Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F Series Airplanes

[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17923-17929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99-NM-105-AD; Amendment 39-12703; AD 2002-07-09]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-
100C, 727-200, and 727-200F Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive 
(AD), applicable to all Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-
200, and 727-200F series airplanes, that currently requires repetitive 
inspections to find cracking of the lower skin panel at the lower row 
of fasteners in certain lap joints of the fuselage, and repair, if 
necessary. This amendment limits the applicability of the existing AD, 
adds certain repetitive inspections, revises certain compliance times, 
and adds certain modifications. This amendment is prompted by the FAA's 
determination that, in light of additional crack findings, certain 
modifications of the fuselage lap joints are necessary. The actions 
specified by this AD are intended to find and fix fatigue cracking of 
the fuselage lap joints, which could result in sudden fracture and 
failure of the lower skin lap joints, and rapid decompression of the 
airplane.

DATES: Effective May 17, 2002.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of May 17, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, PO 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: Walt Sippel, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, 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) by superseding AD 99-04-22, 
amendment 39-11047 (64 FR 7774, February 17, 1999), which is applicable 
to all Boeing Model 727, 727-100, 727-200, 727C, 727-100C, and 727-200F 
series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on July 12, 
2001 (66 FR 36516). The action proposed to continue to require 
repetitive inspections to find cracking of the lower skin panel at the 
lower row of fasteners in certain lap joints of the fuselage, and 
repair, if necessary. The action also proposed to limit the 
applicability of the existing AD, add certain repetitive inspections, 
revise certain compliance times, and add certain modifications.

[[Page 17924]]

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.

Clarify Compliance Time Paragraph (d)(2)

    Several commenters request that paragraph (d)(2) of the proposed 
rule be changed to include the phrase ``whichever is later'' at the end 
of the specified compliance time.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters, as ``whichever is later'' was 
inadvertently omitted from the paragraph (d)(2) of the proposed rule. 
We have clarified the compliance time in paragraph (d)(2) of the final 
rule to state, ``Accomplish the modification prior to 55,000 total 
flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date 
of this AD, whichever is later.''

Credit for Original Issue of Service Bulletin

    One commenter asks that credit be given for actions done in 
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, dated July 
27, 2000. Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1, including 
Appendix A, dated March 15, 2001, was cited in the proposed rule as the 
appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of certain 
actions.
    The FAA agrees, as there are no major changes between the original 
issue and Revision 1 of the service bulletin. We have inserted a new 
Note 5 in the final rule that gives credit for inspections done per the 
original issue of the service bulletin. Subsequent notes have been 
renumbered accordingly.

