[Federal Register: September 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 171)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52943-52945]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06se05-21]
[[Page 52943]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2005-22288; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-132-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD
would require doing a conductivity test of the upper deck floor beam at
station 400 to identify the floor beam material. If the floor beam is
manufactured from 7050 aluminum alloy, this proposed AD would also
require inspecting the upper deck floor beam and certain fastener holes
at the floor beam upper chord for cracking; repairing any cracking if
necessary; and doing a preventative modification. This proposed AD
results from several reports indicating that fatigue cracking was found
in upper deck floor beams made from 7050 aluminum alloy. We are
proposing this AD to find and fix cracking in the upper deck floor
beam, which could extend and sever the floor beam. A severed floor beam
could result in loss of controllability and rapid decompression of the
airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 21,
2005.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD.
DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this
proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6437;
fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Include the docket number ``FAA-
2005-22288; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-132-AD'' at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will
also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of
that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-
5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System
receives them.
Discussion
We have received several reports indicating that fatigue cracking
was found in upper deck floor beams made from 7050 aluminum alloy, on
Boeing Model 747-100, -200F, and -300 series airplanes. The upper deck
floor beams on most Model 747-400 series airplanes are made from 2024
aluminum alloy; however, the manufacturer has informed us that the
upper deck floor beam at station 400 on some Model 747-400 series
airplanes was made from 7050 aluminum alloy. Investigation revealed
that floor beams made from 7050 aluminum alloy are less resistant to
fatigue cracking than floor beams made from 2024 aluminum alloy.
Cracking in the upper deck floor beam, if not detected and corrected,
could extend and sever the floor beam. A severed floor beam could
result in loss of controllability and rapid decompression of the
airplane.
Upper deck floor beams made from 7050 aluminum alloy at station 400
on certain Model 747-400 series airplanes are similar to those on the
affected Model 747-100, -200F, and -300 series airplanes. Therefore,
all these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition.
Other Related Rulemaking
On August 30, 2002, we issued AD 2002-18-04, amendment 39-12878 (67
FR 57510, September 11, 2001), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-
100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series
airplanes. That AD requires one-time inspections for cracking in
certain upper deck floor beams and follow-on actions. AD 2002-18-04
does not affect the requirements of this proposed AD.
On April 4, 2005, we issued AD 2005-07-21, amendment 39-14046 (70
FR 18277, April 11, 2005), applicable to all Boeing Model 747-200F and
-200C series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive detailed
inspections or a one-time open-hole high frequency eddy current
inspection to detect cracking of certain areas of the upper deck floor
beams, and corrective actions if necessary. That AD also requires one-
time inspections for cracking of the web, upper chord, and strap of the
upper deck floor beams, and modification or repair of the upper deck
floor beams. AD 2005-07-21 does not affect the requirements of this
proposed AD.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2509, dated
June 9, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a
conductivity test of the upper deck floor beam at station 400 to
identify the floor beam material, and if the floor beam is manufactured
from 7050 aluminum alloy, accomplishing the following actions:
Doing a one-time detailed inspection of the floor beam for
cracking.
[[Page 52944]]
Doing a one-time high frequency eddy current inspection
(HFEC) of certain fastener holes at the floor beam upper chord for
cracking.
Contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions if any
cracking is found during the detailed inspection of the floor beam.
Oversizing fastener holes if any cracking is found during
the HFEC inspection of certain fastener holes; and contacting the
manufacturer for repair data if a certain edge margin cannot be
maintained when oversizing the fastener holes.
Contacting the manufacturer for instructions on doing a
preventative modification.
Reporting inspection results to the manufacturer.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously, except as discussed under
``Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.'' The
proposed AD would also require sending the inspection results to the
manufacturer.
Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin
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:
Using a method that we approve; or
Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 123 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 17 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The proposed conductivity test would take about 2 work
hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S.
operators is $2,210, or $130 per airplane.
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 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); and
3. 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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2005-22288; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-
132-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October
21, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes,
certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2509, dated June 9, 2005.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from several reports indicating that fatigue
cracking was found in upper deck floor beams made from 7050 aluminum
alloy. We are issuing this AD to find and fix cracking in the upper
deck floor beam, which could extend and sever the floor beam. A
severed floor beam could result in loss of controllability and rapid
decompression of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Conductivity Test
(f) Before an airplane has accumulated 15,000 total flight
cycles, do a conductivity test of the upper deck floor beam at
station 400 to identify the floor beam material, in accordance with
Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2509, dated June 9, 2005. If the upper deck floor
beam is not made from 7050 aluminum alloy, no further action is
required by this AD. If the upper deck floor beam is made from 7050
aluminum alloy, do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1),
(f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD.
Inspections and Corrective Actions, if Applicable
(1) Before an airplane has accumulated 15,000 total flight
cycles, do a detailed inspection of the upper deck floor beam at
station 400 for cracking, and do a high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspection of certain fastener holes at the floor beam upper
chord for cracking, in accordance with Part III of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2509, dated June 9, 2005. If any cracking is found during the
HFEC inspection of certain fasteners holes, before further flight,
repair
[[Page 52945]]
the cracking in accordance with Figure 3 of the service bulletin. If
any cracking is found during the detailed inspection of the upper
deck floor beam, and the service bulletin specifies to contact
Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the
cracking using a method approved in accordance with paragraph (g) of
this AD.
Reporting Requirement
(2) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative)
of the inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to Boeing
Commercial Airplanes; Attention: Manager, Airline Support; P.O. Box
3707 MC 04-ER; Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; fax (425) 266-5562;
at the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or
(f)(2)(ii) of this AD. The report must include the inspection
results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane
serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the
airplane. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has approved the information collection requirements contained
in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(i) If the inspections were done after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspections were done prior to the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.
Preventative Modification
(3) Before an airplane has accumulated 20,000 total flight
cycles, do a preventative modification using a method approved in
accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who 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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 29, 2005.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-17608 Filed 9-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P