Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes, 16211-16217 [06-3066]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Parts Installation
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(h) As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may install, on any airplane, an aft
attach fitting assembly of the spoiler link
having part number AMI3954558–1 or
AMI3954558–501, and having a lot number
identified in the ‘‘Lot Number’’ column of the
table in Section 1.A.1. of Aerotech
Manufacturing Service Bulletin DC9–27–01AMI5139, Revision ‘‘A,’’ dated June 19, 2003.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
the appropriate principal inspector in the
FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding
District Office.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(j) You must use Aerotech Manufacturing
Service Bulletin DC9–27–01–AMI5139,
Revision ‘‘A,’’ dated June 19, 2003; to
perform the actions that are required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this document
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Contact Aerotech Engineering, Inc.,
19655 Descartes, Foothill Ranch, California
92610; for a copy of this service information.
You may review copies at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
room PL–401, Nassif Building, Washington,
DC; on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov; or
at 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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March
17, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 06–3064 Filed 3–30–06; 8:45 am]
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Mar 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–20918; Directorate
Identifier 2004–NM–269–AD; Amendment
39–14539; AD 2006–07–12]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300,
–400, and –500 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 all
Boeing Model 737–100, –200, –200C,
–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes.
This AD requires a one-time inspection
for scribe lines and cracks in the
fuselage skin at certain lap joints, butt
joints, external repair doublers, and
other areas; and related investigative/
corrective actions if necessary. This AD
results from reports of fuselage skin
cracks adjacent to the skin lap joints on
airplanes that had scribe lines. Scribe
line damage can also occur at many
other locations, including butt joints,
external doublers, door scuff plates, the
wing-to-body fairing, and areas of the
fuselage where decals have been applied
or removed. We are issuing this AD to
prevent rapid decompression of the
airplane due to fatigue cracks resulting
from scribe lines on pressurized
fuselage structure.
DATES: This AD becomes effective May
5, 2006.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in the AD
as of May 5, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Nassif Building, room PL–401,
Washington, DC.
Contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, PO Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207, for service
information identified in this AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue
Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055–4056; telephone (425) 917–6438;
fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16211
Examining the Docket
You may examine the airworthiness
directive (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 street address stated in the
ADDRESSES section.
Discussion
The FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would
apply to all Boeing Model 737–100,
–200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500
series airplanes. That NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on
April 29, 2005 (70 FR 22272). That
NPRM proposed to require a one-time
inspection for scribe lines and cracks in
the fuselage skin at certain lap joints,
butt joints, external repair doublers, and
other areas; and related investigative/
corrective actions if necessary.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments received.
Support for Proposed AD
One commenter (AWAS Aviation
Services) agrees that fatigue cracks on
the fuselage should be addressed in a
suitable time period. The commenter
considers the proposed compliance time
acceptable.
Request To Consider Similar
Rulemaking for Other Airplanes
The National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) believes that the
proposed AD will address scribe-type
damage on the affected airplanes in a
timely manner. However, the NTSB is
concerned that this type of damage is
not limited to those airplanes, but could
be present on virtually every
pressurized airplane currently in
service. The NTSB urges the FAA to
examine similar rulemaking for other
makes and models of pressurized
airplanes.
We acknowledge the NTSB’s
concerns. This is a long-term durability
issue that is not limited to any
particular aircraft model. The effect on
each aircraft model will vary with each
model’s design characteristics and the
conditions to which they may be
operated. In support of this, we have
been in contact with other governing
regulatory agencies and other
manufacturers, and we may consider
E:\FR\FM\31MRR1.SGM
31MRR1
16212
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
further rulemaking applicable to other
airplanes as a result of these efforts.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Request To Allow SRM for Repairs
For repairing ‘‘typical’’ scribed areas,
this proposed AD would require
operators to contact the FAA for
approval of repairs. One commenter
(USAir) asserts that the Boeing 737
Structural Repair Manual (SRM)
provides several repair schemes for
localized damage at typical scribed
areas, and that omitting the SRM as a
repair option could result in many
requests for alternative methods of
compliance (AMOCs). Another
commenter (Japan Transocean Air)
requests approval of the SRM for
instructions for permanent rework of
tactile marks, if the SRM revises the
allowable damage limits for fuselage
skin.