Editorial Changes

    Editorial changes to the proposed rule as requested by one 
commenter are specified below, and the FAA responses follow:
    <bullet> A statement should be added to the final rule specifying 
that it supersedes the actions specified in AD 99-04-22. As written, 
compliance is required with both the old AD and the new proposed rule, 
when obviously the new rule supersedes the old rule.
    We do not agree. The preamble of the proposed rule states that it 
is a supersedure of AD 99-04-22, and throughout the preamble the 
reasons for superseding that AD are discussed at length. No change to 
the final rule is necessary in this regard.
    <bullet> The heading preceding paragraph (a) of the proposed rule 
should be changed from ``Repetitive Inspections'' to ``Inspections'' or 
``Initial and Repetitive Inspections.'' The existing heading implies 
the initial inspections are not included when in fact they are.
    We agree and have changed the heading for paragraph (a) of this 
final rule to ``Initial and Repetitive Inspections.''
    <bullet> Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule omits the inspection 
method. The proposed AD should add the method as follows, ``Inspections 
should be accomplished per Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of 
Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1, including Appendix A, 
dated March 15, 2001.''
    We agree and have changed paragraph (a) of the final rule to refer 
to Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin 
for the inspection method. In addition, for clarification, we have 
cited Section 1.E., ``Compliance,'' for the location of the tables 
identified before the reference to Paragraph 1., Planning Information, 
as Section 1.E. is a subsection within the Planning Information. 
Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule also referenced only Paragraph 1., 
Planning Information and has been changed for clarification. Paragraph 
(d) of the final rule also has been changed for clarification to refer 
to Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin 
for accomplishment of the modification and to cite Section 1.E., 
``Compliance.'' Additionally, paragraph (d)(2) of the final rule has 
been changed for clarification to read, ``For airplanes that have 
accumulated 35,000 or more but fewer than or equal to 54,999 flight 
cycles on the effective date of this AD.''
    <bullet> Paragraph (a)(2) specifies the wrong type of inspection. 
The reference to a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection is 
incorrect. The correct reference should be a medium frequency eddy 
current (MFEC) inspection.
    The FAA agrees that the reference to a HFEC inspection is 
incorrect, and we have changed paragraph (a)(2) of the final rule to 
specify a MFEC inspection.
    <bullet> Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the proposed rule can be 
combined to simplify the proposed rule without changing the intent. 
This new paragraph would list the applicability as, ``. . . the 
airplane has accumulated fewer than 45,000 total flight cycles . . .'' 
Both paragraphs have identical inspection methods, but the 
applicability is different. Instead of stating that airplanes from 0 to 
35,000 flight cycles need inspection per method ``A,'' and airplanes 
from 35,000 to 45,000 flight cycles need the same inspection, the 
proposed AD should combine the paragraphs to say airplanes from 0 to 
45,000 flight cycles need inspection per method ``A.''
    The FAA does not agree. Paragraph (b) of the final rule specifies 
lap joints identified in Table H of Section 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of 
the service bulletin. Table H has different inspection procedures for 
airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 35,000 total flight cycles, 
and airplanes that have accumulated 35,000 or more, but fewer than 
45,000 total flight cycles. We have inserted a new Note 4 in the final 
rule that explains this. Subsequent notes have been renumbered 
accordingly.
    <bullet> Paragraph (b)(3) has a typographical error. The reference 
to ``fewer than 54,999 flight cycles'' should be ``fewer than 55,000 
flight cycles.'' As written, airplanes with 54,999 flight cycles are 
omitted because paragraph (b)(4) includes airplanes with 55,000 flight 
cycles and up.
    The FAA agrees that airplanes having 54,999 total flight cycles 
were inadvertently omitted from the proposed rule and we have revised 
paragraph (b)(3) of the final rule accordingly.
    <bullet> The heading preceding paragraph (d) of the proposed rule 
should be changed from ``Modification/Inspections'' to ``Modification/
Post Modification Inspections.'' This change helps the reader to 
understand the differences between the inspections in paragraphs (a), 
(b), and (d) of the proposed rule without having to read the details to 
determine those differences.
    The FAA agrees and we have changed the heading for paragraph (d) of 
this final rule to ``Modification/Post-Modification Inspections.''
    <bullet> As a final note, the commenter states that it is not 
affected by the ``Concurrent Modifications'' section specified in the 
proposed rule that affects airplanes modified per a supplemental type 
certificate.

Terminating Action

    One commenter states that the proposed rule needs a statement that 
accomplishment of the modification terminates the pre-modification 
inspections per paragraphs (a) and (b) in the modified area only. It is 
clear the post-modification inspections are required.
    The FAA partially agrees. The modification required by paragraph 
(d) of the final rule terminates the repetitive inspection requirements 
of paragraph (b) of the final rule only. The repetitive inspections 
required by paragraph (a) of the final rule are not terminated because 
the modification in paragraph (d)

[[Page 17925]]

applies to Model 727-200 series airplanes specified in Table H of the 
referenced service bulletin only. Paragraph (d) of the final rule has 
been changed to specify that accomplishment of that paragraph 
terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (b) of this 
final rule.

