Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, and -300 Series Airplanes, 52899-52902 [05-17461]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
The petitioner’s suggested use of
complex thermal-hydraulic conditions
would be counter-productive in reaction
kinetics tests because temperature
control is required to develop a
consistent set of data for correlation
development. Isothermal tests allow this
needed temperature control. It is more
appropriate to apply the developed
correlations to more prototypic
transients (including complex thermal
hydraulic conditions) to verify that the
proposed phenomena embodied in the
correlations are indeed limiting. This is
what was done by Westinghouse in
WCAP–7665, by Cathcart and Pawel in
NUREG–17 and by the NRC in its
technical safety analysis of PRM–50–76.
The NRC applied the Cathcart-Pawel
oxygen uptake and ZrO2 thickness
equations to the four FLECHT Zircaloy
experiments, confirming the bestestimate behavior of the Cathcart-Pawel
equations for large-break LOCA reflood
transients.
Cathcart and Pawel applied their
oxide thickness equation, using the
BILD5 program, to 15 of their transient
temperature experiments as described in
ORNL/NUREG–17. The results showed
that the correlation, based on numerous
isothermal experiments, was
conservative or best-estimate when
applied to this transient data set.
Petitioner’s Public Comments
The petitioner submitted two public
comment letters in which he again
asserted that the Baker-Just and
Cathcart-Pawel equations are grossly
misapplied by the NRC. The first
comment letter basically repeated the
arguments in the petition. No new
technical information was supplied. The
second comment letter introduced the
issue of severe fouling, which was the
subject of PRM–50–78 and addressed by
the staff’s evaluation of that petition for
rulemaking. Other issues addressed in
the second letter are related to the issues
already discussed in this document, and
therefore, no further response is
necessary.
Reasons for Denial
For the reasons cited in this
document, the Commission is denying
the petition for rulemaking (PRM–50–
76) submitted by Mr. Robert Leyse. The
NRC believes that the requested
rulemaking would not make a
significant contribution to maintaining
safety because current regulations and
regulatory guidance already adequately
address the evaluation of performance
of the ECCS. No data or evidence was
provided by the petitioner or found in
NRC records to suggest that the
research, calculation methods, or data
VerDate Aug<18>2005
11:56 Sep 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
used to support ECCS performance
evaluations were sufficiently flawed so
as to create significant safety problems.
NRC’s technical safety analysis
demonstrates that current procedures
for evaluating performance of ECCS are
based on sound science and that no
amendments to the NRC’s regulations
and guidance documents are necessary.
Additionally, the petitioner has not
shown, nor has the NRC found, the
existence of any safety issues regarding
calculation methods or data used to
support ECCS performance evaluations
that would compromise the secure use
of licensed radioactive material. The
proposed revisions would not improve
efficiency, effectiveness, and realism
because licensees and the NRC would
be required to generate additional
information (as part of the evaluation of
ECCS performance) that has no safety
value and does not significantly
improve realism.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day
of August, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–17589 Filed 9–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2004–18877; Directorate
Identifier 2002–NM–340–AD; Amendment
39–14248; AD 2005–18–08]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 737–100, –200, –200C, and –300
Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 737–100, –200, –200C,
and –300 series airplanes. This AD
requires repetitive detailed inspections
to detect discrepancies of the retaining
pin lugs on the support fitting of the
main landing gear (MLG) beam, and
rework of the support fitting, or
replacement of the fitting if necessary.
This AD is prompted by reports of
discrepancies of the lugs. We are issuing
this AD to prevent separation of the
support beam of the MLG from the rear
spar, which could cause cracking of the
MLG support fitting and a consequent
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52899
leak in the wing fuel tank or collapse of
the MLG.
DATES: This AD becomes effective
October 11, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the AD is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of October 11, 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 https://
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–2004–18877; the directorate
identifier for this docket is 2002–NM–
340–AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert C. Hardwick, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055–4056; telephone
(425) 917–6457; 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, and –300 series
airplanes. That action, published in the
Federal Register on August 17, 2004 (69
FR 51017), proposed to require
repetitive detailed inspections to detect
discrepancies of the retaining pin lugs
on the support fitting of the main
landing gear (MLG) beam, and rework of
the support fitting or replacement of the
fitting 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.