We disagree with the requests. Merely
repairing the detected scribe lines may
be inadequate to address the identified
unsafe condition. Scribe damage has
been found to exceed well beyond the
region where it was originally
discovered by visual inspection. Current
SRM repairs may not be adequate
because of the nature of damage caused
by scribes. Scribe damage is
widespread, frequently concealed by the
upper skin of a lap splice, and thus
difficult or impossible to detect. At this
time, the SRM repairs for the scribed
areas do not address the widespread
nature of this type of damage and the
follow-up inspections that may be
required and therefore cannot be used.
We are currently working with Boeing
to develop repair schemes that may
address this issue. These efforts may
result in additional FAA methods of
compliance that provide clarification
and relief in future but are not available
at this time. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.
We partially agree with the requests.
Service Bulletins 737–53A1177, 737–
53–1168, and 737–53–1187, which were
developed to address a specific unsafe
condition, involve a significant level of
complexity. The actions specified in the
service bulletins might be adequate to
terminate the repetitive inspections in
certain areas; we may consider a
fleetwide AMOC presented by the
manufacturer as acceptable for
terminating action. In the meantime, we
may approve individual operator
requests for alternative repair methods
under the provisions of paragraph (p) in
this final rule, if the requests include
data that prove that the alternative
method would provide an acceptable
level of safety.
Request To Revise Cost Estimates
Several commenters (USAir, Alaska
Airlines, America West, and KLM)
allege that the figures provided in the
Costs of Compliance section of the
proposed AD do not accurately reflect
the actual cost to the airline industry.
The commenters assert that most
airplanes will need the exterior paint
stripped, and the surface prepared for
inspection and repainted. These
additional actions will add considerable
downtime to the inspection required by
this proposed AD. One commenter
suggests that either the Limited Return
to Service (LRTS) should be made less
complex or the work hours necessary for
planning and engineering should be
considered in the cost estimates. The
commenters add that the cost estimates
do not include the cost to repeat the
inspection or do any repairs if scribe
lines are found, which would result in
additional downtime for the airplanes
and a substantial impact on operations.
Therefore, the commenters request that
we revise the Costs of Compliance
section to reflect the whole effect of the
proposed AD on operators.
Request To Allow Other Service
We acknowledge the commenters’
Information for Repairs
concerns and recognize the additional
One commenter (USAir) suggests that preparatory work that could be involved
incorporation of Boeing Service Bulletin on some airplanes, but disagree with the
737–53A1177, 737–53–1168, or 737–53– requests. While the LRTS is indeed
1187, which would remove scribe lines
complex, it is not required. This option
from the entire skin panel, would
was intended to provide operators
flexibility in deciding the best
terminate the repetitive inspections of
compliance method for their fleet.
the area. Further, since these service
Moreover, the cost information included
bulletins are FAA approved and
in an AD describes only the direct costs
available, the commenter requests that
of the specific actions required by the
we revise the proposed AD to require
AD. Based on the best data available, the
operators to repair all discrepancies
found during the scribe line inspections manufacturer provided the number of
work hours necessary to do the required
in accordance with an approved FAA
method; or, alternatively, in accordance actions. We recognize that, in doing the
actions required by the AD, operators
with Service Bulletin 737–53A1177,
may incur incidental costs in addition
737–53–1168, or 737–53–1187, which
to the direct costs. The cost analysis in
would terminate the repetitive
AD rulemaking actions, however,
inspections of the repaired areas.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Mar 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
typically does not include incidental
costs such as the time for planning or
handling other administrative actions,
or gaining access and closing up. These
costs are almost impossible to calculate.
Also, the economic analysis of an AD
does not consider the costs of
conditional actions, such as repairing a
crack detected during a required
inspection. Such conditional repairs or
follow-on actions would be required—
regardless of AD direction—to correct
an unsafe condition identified in an
airplane and to ensure that the airplane
is operated in an airworthy condition, as
required by the Federal Aviation
Regulations.
