all 
applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in 
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated December 2, 2015; except as 
required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all related 
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat 
the detailed inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals 
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated December 2, 2015.

(j) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated 
December 2, 2015, 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 any crack is found during any inspection required by this 
AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2887, dated December 2, 
2015, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action, and 
specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for Compliance): Before 
further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with 
the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(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, modification, or alteration 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. 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 (j)(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) of this AD 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 Nathan Weigand, 
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; 
fax: 425-917-6590; email: Nathan.P.Weigand@faa.gov.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, 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 July 21, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-17718 Filed 7-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P