Agreement With the Proposed AD
One commenter, the manufacturer,
agrees with the proposed AD.
Conditional Agreement With the
Proposed AD
One commenter, an operator, agrees
with the proposed AD provided that
there are adequate parts available if the
discrepant condition is found.
The FAA agrees that adequate
availability of parts is necessary. We
E:\FR\FM\06SER1.SGM
06SER1
52900
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
have received no information from the
manufacturer concerning a possible
delay in availability of parts. In the
event there is a delay in the availability
of parts, an operator may request
approval for an alternative method of
compliance as specified in paragraph
(k)(1) of this AD.
Request for Clarification of Paragraph
(g) of the Proposed AD
One commenter, an operator, requests
additional information and clarification
regarding the reference in paragraph
(g)(2) of the proposed AD to replacing
the fittings in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, Part III—
Fitting Replacement, of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737–57–1216, Revision 2, dated
May 6, 1999. The commenter notes that,
in certain situations, those
Accomplishment Instructions instruct
the operator to install a self-locking nut
to secure the support pin of the MLG
support beam. However, the commenter
advises that installing a self-locking nut
would be in conflict with AD 2002–02–
08 (67 FR 6372, February 12, 2002).
We agree that clarification of
paragraph (g)(2) of the AD is necessary
in order to prevent a conflict between
the requirements of this AD and AD
2002–02–08. Therefore, we have added
further information to paragraph (g)(2)
of the AD to specify that, if operators
choose to accomplish the corrective
action specified in paragraph (g)(2) of
the AD, replacing the fitting in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, Part III—Fitting
Replacement, of Boeing Service Bulletin
737–57–1216, Revision 2, dated May 6,
1999, must also include replacing the
retaining bolt, self-locking nut, and
associated hardware of the support
beam for the MLG with a new bolt,
castellated nut, and new hardware; in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin
737–57A1260, Revision 2, dated
October 18, 2001.
Request for Credit for Accomplishing
Certain Service Bulletins
One commenter, an operator, requests
that the original issue, dated December
17, 1992, and Revision 1, dated
September 23, 1993, of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737–57–1216 be approved as
acceptable for terminating the
requirements of the proposed AD. The
commenter states that the original issue
and Revision 1 provide procedures for
replacing the fitting that are essentially
the same as those in Revision 2, which
is cited as the appropriate service
information in paragraph (g)(2) of the
proposed AD.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
11:56 Sep 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
We agree with the commenter for the
reason stated and have revised
paragraph (g)(2) of the AD accordingly.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (j) of the
Proposed AD
One commenter, an operator, requests
that the fittings acceptable for
installation be stated in a more definite
manner than ‘‘a new lug.’’ The
commenter suggests that paragraph (j) of
the proposed AD be revised to specify
a part number or serial number, rather
than just ‘‘a new lug.’’ The commenter
also requests that the inspection and
rework instructions of paragraph (j) of
the proposed AD be more specific.
We agree that clarifying the intent of
the words ‘‘new lug’’ is necessary.
Although the inspection requirements of
this AD are intended to detect cracking
of ‘‘the retaining pin lugs of the support
fitting of the MLG, or elongation of a
bolt hole in a lug,’’ the corrective
actions of paragraph (g) of this AD
require reworking or replacing the
fittings. We specify reworking or
replacing the fittings, rather than the
lugs, since the lugs are not available as
individual replacement parts. The intent
and purpose of paragraph (j) of this AD
is to specify that any lug must be
inspected and the fitting reworked or
replaced, as applicable, except for those
fittings that previously have been
reworked or replaced, in accordance
with paragraph (g) of this AD. We have
revised paragraph (j) of the AD
accordingly. We do not, however, agree
that the inspection and rework
instructions of paragraph (j) of the AD
need to be more specific. The
requirements of paragraph (j) of the AD
indicate multiple actions that are clearly
encompassed by stating ‘‘in accordance
with this AD,’’ rather than to specify
each action that has already been stated
in previous paragraphs of the AD.