Freighter Airplanes

    One commenter's statements on the subject of freighter airplanes 
affected by the proposed rule and the FAA responses follow:
    <bullet> There is no differentiation made between Boeing purpose-
built freighters and passenger airplanes in the proposed rule, and 
there is no lap joint modification provided for in the referenced 
service bulletin for Model 727-100C or -200 freighter airplanes.
    The FAA agrees that no differentiation is made between freighter 
and passenger airplanes in the proposed rule. Although the commenter 
makes no request for a specific change to the final rule, for 
clarification, freighter airplanes differ from passenger airplanes in 
that the fuselage skin is thicker in certain areas and the operational 
characteristics are not the same, and the FAA received no reports that 
multiple site damage (MSD) is an emerging problem for freighter 
configurations. For these reasons, no modification is required at this 
time for freighter airplanes. To assure awareness of an emerging MSD 
problem, the FAA is requiring that the freighter airplanes continue to 
be inspected.
    <bullet> A low frequency eddy current inspection (LFEC) is required 
by the proposed rule on the lower lap joint skin at 300-cycle intervals 
after the airplane reaches the 55,000 flight cycle mark. The commenter 
feels this inspection requirement is unduly restrictive, given that 
there is no terminating action for the freighter models.
    We infer that the commenter wants the LFEC inspection requirement 
removed; however, we do not agree that the repetitive inspection 
interval for freighter airplanes is at 300 flight cycles for airplanes 
that have accumulated 55,000 or more total flight cycles. This 
requirement is for passenger airplanes, as specified in paragraph (b) 
of the final rule, which references Table H in the referenced service 
bulletin. Paragraph (b) of this final rule has been changed to specify 
that it is applicable only to Model 727-200 series airplanes.
    <bullet> The proposed AD should provide terminating action for the 
LFEC inspection at 300 flight cycles on the Model 727-100C series 
airplane in the form of a lap joint modification.
    As stated previously, the modification specified in the final rule 
is for Model 727-200 passenger airplanes only, as specified in 
paragraph (d) of this final rule. Should MSD emerge as a problem, the 
FAA may consider further rulemaking action which could include a 
requirement for a modification.

Out-of-Service/Retired Airplanes

    One commenter states that, based on its current Model 727 series 
airplane utilization versus retirement plan, it anticipates that it 
will only have one airplane subject to the modification, and that 
airplane will be taken out of service six days before the compliance 
deadline. Another commenter states that it has already incorporated the 
external LFEC inspection on its airplanes, as specified in the proposed 
rule; and plans to retire all Model 727 series airplanes from service 
before the internal inspections or modifications would be required by 
the proposed AD.
    The commenter makes no specific request to change the final rule. 
The FAA advises that, should any of these airplanes be returned to 
service after the compliance period ends, the actions in the final rule 
must be done before the first flight.

Compliance Plan

    One commenter paraphrases paragraph (c) of the proposed rule and 
notes that the compliance plan required by that paragraph must be 
submitted for each airplane. The commenter states that this paragraph 
will result in the generation of submittals to the FAA which will 
quickly become useless, given the dynamics of airplane maintenance 
planning and scheduling. The commenter adds that the FAA states in the 
preamble of the proposed rule that the compliance plan is necessary to 
verify that all operators will be able to meet the deadlines imposed by 
the proposed AD. The commenter states that no lasting purpose is served 
by this information since operators are not required to submit 
revisions to the compliance plan. Additionally, the commenter notes 
that it is the operator's responsibility to maintain its airplanes in 
compliance with the requirements of any AD, and recommends that 
paragraph (c) of the proposed rule be deleted.
    One commenter states that, although not convinced that the 
compliance planning in the proposed rule is the appropriate method to 
resolve compliance conflicts with complex ADs, it does not object to 
the compliance plan.
    We partially agree with the commenters as follows:
    We do not agree to delete paragraph (c) of the final rule. As 
specified in the preamble of the proposed rule, we recognize that doing 
the lap joint modification will require a lengthy maintenance visit, 
within a relatively short compliance time. This makes it necessary for 
operators to do compliance planning to ensure that when the compliance 
deadline is reached all the required actions have been done on all 
affected airplanes. Although plans and schedules can change over time, 
a compliance plan ensures that the operator is aware of the complexity 
of the actions required by this final rule at the start rather than at 
the end of the compliance period.
    We agree that the requirements specified in paragraph (c) of the 
final rule can be changed to exclude operators that have previously 
done the modification required by paragraph (d) of the final rule. For 
operators that have not yet done the modification, we have changed the 
requirement to provide dates and maintenance events (e.g., letter 
checks) to submitting only estimated dates. Paragraph (c) of the final 
rule has been changed accordingly.

