[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61487-61491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29329]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 97-NM-227-AD; Amendment 39-11409; AD 99-23-13]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727-200 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to all Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes, that requires
repetitive inspections to detect cracks in certain areas between the
upper and lower sills of the number 1 cargo door, and repair, if
necessary. This amendment is prompted by reports indicating that
fatigue cracks were found in certain structures adjacent to the number
1 cargo door cutout at the forward and aft doorway frames. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to detect and correct such fatigue
cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
DATES: Effective December 17, 1999.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of December 17, 1999.
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 (425) 227-2774; fax (425) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 727-200 series
airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 15, 1998 (63 FR
38123). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections to
detect cracks in certain areas between the upper and lower sills of the
number 1 cargo door, and repair, if necessary.
Explanation of Changes Made to the Proposal
The FAA has revised this final rule to clarify the inspection
requirement contained in the proposed AD. Whereas the proposal
specified a close visual inspection, as recommended in Boeing Service
Bulletin 727-53A0219, Revision 1, dated May 8, 1997, the FAA has
revised this final rule to clarify that its intent is to require a
detailed visual inspection. Additionally, a note has been added to the
final rule to define that inspection.
In addition, in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the FAA
stated that this AD is considered interim action until final action is
identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.
Since the issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has determined that no further
action is required at this time. No modification to address the unsafe
condition is currently available, and the FAA finds that the
inspections required by this AD are adequate for continued safe
operation.
Also, throughout the proposed rule, the FAA referred to Boeing
Service Bulletin 727-53A0219, Revision 1, as an ``alert'' service
bulletin. The reference to this service bulletin as an alert is
erroneous. The original issue of the service bulletin is considered an
alert service bulletin; however, the FAA does not consider Revision 1
an alert. Therefore, this final rule refers to Boeing Service Bulletin
727-53A0219, Revision 1, as ``the service bulletin.''
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Support for the Proposal
One commenter supports the proposed rule.
Request to Allow Inspection of Each Frame Separately
One commenter states that it does not agree that a high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) inspection of both forward and aft frames should be
required within 3,000 flight cycles if a repair has only been
accomplished on one frame or the other. The commenter makes no specific
request; however, the FAA infers that the commenter is requesting to be
allowed to inspect forward and aft frames at separate intervals, if
only one of the frames has been repaired.
The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. There is no technical
reason to require inspections of repaired and non-repaired frames at
the same time. Therefore, the FAA has determined that it would be more
appropriate to allow inspection of the forward or aft frame at the
threshold corresponding to its configuration repaired or non-repaired
rather than requiring that forward and aft frames both be inspected at
the threshold for repaired structure if repair has been accomplished on
one or the other. As proposed, paragraph (c) of this AD already allows
for repeat inspections of repaired structure to be accomplished
separately, at a different interval than non-repaired structure.
Therefore, only paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of the final rule
have been revised accordingly.
Request to Include Instructions for Inspection
One commenter requests that either the service bulletin or the
proposed AD be revised to include instructions for the inspections to
be performed at 3,000 flight cycles. The commenter states that
[[Page 61488]]
the service bulletin includes accomplishment instructions only for the
inspections to be performed at 15,000 flight cycles.
The FAA partially concurs with the commenter's request. The FAA
notes that the access requirements and instructions for the repetitive
detailed visual inspections of the frame web are the same at both 3,000
and 15,000 flight cycles. (However, at the repetitive interval of
15,000 flight cycles, an HFEC inspection is also required.) The
instructions for the detailed visual inspection (which, as stated
previously, is identified in the service bulletin as a close visual
inspection) and HFEC inspections are defined in the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service bulletin, which references Figures 1, 2,
and 3 for additional instructions. The FAA finds that clarification of
the source of the access requirements and instructions for the detailed
visual inspection is necessary. Therefore, paragraph (a) of this final
rule has been revised to specify that the inspections are to be
accomplished in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
service bulletin.
Request to Revise Threshold for Initial Inspection of Repaired
Airplanes
One commenter requests that paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of the
proposed rule be revised to increase the threshold, for the initial
inspection of airplanes on which repairs have been accomplished
previously, from 3,000 to 30,000 flight cycles. The commenter
substantiates its request by stating that cracking has not been
detected on repaired structure on any airplane in its fleet.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA has
determined that repairs accomplished previously on the affected
airplanes may not be adequate to ensure the safety of the airplane
fleet. As explained in the Discussion section of the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), cracking of repaired structure has been detected on
several airplanes. In one case, cracking of repaired structure was
detected prior to the accumulation of 3,000 flight cycles after the
repair. Based on these data, the FAA has determined that 3,000 flight
cycles represents an appropriate interval for affected airplanes to
continue to operate safely. No change to the final rule is necessary in
this regard.
