[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7319]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 29, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 93-NM-72-AD; Amendment 39-8866; AD 94-07-08]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Boeing Model 727 series airplanes, that requires
structural inspections of older airplanes. This amendment is prompted
by reports of incidents involving fatigue cracking and corrosion in
transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded
their economic design service goal. The actions specified by this AD
are intended to prevent degradation of the structural capabilities of
the affected airplanes. This proposal relates to the recommendations of
the Airworthiness Assurance Task Force assigned to review Model 727
series airplanes, which indicate that, to assure long term continued
operational safety, various structural inspections should be
accomplished.
DATES: Effective April 28, 1994.
The incorporation by reference of Boeing Document Number D6-54860,
``Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural Modification and
Inspection Program - Model 727,'' Revision G, dated March 5, 1993,
listed in the regulations was approved previously by the Director of
the Federal Register as of April 21, 1994 (59 FR 13442, March 22,
1994).
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Sippel, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-2774; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is
applicable to certain Boeing Model 727 series airplanes was published
in the Federal Register on August 31, 1993 (58 FR 45863). That action
proposed to require structural inspections of older airplanes.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
One commenter supports the proposed rule.
Two commenters note errors in the Discussion section of the
proposal in the description of Boeing Document Number D6-54860, ``Aging
Airplane Service Bulletin Structural Modification and Inspection
Program - Model 727,'' Revision G, dated March 5, 1993. Although the
Discussion section does not reappear in the preamble to the final rule,
the FAA takes this opportunity to correct the number of service
bulletins referenced by the Boeing Document. There is a total of 17
service bulletins referenced by the Boeing Document: five service
bulletins that describe inspections of the wings, six service bulletins
that describe inspections of the fuselage, one service bulletin that
describes inspections of the main landing gear door support fitting,
four service bulletins that describe inspections of the empennage, and
one service bulletin that describes inspections of the attach fittings
on the center engine inlet duct housing.
One commenter requests that the FAA issue one rulemaking action
that would combine the requirements of this proposal, which proposes to
require the structural inspections listed in the Boeing Document, with
the proposal to require the structural modifications listed in that
Boeing Document. That rulemaking action was proposed in AD Docket 93-
NM-73-AD (58 FR 45861, August 31, 1993). This commenter requests that
these two rulemaking actions be combined with AD 90-06-09, Amendment
39-6488 (55 FR 8370, March 7, 1990), which references Revision C of the
Boeing Document, dated December 11, 1989. Combining all of these
actions into one AD would ease the operators' burden in tracking
compliance and recordkeeping.
The FAA does not concur. The FAA's normal policy in this regard is
that when an AD requires a substantive change, such as a change in the
existing AD's requirements, the existing AD (90-06-09) is superseded by
being removed from the system and a new AD added. However, to supersede
the existing AD and replace it with a new one having a new AD number
would serve no purpose in terms of the ability of affected operators to
track compliance with the AD and maintain accurate records of
compliance. In consideration of the consequent workload associated with
revising maintenance records to enter new AD numbers to demonstrate
compliance with requirements accomplished previously, the FAA has
determined that a less burdensome approach is to issue a separate AD.
This final rule is issued as a separate AD action since combining these
rulemaking actions would necessitate recordkeeping changes to reflect
new AD numbers. Furthermore, the FAA's intent in keeping the
requirement to accomplish the inspections listed in the Boeing Document
separated from the requirement to accomplish the modifications listed
in the Boeing Document was to minimize the recordkeeping burden to the
operators; i.e., operators will not be required to make recordkeeping
changes to their inspection entries whenever revisions are made to
modification requirements and vice versa.
One commenter requests that the proposed compliance time for the
repetitive inspections in paragraph (a) be revised to be consistent
with those recommended in the Boeing Document. The FAA does not concur
that any change is necessary. From this comment, the FAA concludes that
this commenter may have mistakenly assumed that the proposal would have
required that the repetitive inspections must be accomplished at the
times specified in the corresponding service bulletins. Consequently,
paragraph (a) of the final rule remains unchanged and states that
repetitive inspections are to be accomplished ``thereafter at intervals
not to exceed those specified in the Boeing Document for each
inspection.'' Furthermore, since the corresponding service bulletins
have been revised to be consistent with the Boeing Document, the
compliance times for the repetitive inspections are consistently
defined in the final rule, the Boeing Document, and the corresponding
service bulletins.
Several commenters request that proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) be
revised to clarify that only the structural inspections listed in
section 4 and appendices A.4 and B.4 of the Boeing Document must be
accomplished. Since the proposal stated that the inspections were
specified in ``section 4 and appendices A. and B.'' of the Boeing
Document, these commenters contend that the possibility exists for
misinterpretation. The FAA concurs. The FAA finds that these
commenters' proposal to reference the specific appendices of the Boeing
Document (rather than the generalization cited in the proposal) would
avoid any possibility for misinterpretation. Therefore, paragraphs (a)
and (b) of the final rule have been revised accordingly.
The Air Transport Association of America, on behalf of one of its
member operators, requests that the note following proposed paragraph
(b)(2) be clarified. The commenter states that the term ``phase-in
period'' was not adequately defined in the proposal and that it was not
used in the Boeing Document, which was referenced in the proposal.
Since some of the service bulletins that are referenced by the Boeing
Document specify a ``phase-in'' time, while others do not, the
commenter further requests that issuance of the final rule be delayed
until such time that the 727 Structures Working Group of the
Airworthiness Assurance Task Force has reconvened to resolve this
issue. The FAA concurs that clarification is warranted; however, the
FAA does not concur that delaying issuance of the final rule is
necessary, since the following discussion, as well as the revised final
rule, adequately defines ``phase-in period.'' The FAA's intent in using
the term ``phase-in period'' was to grant a ``grace period'' of 15
months to operators having airplanes that will soon exceed or that have
already exceeded the threshold specified in the Boeing Document.