Change Paragraph (k)

    One commenter notes that paragraph (k) of the proposed rule 
provides details regarding FAA approval for repairs to cracks. The 
commenter adds that the text in that paragraph indicates that the 
repair method is to be approved by the Manager of the Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), but the ``Differences'' section in the 
preamble of the proposed rule indicates that, ``. . . the repair of 
those conditions be accomplished per a method approved by the FAA, or 
per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved 
by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative (DER) who has 
been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings.'' 
Therefore, paragraph (k) does not reflect the same repair approval as 
the ``Differences'' section. The commenter recommends that paragraph 
(k) be changed to add the repair approval by a Boeing Company DER.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenter. The differences section 
of the proposed rule specifies that the disposition of ``certain'' 
repair conditions be accomplished by a method approved by the FAA or a 
Boeing Company DER. Paragraph (e) of the final rule specifies repair of 
cracking or corrosion per a method approved by the FAA or a Boeing 
Company DER because the repair of damaged structure is within the scope 
of a Boeing DER delegated authorization. FAA Notice

[[Page 17926]]

8110.72, ``Structural Designated Engineering Representative (DER) 
Approvals of Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) to Airworthiness 
Directives and AD Mandated Repairs,'' states that, ``Type certificate 
holder DER can be delegated to approve repairs when the FAA determines 
that the intent of the AD was to restore the airplane, found to have 
damaged structure, into compliance with the airplane type certification 
basis or other defined airworthiness standard.''
    Paragraph (k) of this final rule requires concurrent modification 
of the airplane structure of supplemental type certificate (STC) and 
type certificate holders. Because not every STC holder has a company 
DER that is authorized to approve repairs, and independent DERs working 
for the STC holder are not Boeing DERs and have limited data in their 
possession, we cannot delegate AMOC authority to those DERs. Therefore, 
we cannot include in paragraph (k) the same provision that is specified 
in paragraph (e) of the final rule. No change to the final rule is 
necessary in this regard.

Allow for External LFEC Inspection

    One commenter states that its experience with accomplishing the 
internal inspection indicates certain areas are not accessible for the 
MFEC inspection. The commenter adds that it performs an external LFEC 
inspection in these areas, although the referenced service bulletin, 
the existing AD, and the proposed rule do not account for this. The 
commenter recommends that these documents should allow for continued 
external LFEC inspections in these limited areas of restricted access.
    The FAA infers that the commenter is referring to the MFEC 
inspections required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of the final rule. The 
service bulletin and the proposed rule do allow for repetitive external 
LFEC inspections in certain areas; however, the commenter does not 
specify the areas where it performs the external LFEC inspections in 
lieu of the MFEC inspections. Although we recognize the commenter's 
concerns, the commenter did not clarify or provide substantiating data 
in its request. The FAA may approve a request for an alternative method 
of compliance under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of the final 
rule if data are submitted to substantiate the commenter's request. 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 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.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 900 Model 727 series airplanes of the 
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 700 
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
    The inspections that are currently required by AD 99-04-22 take 
approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average 
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost 
impact of the currently required actions is estimated to be $480 per 
airplane.
    The FAA estimates that the inspections required by this AD will 
impose the following costs, given an average labor rate of $60 per work 
hour:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Costs per
   Service information and inspection method     Work hours   inspection
                                                                cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing SB 727-53A0222--External LFEC..........           16         $960
Boeing SB 727-53A0222--Internal Detailed and            120        7,200
 MFEC (Passenger Airplanes)...................
Boeing SB 727-53A0222--Internal Detailed and             40        2,400
 MFEC (Cargo Airplanes).......................
AEI SB 00-01..................................           12          720
PEMCO SB 727-53-0007..........................           12          720
ATS SB 727-001................................           12          720
Federal Express SB 00-029.....................           12          720
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates that, during the 10-year period after issuance of 
the AD, worldwide operators will be required to modify 360 Model 727 
series airplanes. The modification required by the AD takes 
approximately 1,200 work hours to accomplish, at an average labor rate 
of $60 per work hour. The worldwide cost impact of the required 
modification is estimated to be $37,413,000 over 10 years, or an 
average of $3,741,000 per year. The highest impact year is the first 
year after issuance of the AD; an estimated 56 Model 727 series 
airplanes would require modification in that year. The affected Model 
727 airplanes operated by U.S. operators comprise approximately 78 
percent of the total worldwide costs. Therefore, the highest cost 
impact of the modification in any given year is estimated to be 
$4,527,000 for U.S. operators.
    The compliance plan that is required by this AD takes approximately 
24 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of 
$60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the 
compliance plan on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,008,000, or 
$1,440 per airplane.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are 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 cost impact figures discussed 
in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform 
the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures 
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to 
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other 
administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations adopted herein will 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    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

