[Federal Register: April 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 66)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17596-17598]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ap05-6]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2004-18997; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-19-AD;
Amendment 39-14036; AD 2005-07-12]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This AD requires repetitive detailed and eddy current
inspections to detect cracking of the frame web around the cutout for
the doorstop intercostal strap at the aft side of the body station
291.5 frame at stringer 16R, and corrective actions if necessary. This
AD is prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the web of the body
station 291.5 frame near the forward galley door. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the aft frame and frame
support structure of the forward galley door, which could result in a
severed fuselage frame web, rapid decompression of the airplane, and
possible loss of the forward galley door.
DATES: This AD becomes effective May 12, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in
the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May
12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.
Docket: The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any
final disposition. You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-
5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL-401,
Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2004-18997; the directorate
identifier for this docket is 2004-NM-19-AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Hall, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425)
917-6430; fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 39
with an AD for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400,
and -500 series airplanes. That action, published in the Federal
Register on September 3, 2004 (69 FR 53858), proposed to require
repetitive detailed and eddy current inspections to detect cracking of
the frame web around the cutout for the doorstop intercostal strap at
the aft side of the body station 291.5 frame at stringer 16R, and
corrective actions if necessary.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
submitted on the proposed AD.
Request To Delay Issuing AD
Several commenters note that the proposed AD does not provide a
terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in the
proposed AD. Two commenters suggest that a terminating action be
included in either the final AD action or in the instructions of the
structural inspection document. One commenter requests that the FAA
delay issuing the final AD action until Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1241, dated June 13, 2002, has been revised to include a
terminating modification. (That service bulletin was referenced in the
proposed AD as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the repetitive inspections.) One commenter states that
the proposed repetitive intervals will allow enough time for
accomplishment of the inspections during its fleet's heavy maintenance
visits, but that it would be helpful if terminating action instructions
were provided.
We agree that a terminating action for the repetitive inspections
would benefit operators. The airplane manufacturer is currently
developing a terminating action. Once the proposed terminating action
has been submitted to us for review, and we have approved the proposed
action as terminating action for the requirements of the AD, anyone may
use that terminating action as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD. We do not
agree that we should delay issuing this AD until a terminating action
is developed. We have determined that an unsafe condition exists, and
we do not have any technical justification for delaying the release of
this AD. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.
One commenter requests that operators be allowed to review the
additional service history information referenced in the proposed AD
before the FAA issues the final AD action. The commenter states that it
has requested that Boeing disseminate that additional history
information to all operators. The commenter notes that the initial
inspection threshold specified in the proposed AD is 20 percent lower
than the threshold specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1241. The commenter concludes that the additional history
information had an obvious impact on the FAA's decision to include a
lowered initial inspection threshold in the proposed AD.
We agree with the intent of the commenter's request. As stated in
the ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin''
section of the proposed AD, the service bulletin includes an initial
inspection threshold of 50,000 total flight cycles, and the proposed AD
includes an initial inspection threshold of 40,000 total flight cycles.
The threshold specified in the service bulletin is based on the first
two reported cracks, which were found on an airplane that had
accumulated more than 54,000 total flight cycles. After the release of
the service bulletin, a subsequent crack was reported on an
[[Page 17597]]
airplane that had accumulated only 44,153 total flight cycles. In light
of this additional service history, we met with Boeing and determined
that a threshold of 40,000 total flight cycles was appropriate for the
initial inspection. We do not agree to delay issuing this AD until
operators have had the opportunity to review the additional service
history referenced in the proposed AD. We do not have any technical
justification for such a delay. We have not changed this AD regarding
this issue.
Request To Revise Repetitive Inspection Interval
Two commenters state that the repetitive inspection interval
specified in the proposed AD is not synchronized with their maintenance
programs, and that doing the inspection at the interval specified in
the proposed AD would be a significant burden for operators that need
to remove the galley to do an inspection. We infer that the commenters
are requesting that the repetitive inspection interval of ``not to
exceed 4,500 flight cycles,'' which is specified in the proposed AD, be
increased so the interval is synchronized with the commenters'
maintenance programs.
