Document ID: FAA-2013-0362-0001
Agency: faa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes
Posted Date: 2013-05-03T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25905-25907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10487]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0362; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-030-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 727 airplanes. This proposed AD was 
prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) 
indicating that the frame-to-floor beam attachment is subject to 
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require 
repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for any crack of the 
frames at body station (STA) 188 through STA 344, and repair if 
necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue 
cracking at the frame-to-floor beam attachment, on both the left- and 
right-sides, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the 
airplane, and decompression of the cabin.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 17, 2013.

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 review copies of the referenced service 
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356. For information on the 
availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory 
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street 
address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES 
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after 
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-
4137; phone: (562) 627-5239; fax: (562) 627-5210; email: 
chandraduth.ramdoss@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or 
arguments about

[[Page 25906]]

this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the 
ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0362; Directorate 
Identifier 2013-NM-030-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-
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, in a condition known as 
widespread fatigue damage (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.
    Cracks were discovered in the frame web common to the floor beam 
attachment during a Model 727 extended pressure test. Using the 
extended pressure test results, a WFD assessment was performed for 
fuselage frames common to the floor beam attachments. The result of the 
assessment is a recommendation for an inspection program for the 
section 41 frame fastener holes in the area of the floor beam 
attachments. Frame cracking could adversely affect the integrity of the 
airplane structure. Extended frame cracking could lead to complete 
fracture of the frame, which may result in damage to the skin and cause 
a possible decompression.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0234, 
dated January 17, 2013. For information on the procedures and 
compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2013-0362.

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 the Proposed AD and the Service 
Information.''
    This proposed AD would require that requests for approval of 
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) be directed to the Seattle 
Aircraft Certification Office.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0234, dated 
January 17, 2013, 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 106 airplanes of U.S. 
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed 
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.......................  118 work-hours x                 $0  $10,030 per          $1,063,180 per
                                    $85 per hour =                       inspection cycle.    inspection cycle
                                    $10,030 per
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25907]]

    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. FAA-2013-0362; Directorate Identifier 
2013-NM-030-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 17, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 
727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in 
any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service 
Bulletin 727-53-0234, dated January 17, 2013.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/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 frame-to-floor beam attachment is 
subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD 
to detect and correct fatigue cracking at the frame-to-floor beam 
attachment, on both the left- and right-sides, which could result in 
reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and decompression of 
the cabin.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Repair

    Before the accumulation of 61,000 total flight cycles, or within 
24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 
later, do a high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of 
the frames (for certain stations), in the area of the floor beam 
attachments on both the left- and right-sides of the airplane, in 
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special 
Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0234, dated January 17, 2013. 
Repeat this inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 
flight cycles. If any crack is found during any inspection required 
by this AD, before further flight, repair the crack using a method 
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph 
(h) of this AD.

(h) 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 (i)(2) of the 
Related Information section 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 Aircraft 
Certification Office (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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Chandra Ramdoss, 
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone: (562) 627-5239; fax: (562) 
627-5210; email: chandraduth.ramdoss@faa.gov.
    (2) For information about AMOCs, contact Berhane Alazar, 
Aerospace Engineer, Seattle ACO, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 
Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; 
email: berhane.alazar@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 review copies of the referenced 
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356. For information on 
the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 23, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-10487 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P