Changes to Delegation Authority
Boeing has received a Delegation
Option Authorization (DOA). We have
revised this final rule to delegate the
authority to approve an alternative
method of compliance for any repair
required by this AD to the Authorized
Representative for the Boeing DOA
Organization rather than the Designated
Engineering Representative (DER).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
burden on any operator nor increase the
scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 1,670 airplanes
worldwide of the affected design and
668 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
required actions take about 2 work
hours per airplane, at an average labor
rate of $65 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the estimated cost of the
required actions for U.S. operators is
$86,840, or $130 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
The rework, if accomplished, will
take about 24 work hours per airplane
to accomplish at an average labor rate of
$65 per work hour. Required parts will
cost about $1,006 per airplane. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the
rework provided by this AD is estimated
to be $2,566 per airplane.
The replacement of the support fitting
of the MLG beam, if accomplished, will
take about 128 work hours per airplane
to accomplish at an average labor rate of
$65 per work hour. Required parts will
cost between $4,540 and $5,271 per
airplane. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the replacement provided by
this AD is estimated to be between
$12,860 and $13,591 per airplane.
The replacement of the support fitting
and installation of a special bushing of
the MLG beam (for Group 9 and Group
10 airplanes), if accomplished, will take
about 144 work hours per airplane to
accomplish at an average labor rate of
$65 per work hour. Required parts will
cost about $5,081 per airplane. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of this
replacement and installation is
estimated to be $14,441 per airplane.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in subtitle VII,
part A, subpart III, section 44701,
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
E:\FR\FM\06SER1.SGM
06SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
I
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
I
2005–18–08 Boeing: Amendment 39–14248.
Docket No. FAA–2004–18877;
Directorate Identifier 2002–NM–340–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective October 11,
2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737–
100, –200, –200C, and –300 series airplanes,
certificated in any category; line numbers 1
through 1670 inclusive.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of
discrepancies of the lugs on the support
fitting of the main landing gear (MLG) beam.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
11:56 Sep 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
52901
We are issuing this AD to prevent separation
of the support beam of the MLG from the rear
spar, which could cause cracking of the MLG
support fitting and a consequent leak in the
wing fuel tank or collapse of the MLG.
this AD constitutes terminating action for the
inspections required by paragraph (f) of this
AD.
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.
(i) If any cracking is found during any
inspection required by this AD, and the
service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing
for appropriate action: Before further flight,
repair in accordance with 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 an Authorized Representative
(AR) for the Boeing DOA Organization who
has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO, to make such findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the approval must
specifically reference this AD.
Inspection
(f) Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total
flight cycles, or within 3,000 flight cycles
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Perform a detailed inspection to
detect cracking of the retaining pin lugs of
the support fitting of the MLG beam, or
elongation of a bolt hole in a lug, in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, Part I: Inspection, of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–57–
1267, dated August 8, 2002. If no cracked lug
or elongated bolt hole is found, repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 12,000 flight cycles, until the actions
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD are
accomplished.
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 mirrors magnifying
lenses, etc. may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.’’
Corrective Action
(g) If any cracked lug or elongated bolt hole
is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (f) of this AD, before further flight,
do paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Rework the fitting in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions, Part II:
Rework, of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737–57–1267, dated August 8, 2002.
(2) Replace the fitting in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions, Part III—
Fitting Replacement, of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737–57–1216, Revision 2, dated May
6, 1999, and install a retaining bolt,
castellated nut, and cotter pin in accordance
with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1260,
Revision 2, dated October 18, 2001.
Replacing the fitting in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, Part III—
Fitting Replacement, of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737–57–1216, dated December 17,
1992, or Revision 1, dated September 23,
1993; and replacing the retaining bolt, selflocking nut, and associated hardware of the
support beam for the MLG with a new bolt,
castellated nut, and new hardware; in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin
737–57A1260, Revision 2, dated October 18,
2001; prior to the effective date of this AD
are acceptable methods of compliance with
the requirements of this paragraph.