We agree that it would be a significant burden if operators have to
remove the galley outside of a scheduled maintenance visit in order to
perform an inspection. We do not agree to revise this AD so the
repetitive inspection interval is synchronized with the maintenance
programs of specific operators. In developing the repetitive inspection
interval for this AD we considered the manufacturer's recommendation,
the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, and
the practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspection at an
interval that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most
affected operators. However, under the provisions of paragraph (h) of
this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the repetitive interval if
the request includes data that justify that a different interval would
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD
regarding this issue.
Request To Address Inspection of Areas With Existing Repairs
One commenter notes that the proposed AD does not address
inspection requirements if a repair exists in the subject areas. We
infer that the commenter is requesting that we revise the proposed AD
to include information regarding the inspection of areas with existing
repairs.
We acknowledge that special inspection procedures may be required
if a previously installed repair prevents an operator from
accomplishing the actions required by this AD. It is not possible to
foresee all possible repair configurations and to provide an
appropriate inspection. If this is the case, the operator must apply
for an AMOC as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. We have not
changed this AD regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Costs of Compliance
Several commenters state that the estimated costs for compliance
stated in the proposed AD are misleading. The commenters note that
inspecting the subject areas may only take 2 hours per inspection cycle
to accomplish, but the time for accessing and closing the inspection
area may take an additional 20 hours per inspection cycle. The
commenters state that these access and closing costs would be
attributable to the proposed AD because the proposed compliance time
would not allow for doing the proposed actions during a scheduled
maintenance visit when the galley would be removed. We infer that the
commenters are requesting that the estimated costs of compliance be
revised to include labor hours for accessing and closing the inspection
area.
We do not agree to revise the ``Costs of Compliance'' section of
this AD. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions
represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions
actually required by the AD. This AD requires repetitive detailed and
eddy current inspections. We recognize that in accomplishing the
requirements of any AD, operators may incur incidental costs in
addition to the direct costs. However, the cost analysis in AD
rulemaking actions typically does not include incidental costs, such as
the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time
necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs
may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost
impossible to calculate.
Explanation of Change to the Proposed AD
Boeing has received a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA). We
have revised this AD to delegate the authority to approve an AMOC for
any replacement required by this AD to the Authorized Representative
(AR) for the Boeing DOA Organization rather than the Designated
Engineering Representative.
We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to provide the option of
requesting an AMOC from either the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or an approved AR of the Boeing DOA
Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to
make such findings.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase
the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
This AD affects about 3,113 airplanes worldwide. The following
table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with
this AD.
Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Number of U.S.-
Action Work labor rate Parts Cost per airplane registered Fleet cost
hours per hour airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection, per inspection cycle.... 2 $65 None................... $130, per inspection 876 $113,880, per
cycle. inspection cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII,
[[Page 17598]]
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General requirements.''
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe
flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to
examine the regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
2005-07-12 Boeing: Amendment 39-14036. Docket No. FAA-2004-18997;
Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-19-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective May 12, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300,
-400, and -500 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1241, dated June
13, 2002.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the web
of the body station 291.5 frame near the forward galley door. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the aft
frame and frame support structure of the forward galley door, which
could result in a severed fuselage frame web, rapid decompression of
the airplane, and possible loss of the forward galley door.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Initial and Repetitive Inspections
(f) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight cycles, or
within 2,250 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection and an eddy current
inspection to detect cracking of the frame web around the cutout for
the doorstop intercostal strap at the aft side of the body station
291.5 frame at stringer 16R, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1241, dated
June 13, 2002. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspections
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''
Corrective Action
(g) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this
AD, and the bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Before further flight, repair the crack according to a
method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA; or according to data meeting the certification
basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized Representative (AR)
for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) Organization
who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those
findings. For a repair method to be approved, the approval must
specifically reference this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any inspection required by this AD, if it is approved by an
AR for the Boeing DOA who has been authorized by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For an inspection method to be
approved, the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(i) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1241,
dated June 13, 2002, to perform the actions that are required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the
Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of this
document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To
get copies of the service information, go to Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. To view
the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL-401, Nassif
Building, Washington, DC. To review copies of the service
information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the
NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 25, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.>
[FR Doc. 05-6688 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P