Request for Justification of Inspection Threshold
One commenter requests that the FAA provide justification for the
inspection threshold stated in paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed rule.
The commenter states that paragraph (a)(2) requires an inspection
within 3,000 flight cycles after repair, and remarks that, ``It does
not seem logical to require HFEC within 3,000 cycles from repair and
then repeat at 15,000 cycle intervals.'' The commenter requests that
paragraph (a)(2) be revised to require repetitive inspections at 3,000
flight cycle intervals and HFEC inspections at 15,000 flight cycles.
The FAA does not concur. The FAA finds that the commenter
misunderstands the inspection threshold stated in paragraph (a)(2) of
the proposed rule. That paragraph requires that airplanes on which a
repair in accordance with the service bulletin has been accomplished be
inspected within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, not after the installation of the repair, as the commenter
suggests. As discussed previously, the FAA has determined that repairs
accomplished previously on the affected airplanes may not be adequate
to ensure the safety of the airplane fleet. The FAA finds that a
compliance time of 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD will provide operators with enough time to inspect repaired
structure while still ensuring that any cracks are detected in a timely
manner. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Request to Remove Requirements for FAA Approval of Repairs and
Inspections
Two commenters request that the inspection methods and intervals
for repaired airplanes be the same as those specified in the service
bulletin for non-repaired airplanes. Along with this, the commenters
request the removal of the requirement to obtain FAA-approval of
certain repairs and repetitive inspections from paragraphs (a)(3),
(b)(2), and (c)(2) of the proposed AD. The commenters contend that it
would be cost prohibitive to survey and evaluate their entire fleets
for previous repairs, and to coordinate repair and inspection methods
and intervals with Boeing and the FAA. One of the commenters further
states that it is impractical to require operators to develop special
inspection methods for each repair, and that inspection criteria for
any repair should be defined in the service bulletin or proposed AD,
and should be generic enough to apply to any repair that might exist in
the area. One of the commenters also states that the requirements for
approval of inspections and methods proposed in the NPRM were not
mentioned in the service bulletin.
The FAA does not concur with the commenters' request. As discussed
previously, the FAA has determined that repairs accomplished previously
on the affected airplanes may not be adequate to ensure the safety of
the fleet of airplanes. As stated in the Discussion section of the
NPRM, at least one incident has been reported in which a previously
repaired aft frame web and frame inner chord were found completely
severed. Therefore, the FAA finds that the affected airplanes,
including those on which repairs have been accomplished previously,
must be inspected as proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA also notes that the proposed method and inspection
intervals are the same as those specified in paragraph IV
(``Appendix'') of the service bulletin, except when the repair was
accomplished in accordance with a method approved by Boeing. (As stated
in the ``Differences Between Proposed Rule and Relevant Alert Service
Bulletin'' section of the proposal, although the service bulletin
specifies that the manufacturer be contacted for disposition of certain
repair conditions, this AD requires repair of those conditions to be
accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.) Because
a method of repair obtained from Boeing is not defined in the service
bulletin, it is unknown if the inspection procedures specified in the
service bulletin are sufficient to adequately ensure the safety of the
affected airplanes.
With regard to the commenters' contentions that developing special
inspection methods for each repair will be cost prohibitive, the FAA
finds that the commenters' concerns are based on repairs for large
areas of damage. The FAA has determined that it is not possible to
specify generic repair and inspection methods in the service bulletin
or in the AD for large areas of damage. Such repairs would be unique
because of the amount of damage that could occur. However, the FAA
anticipates that there should be few initial cases of extensive damage
for which FAA approval will be required, and after the initial
inspections, the repetitive inspections are intended to detect any
damage (i.e., cracking), before it becomes extensive. No change to the
final rule is necessary in this regard.
Request to Increase Repetitive Inspection Interval
One commenter requests that the proposed rule be revised to delete
the requirement in paragraph (c)(1) to perform an HFEC inspection of
repaired structure within 3,000 flight cycles. The commenter states
that it does not expect
[[Page 61489]]
that cracking would occur within 3,000 flight cycles after the
installation of that repair, and remarks, as stated previously, that,
``It does not seem logical to require HFEC within 3,000 cycles from
repair and then repeat at 15,000 cycle intervals.''
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. As discussed
in the NPRM, there is concern that repairs accomplished previously on
the affected airplanes may not be adequate to ensure the safety of the
airplane fleet. The FAA finds that a threshold of 3,000 flight cycles
after accomplishment of the repair provides operators adequate time to
inspect repaired structure and ensures that any cracking will be
detected in a timely manner. No change to the final rule is necessary
in this regard.