Optional Terminating Action
(h) Reworking or replacing the fitting in
accordance with paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Repair
Parts Installation
(j) As of the effective date of this AD: With
the exception of a new support fitting of the
MLG; (i.e., a fitting that has been reworked
or replaced as required by paragraph (g) of
this AD), all retaining pin lugs of the support
fitting, and bolt holes of the lugs must be
inspected in accordance with this AD before
being installed on any airplane.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD,
if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for corrective
actions per data meeting the type
certification basis of the airplane approved
by a Boeing DOA Organization AR who has
been authorized by the Manager, Seattle,
ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically reference this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(l) You must use Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737–57–1267, dated August
8, 2002; Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57–
1216, Revision 2, dated May 6, 1999; and
Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1260,
Revision 2, dated October 18, 2001; as
applicable, 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 these documents in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To
get copies of the service information, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box
3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. To
view an 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 https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
E:\FR\FM\06SER1.SGM
06SER1
52902
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August
24, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–17461 Filed 9–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2003–NM–163–AD; Amendment
39–14244; AD 2005–18–04]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier
Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet
Series 100 & 440) Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a
new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Bombardier Model
CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100&
440) airplanes, that requires performing
an inspection of the electrical harnesses
of the spoiler and the brake pressure
sensor unit on both sides of the wing
root to detect any chafing or wire
damage, and repairing or replacing any
damaged or chafed harness or wire with
a new harness, as applicable. This
action also provides/requires a
terminating modification for the onetime inspection. The actions specified
by this AD are intended to detect and
correct chafing of the electrical cables of
the spoiler and brake pressure sensor
unit on both sides of the wing root,
which could result in loss of the flight
control system and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane. This
action is intended to address the
identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Effective October 11, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of a
certain publication listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of October 11,
2005.
ADDRESSES: The service information
referenced in this AD may be obtained
from Bombardier, Inc., Canadair,
Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087,
Station Centreville, Montreal, Quebec
H3C 3G9, Canada. 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 FAA, New York
VerDate Aug<18>2005
11:56 Sep 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
New York 11590; or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE–
172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York
11590; telephone (516) 228–7311; fax
(516) 794–5531.
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 certain Bombardier
Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet
Series 100 & 440) airplanes was
published as a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register on June 27, 2005 (70
FR 36862). That action proposed to
require performing an inspection of the
electrical harnesses of the spoiler and
the brake pressure sensor unit on both
sides of the wing root to detect any
chafing or wire damage, and repairing or
replacing any damaged or chafed
harness or wire with a new harness, as
applicable. The action also proposed to
require performing a terminating
modification for the one-time
inspection.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded
an opportunity to participate in the
making of this amendment. We received
no comments on the proposed AD or on
the determination of the cost to the
public.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available
data, the FAA has determined that air
safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule as proposed.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 709 airplanes
of U.S. registry will be affected by this
AD.
It will take approximately 1 work
hour per airplane to accomplish the
required inspection, at the average labor
rate of $65 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the
inspection required by this AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $46,085, or
$65 per airplane.
It will take approximately 5 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the
required modification, at the average
labor rate of $65 per work hour.
Required parts will be supplied by the
airplane manufacturer at no cost to
operators. Based on these figures, the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
cost impact of the modification required
by this AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $230,425, or $325 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 thisAD
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.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in subtitle VII,
part A, subpart III, section 44701,
‘‘General requirements.’’Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory 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
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has
E:\FR\FM\06SER1.SGM
06SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52899-52902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17461]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2004-18877; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-340-AD;
Amendment 39-14248; AD 2005-18-08]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, and
-300 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, and -300 series airplanes.
This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections to detect
discrepancies of the retaining pin lugs on the support fitting of the
main landing gear (MLG) beam, and rework of the support fitting, or
replacement of the fitting if necessary. This AD is prompted by reports
of discrepancies of the lugs. We are issuing this AD to prevent
separation of the support beam of the MLG from the rear spar, which
could cause cracking of the MLG support fitting and a consequent leak
in the wing fuel tank or collapse of the MLG.