[[Page 17927]]

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 removing amendment 39-11047 (64 FR 
7774, February 17, 1999), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD), amendment 39-12703, to read as follows:

2002-07-09  Boeing: Amendment 39-12703. Docket 99-NM-105-AD. 
Supersedes AD 99-04-22, amendment 39-11047.

    Applicability: Model 727 series airplanes, as listed in Boeing 
Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1, including Appendix A, 
dated March 15, 2001, 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 (l)(1) 
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 find and fix fatigue cracking in the lower skin panel at the 
lower row of fasteners of the fuselage lap joints, which could 
result in sudden fracture and failure of the lap joints, and rapid 
decompression of the airplane; accomplish the following:

Initial and Repetitive Inspections

    (a) Do either an external low frequency eddy current (LFEC) 
inspection to find cracking, or both internal detailed and medium 
frequency eddy current (MFEC) inspections to find cracking or 
corrosion, in the lower skin panels of the lower row of fasteners of 
the fuselage lap joints per Part I of the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1, 
including Appendix A, dated March 15, 2001. Do the applicable 
inspection at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD on the lap joints identified in Tables 
A through H and J through N of Section 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of 
Paragraph 1, Planning Information, of the service bulletin. Except 
as provided by paragraph (b) of this AD, after doing the applicable 
initial inspection, repeat that inspection at the intervals 
specified in Tables A through G or J through N of the service 
bulletin.
    (1) At the latest of the times specified for the initial 
inspection in Tables A through H (for Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5 
airplanes), or Tables J through N (for Groups 3 and 4 airplanes), as 
applicable, of Section 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the service 
bulletin, except where the compliance time in the service bulletin 
specifies a compliance time interval based on ``the release of this 
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the interval 
specified in the service bulletin ``after the effective date of this 
AD.''
    (2) Within 600 flight cycles after the last LFEC inspection or 
7,000 flight cycles after the last MFEC inspection, if any, is 
accomplished in accordance with AD 99-04-22, amendment 39-11047.

    Note 2: Groups 1-5 are defined in the effectivity section of the 
service bulletin.


    Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is 
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific 
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to find 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.''

    (b) For Model 727-200 series airplanes: The repetitive 
inspection intervals for lap joints identified in Table H of Section 
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Paragraph 1, Planning Information, of 
Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1, including Appendix 
A, dated March 15, 2001, decrease with increasing flight cycles. 
Perform the repetitive inspections listed in Table H of the service 
bulletin at the thresholds and intervals specified in paragraph 
(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) of this AD, as applicable.

    Note 4: Table H of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 
1, has different inspection procedures for airplanes that have 
accumulated fewer than 35,000 total flight cycles, and airplanes 
that have accumulated 35,000 or more, but fewer than 45,000 total 
flight cycles.