Request to Revise Accomplishment Instructions
Two commenters request that the proposed rule be revised to explain
that removal of certain parts (including attachment hardware and seal
retainer) is not necessary for accomplishment of the close visual
inspection. One commenter requests that the proposed AD be revised to
include a NOTE to this effect. That commenter justifies its request by
stating that removal of certain parts is not necessary to visually
inspect the frame. The other commenter expresses concern that
accomplishing the procedures associated with removing the seal
retainer--e.g., drilling fasteners through the frame, scraping sealant
and paint finishes from the frame--every 3,000 flight cycles would
increase the probability of manmade damage to the structure. The
commenter states that an inspection program in which the seal retainer
and cargo liner are not required to be removed should have about the
same damage tolerance rating as the inspection program proposed in the
NPRM, at about half the cost. The same commenter also suggests that the
repetitive inspection interval for the HFEC inspection could be reduced
from 15,000 to 6,000 flight cycles to account for not removing such
parts during the visual inspections.
The FAA does not concur with the commenters' requests. The FAA has
determined that cracking may initiate under the seal retainer and
around the number 6 door stop. The FAA finds that to gain access to the
web area to perform the detailed visual inspections, it is necessary to
remove the same parts that are removed for the detailed and HFEC
inspections of the doorway cutout frame webs, inner and outer chords,
bear strap, and skin panel.
With regard to the commenter's concern about increasing the risk of
structural damage, the FAA acknowledges that such removal of parts does
increase the risk of manmade damage. However, the risk of such manmade
damage must be balanced with the necessity to detect and correct
operational damage such as that the inspections associated with this AD
is intended to detect. In this case, the manufacturer's recommendation,
as contained in the service bulletin, is for the removal of the seal
retainer and the cargo liner. In consideration of the manufacturer's
recommendation, as well as the nature and location of known cracking,
the FAA has determined that it is necessary to remove such parts for
the detailed visual and HFEC inspections.
With regard to the commenter's assertion that an inspection program
that doesn't require removal of the seal retainer and cargo liner
``should'' have the same damage tolerance rating as the inspection
program proposed in the NPRM, the FAA finds that the commenter provides
no technical justification for such a claim. However, should the
commenter develop an inspection procedure that can be shown to provide
an adequate level of safety, the commenter may apply for approval of an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD.
No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Request to Allow Credit for Inspections Accomplished Previously
Two commenters request that credit be given for inspections
performed previously. The commenters state that the actions specified
in the proposed AD have been accomplished prior to the effective date
of this AD. One of the commenters specifically requests that the
compliance time for the initial inspection be extended from 3,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD to 4,000 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, if inspections have been
accomplished in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0219,
Revision 1, dated May 8, 1997. The commenter justifies its request by
stating that it has found no crack on any affected airplane in its
fleet. The commenter's rationale is that accomplishing the inspection
at the threshold proposed in the NPRM would be very costly because it
would impact the operator's normal maintenance schedules.
The FAA does not concur that a change to the final rule is
necessary to give credit for work accomplished previously. With regard
to inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD,
operators are always given credit for work accomplished previously, by
means of the phrase in the compliance section of the AD that reads
``required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.''
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request for an
extension of the compliance time from 3,000 to 4,000 flight cycles
after the effective date of this AD. The FAA has determined that an
interval of 4,000 flight cycles would not address the identified unsafe
condition in a timely manner. Though the commenter has not found
cracking on any airplanes in its fleet, other operators have. The FAA
finds the proposed compliance time of 3,000 flight cycles for
initiating the required actions to be warranted, in that it represents
an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to
continue to operate without compromising safety. No change to the final
rule is necessary in this regard.
Request to Revise Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
(SSID)
One commenter, who otherwise supports the proposed rule, notes that
the area subject to the proposed inspections is already subject to
inspections in accordance with AD 98-11-03, amendment 39-10530 (63 FR
27455, May 19, 1998), which is the Supplemental Structural Inspection
Program (SSIP) AD. The commenter therefore requests that the inspection
be deleted from the SSIP.
The FAA finds that no change to the final rule is necessary in this
regard. Boeing, not the FAA, is responsible for revisions to the SSID.
However, the FAA will suggest to Boeing that, in the next revision to
the SSID, the inspections required by this AD should be deleted from
the SSID, and the service bulletin referenced by this AD should be
added to Section 9 of the SSID, as provided for by the SSIP.
Request to Simplify the Format of the AD
One commenter requests that the proposed rule be revised to
simplify the format. The commenter provided an example of how the
proposed AD could be simplified; however, no justification is given for
the commenter's request.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA
infers from the comment that the commenter finds the format of the
proposed AD difficult to follow. The FAA acknowledges that there are
certain complexities to the AD. However, as described in the preamble
of the NPRM,
[[Page 61490]]
this AD differs from the service bulletin only in the fact that repair
of certain conditions would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with the method approved by the FAA rather than the
manufacturer. This AD is intended to ensure that cracking is detected
in a timely manner on both repaired and unrepaired airplanes. Based on
the reports of cracking that the FAA has received, which were described
in the preamble of the proposed rule, the FAA finds that the
commenter's proposed format would not ensure that any cracking would be
detected in a timely manner. No change to the final rule is necessary
in this regard.