DATES: This AD becomes effective October 11, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
October 11, 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
https://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-2004-18877; the directorate
identifier for this docket is 2002-NM-340-AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Hardwick, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-
4056; telephone (425) 917-6457; 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, and -300
series airplanes. That action, published in the Federal Register on
August 17, 2004 (69 FR 51017), proposed to require repetitive detailed
inspections to detect discrepancies of the retaining pin lugs on the
support fitting of the main landing gear (MLG) beam, and rework of the
support fitting or replacement of the fitting 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.
Agreement With the Proposed AD
One commenter, the manufacturer, agrees with the proposed AD.
Conditional Agreement With the Proposed AD
One commenter, an operator, agrees with the proposed AD provided
that there are adequate parts available if the discrepant condition is
found.
The FAA agrees that adequate availability of parts is necessary. We
[[Page 52900]]
have received no information from the manufacturer concerning a
possible delay in availability of parts. In the event there is a delay
in the availability of parts, an operator may request approval for an
alternative method of compliance as specified in paragraph (k)(1) of
this AD.
Request for Clarification of Paragraph (g) of the Proposed AD
One commenter, an operator, requests additional information and
clarification regarding the reference in paragraph (g)(2) of the
proposed AD to replacing the fittings in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, Part III--Fitting Replacement, of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-57-1216, Revision 2, dated May 6, 1999. The
commenter notes that, in certain situations, those Accomplishment
Instructions instruct the operator to install a self-locking nut to
secure the support pin of the MLG support beam. However, the commenter
advises that installing a self-locking nut would be in conflict with AD
2002-02-08 (67 FR 6372, February 12, 2002).
We agree that clarification of paragraph (g)(2) of the AD is
necessary in order to prevent a conflict between the requirements of
this AD and AD 2002-02-08. Therefore, we have added further information
to paragraph (g)(2) of the AD to specify that, if operators choose to
accomplish the corrective action specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the
AD, replacing the fitting in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, Part III--Fitting Replacement, of Boeing Service Bulletin
737-57-1216, Revision 2, dated May 6, 1999, must also include replacing
the retaining bolt, self-locking nut, and associated hardware of the
support beam for the MLG with a new bolt, castellated nut, and new
hardware; in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1260,
Revision 2, dated October 18, 2001.
Request for Credit for Accomplishing Certain Service Bulletins
One commenter, an operator, requests that the original issue, dated
December 17, 1992, and Revision 1, dated September 23, 1993, of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-57-1216 be approved as acceptable for terminating
the requirements of the proposed AD. The commenter states that the
original issue and Revision 1 provide procedures for replacing the
fitting that are essentially the same as those in Revision 2, which is
cited as the appropriate service information in paragraph (g)(2) of the
proposed AD.
We agree with the commenter for the reason stated and have revised
paragraph (g)(2) of the AD accordingly.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (j) of the Proposed AD
One commenter, an operator, requests that the fittings acceptable
for installation be stated in a more definite manner than ``a new
lug.'' The commenter suggests that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD be
revised to specify a part number or serial number, rather than just ``a
new lug.'' The commenter also requests that the inspection and rework
instructions of paragraph (j) of the proposed AD be more specific.
We agree that clarifying the intent of the words ``new lug'' is
necessary. Although the inspection requirements of this AD are intended
to detect cracking of ``the retaining pin lugs of the support fitting
of the MLG, or elongation of a bolt hole in a lug,'' the corrective
actions of paragraph (g) of this AD require reworking or replacing the
fittings. We specify reworking or replacing the fittings, rather than
the lugs, since the lugs are not available as individual replacement
parts. The intent and purpose of paragraph (j) of this AD is to specify
that any lug must be inspected and the fitting reworked or replaced, as
applicable, except for those fittings that previously have been
reworked or replaced, in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD. We
have revised paragraph (j) of the AD accordingly. We do not, however,
agree that the inspection and rework instructions of paragraph (j) of
the AD need to be more specific. The requirements of paragraph (j) of
the AD indicate multiple actions that are clearly encompassed by
stating ``in accordance with this AD,'' rather than to specify each
action that has already been stated in previous paragraphs of the AD.