    (1) If, at the time of the most recent inspection required by 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, the airplane has accumulated fewer 
than 35,000 total flight cycles: Perform LFEC inspections at 
intervals not to exceed 600 flight cycles, or detailed internal 
visual and MFEC inspections at intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight 
cycles.
    (2) If, at the time of the most recent inspection required by 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, the airplane has accumulated 35,000 
or more, but fewer than 45,000 total flight cycles: Perform LFEC 
inspections at intervals not to exceed 600 flight cycles, or 
detailed internal visual and MFEC inspections at intervals not to 
exceed 7,000 flight cycles.
    (3) If, at the time of the most recent inspection required by 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, the airplane has accumulated 45,000 
or more, but fewer than 55,000 total flight cycles: Perform detailed 
internal visual and MFEC inspections at intervals not to exceed 
2,000 flight cycles.
    (4) If, at the time of the most recent inspection required by 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, the airplane has accumulated 55,000 
or more total flight cycles: Perform LFEC inspections at intervals 
not to exceed 300-flight-cycle intervals.

    Note 5: Inspections done prior to the effective date of this AD 
per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, dated July 27, 2000, 
are considered acceptable for compliance with the applicable action 
specified in this amendment.

Compliance Plan

    (c) For airplanes on which the modification required by 
paragraph (d) of this AD has not been done as of the effective date 
of this AD: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, 
submit a plan to the FAA identifying a schedule for compliance with 
paragraph (d) of this AD. This schedule must include, for each of 
the operator's affected airplanes, the estimated dates when the 
required actions will be accomplished. For the purposes of this 
paragraph, ``FAA'' means the Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) 
for operators that are assigned a PMI, or the cognizant Flight 
Standards District Office for other operators. Information 
collection requirements contained in this regulation have been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

    Note 6: Operators are not required to submit revisions to the 
compliance plan required by paragraph (c) of this AD to the FAA.

Modification/Post-Modification Inspections

    (d) For Model 727-200 series airplanes: Do the modification 
listed in Table H of Section 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Paragraph 1, 
Planning Information, of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, 
Revision 1, including Appendix A, dated March 15, 2001; per Part II 
of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, at the 
threshold specified in paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) of this 
AD, as applicable. Within 35,000 flight cycles after doing the 
modification, do the post-modification inspections for cracking in 
the skin, per Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of the 
service bulletin.

[[Page 17928]]

Accomplishment of this paragraph terminates the repetitive 
inspections required by paragraph (b) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 35,000 total 
flight cycles on the effective date of the AD: Accomplish the 
modification prior to 48,000 total flight cycles.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 35,000 or more, but 
fewer than 55,000 total flight cycles on the effective date of the 
AD: Accomplish the modification prior to 55,000 total flight cycles, 
or within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, 
whichever is later.
    (3) For airplanes that have accumulated 55,000 or more total 
flight cycles on the effective date of the AD: Accomplish the 
modification within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of 
this AD.

Repair

    (e) If any cracking or corrosion is found during any inspection 
required by paragraph (a), (b), or (d) of this AD: Before further 
flight, repair per Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222, Revision 1, 
including Appendix A, dated March 15, 2001. Where the service 
bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, repair 
per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification 
Office (ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type certification basis 
of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company DER who has been 
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a 
repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as 
required by this paragraph, the approval letter must specifically 
reference this AD.