In light of this comment, the FAA has revised paragraph (b) of the
final rule to clarify that, in those instances when a ``phase-in
period'' is specified in any of the service bulletins referenced by the
Boeing Document, the maximum initial inspection time is to be
calculated using the ``phase-in period'' specified in the service
bulletin and adding a date 15 months after the effective date of the
AD. An example of this, although not specifically referred to as a
``phase-in period'', can be found in the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0041, Revision 6, dated September 5,
1991, which states, in part, that ``airplanes having accumulated more
than 16,000 flight cycles should be inspected within 3,000 flight
cycles . . .'' The ``phase-in period'' in this example is ``within
3,000 flight cycles.'' Therefore, for the purposes of this AD, the
maximum initial inspection time in this instance is 3,000 flight cycles
measured from a date 15 months after the effective date of this AD.
However, in those instances when a ``phase-in period'' is not
specified in any of the service bulletins referenced by the Boeing
Document, the FAA's intent is to allow operators 15 months for planning
purposes. In these instances, the maximum initial inspection time is 15
months after the effective date of this AD.
One commenter requests that the proposal be revised to permit
deviations to the corrective actions required by proposed paragraph
(c), and suggests that these be permitted to be accomplished in
accordance with other FAA-approved methods, e.g., Structural Repair
Manuals; Statement of Compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations,
FAA Form 8110-3; etc. The commenter's intent for requesting this change
is to gain authorization to make minor deviations, such as oversizing
fasteners and substituting materials, without obtaining approval for an
alternative method of compliance for each deviation. The commenter
states that safety could be ensured with repetitive inspections until
such time that the corrective action specified in the corresponding
service bulletin referenced by the Boeing Document could be
accomplished during regularly scheduled maintenance, so as to minimize
the impact to operators' revenue bearing passenger service. The FAA
does not concur. The FAA has determined that the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, should approve any such deviations to
the AD's requirements. Given that possible new relevant issues might be
revealed during this process, it is imperative that the FAA, at this
level, have such feedback. Only by reviewing deviation approvals can
the FAA be assured of this feedback and of the adequacy of the repair
methods. However, when the FAA has obtained an adequate sampling of the
quality, type, and extent of repairs being made as a result of this AD,
the FAA anticipates that it will, at some future date, authorize
manufacturer's Designated Engineering Representatives to approve minor
deviations to the modifications required by this final rule, as it has
done in the past regarding the requirements of AD 90-06-09, and other
aging fleet AD's. Furthermore, affected operators may request approval
to use an alternative method of compliance to the corrective actions
specified in the corresponding service bulletins, under the provisions
of paragraph (e) of the final rule.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
There are approximately 1,635 Model 727 series airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 688
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will
take approximately 512 work hours per airplane to accomplish the
required actions, and that the average labor rate is $55 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $19,374,080, or $28,160 per airplane.
The total cost impact figure discussed above is based on
assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under 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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part
39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421 and 1423; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.89.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
94-07-08 Boeing: Amendment 39-8866. Docket 93-NM-72-AD.
Applicability: Model 727 series airplanes, as listed in Boeing
Document D6-54860, ``Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural
Modification and Inspection Program--Model 727,'' Revision G, dated
March 5, 1993; certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent degradation of the structural capability of the
airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Accomplish the inspections specified in Section 4 and
Appendices A.4 and B.4 of Boeing Document Number D6-54860, ``Aging
Airplane Service Bulletin Structural Modification and Inspection
Program--Model 727,'' Revision G, dated March 5, 1993, within the
times specified in paragraph (b) of this AD, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed those specified in the Boeing Document for
each inspection.
(b) The maximum initial inspection times for the inspections
contained in Section 4 and Appendices A.4 and B.4 of Boeing Document
Number D6-54860, ``Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural
Modification and Inspection Program--Model 727,'' Revision G, dated
March 5, 1993, shall be prior to the later of the times specified in
either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD:
(1) The maximum initial inspection time for the inspection shall
be prior to the threshold for the inspection time specified in the
Boeing Document, measured as a total (flight cycles or time-in-
service, as appropriate) accumulated on the airplane; or
(2) The maximum initial inspection time shall be prior to the
time specified in either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this
AD, as applicable.
(i) If a phase-in period has been specified in the service
bulletin: The maximum initial inspection time shall be calculated by
adding the phase-in period for the inspection specified in the
Boeing Document to a date 15 months after the effective date of this
AD.
(ii) If a phase-in period has not been specified in the service
bulletin: The maximum initial inspection time shall be within 15
months after the effective date of this AD.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, the ``phase-in period'' is
defined as the allowable period to accomplish the initial inspection
when the required threshold specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this AD
is imminent or has elapsed.
(c) If any discrepant condition identified in the service
bulletins (that are specified in the Boeing Document) is found as a
result of the inspections required by this AD, prior to further
flight, accomplish the corresponding corrective action specified in
the service bulletins.
(d) The terminating action for each inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD consists of the accomplishment of the
modification specified in the corresponding service bulletin.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the
airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be
accomplished.
(g) The inspections shall be done in accordance with Boeing
Document Number D6-54860, ``Aging Airplane Service Bulletin
Structural Modification and Inspection Program--Model 727,''
Revision G, dated March 5, 1993. The incorporation by reference of
this document was approved previously by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of
April 21, 1994 (59 FR 13442, April 22, 1994). Copies may be obtained
from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or
at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on April 28, 1994.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 23, 1994.
John J. Hickey,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 94-7319 Filed 3-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