Changes to Delegation Authority
Boeing has received a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA). We
have revised this final rule to delegate the authority to approve an
alternative method of compliance for any repair required by this AD to
the Authorized Representative for the Boeing DOA Organization rather
than the Designated Engineering Representative (DER).
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
There are about 1,670 airplanes worldwide of the affected design
and 668 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 2
work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the required actions for
U.S. operators is $86,840, or $130 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The rework, if accomplished, will take about 24 work hours per
airplane to accomplish at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour.
Required parts will cost about $1,006 per airplane. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of the rework provided by this AD is estimated
to be $2,566 per airplane.
The replacement of the support fitting of the MLG beam, if
accomplished, will take about 128 work hours per airplane to accomplish
at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost
between $4,540 and $5,271 per airplane. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the replacement provided by this AD is estimated to be
between $12,860 and $13,591 per airplane.
The replacement of the support fitting and installation of a
special bushing of the MLG beam (for Group 9 and Group 10 airplanes),
if accomplished, will take about 144 work hours per airplane to
accomplish at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required
parts will cost about $5,081 per airplane. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of this replacement and installation is estimated to be
$14,441 per airplane.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
[[Page 52901]]
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):
2005-18-08 Boeing: Amendment 39-14248. Docket No. FAA-2004-18877;
Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-340-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective October 11, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, and -
300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; line numbers 1
through 1670 inclusive.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of discrepancies of the lugs
on the support fitting of the main landing gear (MLG) beam. We are
issuing this AD to prevent separation of the support beam of the MLG
from the rear spar, which could cause cracking of the MLG support
fitting and a consequent leak in the wing fuel tank or collapse of
the MLG.
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.
Inspection
(f) Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Perform a detailed inspection to detect
cracking of the retaining pin lugs of the support fitting of the MLG
beam, or elongation of a bolt hole in a lug, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, Part I: Inspection, of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-57-1267, dated August 8, 2002. If no
cracked lug or elongated bolt hole is found, repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles, until
the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD are accomplished.
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
mirrors magnifying lenses, etc. may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''
Corrective Action
(g) If any cracked lug or elongated bolt hole is found during
any inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, before further
flight, do paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Rework the fitting in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, Part II: Rework, of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-57-1267, dated August 8, 2002.
(2) Replace the fitting in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, Part III--Fitting Replacement, of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-57-1216, Revision 2, dated May 6, 1999, and install a
retaining bolt, castellated nut, and cotter pin in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1260, Revision 2, dated October 18,
2001. Replacing the fitting in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, Part III--Fitting Replacement, of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-57-1216, dated December 17, 1992, or Revision 1, dated
September 23, 1993; and replacing the retaining bolt, self-locking
nut, and associated hardware of the support beam for the MLG with a
new bolt, castellated nut, and new hardware; in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1260, Revision 2, dated October 18,
2001; prior to the effective date of this AD are acceptable methods
of compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Optional Terminating Action
(h) Reworking or replacing the fitting in accordance with
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD constitutes terminating action
for the inspections required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
Repair
(i) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for
appropriate action: Before further flight, repair in accordance with
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 an Authorized Representative (AR) for
the Boeing DOA Organization who has been authorized by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a repair method to be
approved, the approval must specifically reference this AD.
Parts Installation
(j) As of the effective date of this AD: With the exception of a
new support fitting of the MLG; (i.e., a fitting that has been
reworked or replaced as required by paragraph (g) of this AD), all
retaining pin lugs of the support fitting, and bolt holes of the
lugs must be inspected in accordance with this AD before being
installed on any airplane.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for corrective actions per data meeting the type certification
basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing DOA Organization AR who
has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle, ACO, to make those
findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically reference this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(l) You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
57-1267, dated August 8, 2002; Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1216,
Revision 2, dated May 6, 1999; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-
57A1260, Revision 2, dated October 18, 2001; as applicable, 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 these documents in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To get copies of the service
information, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707,
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. To view an 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 https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
[[Page 52902]]
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 24, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-17461 Filed 9-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