Concurrent Modifications

    (f) For Model 727-200 series airplanes modified per supplemental 
type certificate (STC) SA1368SO or SA1797SO: Concurrent with the 
modification of the fuselage lap joints required by paragraph (d) of 
this AD, do the inspection for cracking of the lower row of 
fasteners in the lower skin of the lap joints, and the modification 
specified in Aeronautical Engineers Inc. Service Bulletin AEI 00-01, 
Revision A, dated May 7, 2001, per the service bulletin.
    (g) For Model 727-200 series airplanes modified per STCs 
SA1444SO and SA1509SO: Concurrent with the modification of the 
fuselage lap joints required by paragraph (d) of this AD, do the 
inspection for cracking of the lower row of fasteners in the lower 
skin of the lap joints, and the modification specified in PEMCO 
Service Bulletin 727-53-0007, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2001, per 
the service bulletin.
    (h) For Model 727-200 series airplanes modified per STC 
SA00015AT: Concurrent with the modification of the fuselage lap 
joints required by paragraph (d) of this AD, do the inspection for 
cracking of the lower row of fasteners in the lower skin of the lap 
joints, and the modification specified in Aircraft Technical 
Service, Inc., Service Bulletin ATS 727-001, dated May 7, 2001, per 
the service bulletin.
    (i) For Model 727-200 series airplanes modified per STC SA176SO: 
Concurrent with the modification of the fuselage lap joints required 
by paragraph (d) of this AD, do the inspection for cracking of the 
lower row of fasteners in the lower skin of the lap joints, and the 
modification specified in Federal Express Corporation Service 
Bulletin 00-029, Revision A, including Attachment A, dated May 16, 
2001, per the service bulletin.
    (j) Within 2,200 flight cycles after doing the applicable 
modification specified in paragraph (f), (g), (h), or (i) of this 
AD, do the post-modification inspection for cracking in the skin per 
the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 1, below. Repeat 
the applicable inspection after that at intervals not to exceed 
2,200 flight cycles. Table 1 follows:

                       Table 1.--Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Service Bulletin                           Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeronautical Engineers Inc. Service      May 7, 2001.
 Bulletin AEI 00-01, Revision A.
Aircraft Technical Service, Inc.,        May 7, 2001.
 Service Bulletin ATS 727-001.
Federal Express Corporation Service      May 16, 2001.
 Bulletin 00-029, Revision A, including
 Attachment A.
PEMCO Service Bulletin, 727-53-0007,     June 6, 2001.
 Revision 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repair

    (k) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by 
paragraph (f), (g), (h), or (i) of this AD: Before further flight, 
repair per the applicable service bulletin as provided in Table 1 in 
paragraph (j) of this AD. Where cracks exceed the limits provided in 
the service bulletin, and the bulletin specifies to contact the 
provider of the service bulletin for repair instructions, prior to 
further flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle 
ACO. If any cracking is found during any inspection required by 
paragraph (j) of this AD: Before further flight, repair per a method 
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. For a repair method to be 
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, 
the approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (l)(1) 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 PMI, who may add comments 
and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
    (2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved previously per 
AD 99-04-22, amendment 39-11047, are approved as alternative methods 
of compliance with this AD.

    Note 7: 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

    (m) 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

    (n) Except as provided by paragraphs (c), (e), and (k) of this 
AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with the following 
service bulletins, as applicable:

                       Table 2.--Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Service Bulletin                           Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeronautical Engineers Inc. Service      May 7, 2001.
 Bulletin AEI 00-01, Revision A.
Aircraft Technical Service, Inc.,        May 7, 2001
 Service Bulletin ATS 727-001.
Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0222,     March 15, 2001.
 Revision 1, including Appendix A.
Federal Express Corporation Service      May 16, 2001.
 Bulletin 00-029, Revision A, including
 Attachment A.
PEMCO Service Bulletin 727-53-0007,      June 6, 2001.
 Revision 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, PO 
Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

[[Page 17929]]

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.

Effective Date

    (o) This amendment becomes effective on May 17, 2002.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 2, 2002.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-8455 Filed 4-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

The complete text was extracted from the official GovInfo HTML edition for this publication. Acquired 2026-10-09T04:21:31.178823+00:00. Text extraction preserves the recorded source wording; it does not determine current requirements.

Open the captured official edition

Source SHA-256

b5735c7a5c35ed54f617654a9b865a42d95193ec17e4b12158195376dc7f7075

Text SHA-256

be8e0487b4a4cd8e182aff684f318a042241210501a7ac4a4d3c8f9c08121070