Request to Revise Cost Impact
One commenter, who otherwise supports the proposed rule, requests
that the cost of necessary repairs be included in the cost impact of
the proposed AD. The commenter states that the cost impact does not
include the time required to install repairs if cracking is found
during an inspection.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The cost
impact of the AD is limited only to the cost of actions actually
required by the rule. It does not consider the costs of ``on
condition'' actions (that is, actions taken to correct an unsafe
condition if found), because those actions would be required to be
accomplished, regardless of AD direction, in order to correct an unsafe
condition identified in an airplane and to ensure operation of that
airplane in an airworthy condition, as required by the Federal Aviation
Regulations. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Conclusion
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 described
previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 1,100 airplanes of the affected design in
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 770 airplanes of U.S.
registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately
60 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, and
that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of the inspections required by this AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $2,772,000, or $3,600 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
The 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.
Regulatory Impact
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 part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
99-23-13 Boeing: Amendment 39-11409. Docket 97-NM-227-AD.
Applicability: All Model 727-200 series airplanes, certificated
in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To detect and correct fatigue cracking between the upper and
lower sills of the number 1 cargo door, which could result in rapid
decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced structural
integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:
Initial Inspection
(a) Perform a detailed visual inspection or a high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) inspection (as applicable) to detect cracks in
the forward and aft frames (web, inner chord, and outer chord), bear
strap, and fuselage skin between the upper and lower sills of the
number 1 cargo door at BS 560 and BS 620. Accomplish the inspection
at the time specified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this
AD, as applicable.
Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed visual
inspection is defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a
specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to
detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is
normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at
intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such
as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning
and elaborate access procedures may be required.''
(1) For any forward or aft frame (web, inner chord, and outer
chord), bear strap, or fuselage skin that has not been repaired in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0219, Revision 1,
dated May 8, 1997: Inspect prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total
flight cycles, or within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(2) For any forward or aft frame (web, inner chord, and outer
chord) that has been repaired in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 727-53A0219, Revision 1, dated May 8, 1997: Inspect within
3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin.
(3) For any bear strap, fuselage skin, or a combination of the
frame web and chord (inner or outer) on either the forward or aft
frame that has been repaired in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 727-53A0219, Revision 1, dated May 8, 1997: Inspect within
3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, in
accordance with a method
[[Page 61491]]
approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
Note 3: Where there are differences between this AD and the
referenced service bulletin, the AD prevails.
Note 4: The inspections specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this AD
are not defined in the service bulletin.
Repetitive Inspections
(b) If no crack is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, accomplish paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of
this AD, as applicable.
(1) For any forward or aft frame (web, inner chord, and outer
chord), bear strap, or fuselage skin identified in paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2) of this AD: Repeat the detailed visual and HFEC
inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at the
times specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Repeat the detailed visual inspection of the frame web at
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles.
(ii) Repeat the detailed visual and HFEC inspections (as
applicable) of the frame web, frame inner and outer chords, bear
strap, and fuselage skin thereafter at intervals not to exceed
15,000 flight cycles.
(2) For any bear strap, fuselage skin, or a combination of the
frame web and chord (inner or outer) on either the forward or aft
frame identified in paragraph (a)(3) of this AD: Repeat the
inspections of the repaired bear strap, fuselage skin, or
combination of a repaired frame web and chord (inner or outer)
thereafter at intervals not to exceed those approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO.
Repair
(c) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish
paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For any crack detected in the frame web, inner chord, or
outer chord: Repair in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 727-
53A0219, Revision 1, dated May 8, 1997. Prior to the accumulation of
3,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the repair, accomplish
the detailed visual and HFEC inspections specified in paragraph (a)
of this AD. Repeat the detailed visual inspection of the frame web
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. Repeat
the detailed visual and HFEC inspections (as applicable) of the
frame web, inner chord, and outer chord thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 15,000 flight cycles.
(2) For any crack detected in the fuselage skin, bear strap, or
a combination of the frame web and chord (inner or outer): Repair
and perform repetitive inspections in accordance with both a method
and repetitive inspection interval approved by the Manager, Seattle
ACO.
Note 5: The repairs and inspections specified in paragraph
(c)(2) of this AD are not defined in the service bulletin.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(d) 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 ACO. 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 6: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
Special Flight Permits
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Incorporation by Reference
(f) Except as provided by paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(2), and (c)(2)
of this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 727-53A0219, Revision 1, dated May 8, 1997. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. 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.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on December 17, 1999.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 3, 1999.
D.L. Riggin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-29329 Filed 11-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P