Request To Refine Definition of ‘‘Scribe
Line’’
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–
53A1262, dated December 9, 2004 (cited
as the appropriate source of service
information for the actions of the
proposed AD), describes a scribe line as
damage up to 0.006 inch deep. Two
commenters (AWAS and Japan
Transocean Air) assert that the use of
this definition has led to many findings
of damage that had no appreciable
depth and therefore contributed to no
appreciable decrease in fatigue life, yet
resources were expended to repair or
repetitively inspect this damage to
accomplish the actions specified in this
service bulletin. Including a minimum
depth would eliminate many of these
positive findings and allow better use of
Boeing and FAA engineering resources
and decrease operators’ costs. Therefore,
the commenters request that a ‘‘typical
scribe’’ be further defined by including
a minimum measurement limit.
We acknowledge and share these
commenters’ concerns, but cannot
include the definitive criteria that these
commenters desire in this final rule
because of the complicated nature of the
definition of scribe lines. We do agree
that a better definition may enhance the
inspection process. To this end, we are
working with Boeing to develop and
present the criteria in a usable format.
These efforts may result in additional
FAA methods of compliance that
provide clarification and relief in the
future but are not available at this time.
We have not changed the final rule
regarding this issue.
Request To Delay AD Pending Issuance
of Repair Service Bulletin
The proposed AD does not provide for
repairs for scribe marks that are outside
the limits of Alert Service Bulletin 737–
53A1262. One commenter (Alaska
Airlines) notes that Boeing is in the
process of developing a new service
bulletin that will address many
E:\FR\FM\31MRR1.SGM
31MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
conditions that might be found during
the inspection. Therefore, the
commenter requests that we delay
issuing the final rule until repair
procedures are published in a new
service bulletin that addresses scribe
lines outside the limits addressed in
Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262.
The commenter recommends that the
final rule refer to this new, as yet
unpublished service bulletin as well as
Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262 for
repair procedures.
We disagree with the request. Boeing
has not yet developed a repair service
bulletin. To address the unsafe
condition in a timely manner, we must
proceed with inspection of the fleet for
this safety-related damage. When a
repair service bulletin becomes
available we anticipate it will be
approved through the AMOC process.
We have not changed the final rule
regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Inspection
Requirements for Certain Locations
One operator (Alaska Airlines)
requests that we revise the proposed AD
to exempt the inspection of the area
around the wing-to-body fairing if the
sealant has been removed in accordance
with the procedures in Appendix A of
Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262.
The commenter provides no further
explanation or technical justification for
the request.
We disagree with the request. The
wing-to-body fairings are removed more
often than the airplane is stripped and
repainted and are therefore subject to
many more scribe opportunities. The
sealant removal procedures documented
in Appendix A were not available before
the service bulletin was issued; the
subject area therefore will probably have
scribe lines. Considering the age of the
fleet and the frequency of fairing
removal for standard maintenance, this
exemption would not apply. We have
not changed the final rule regarding this
issue.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Request To Clarify Figure References
One commenter (Alaska Airlines)
notes an error in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Alert Service Bulletin
737–53A1262. The figure cited in Part 8,
step 3, should be Figure 39, not Figure
38. The figure cited in Part 9, step 3
[sic], should be Figure 38, not Figure 39.
We acknowledge these errors in the
service bulletin; however, the error in
Part 9 is in step 4. In this final rule, we
have clarified this requirement in new
paragraph (j) and renumbered
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Mar 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
Request To Clarify Certain Compliance
Times
One commenter (United Airlines)
identifies conflicting compliance times
in Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262
for the Figure 44 inspections as part of
the LRTS plan. The commenter observes
that Part 12, item 10.a.(4), recommends
doing the Figure 44 inspections between
40,000 and 45,000 flight cycles;
however, for airplanes with 40,000
flight cycles, Figure 40 specifies doing
a nondestructive test (NDT) inspection
before further flight. The commenter
requests that we clarify these
compliance thresholds.
The compliance times do not conflict
with each other but merely refer to
different stages of the overall program.
Figure 40 is part of the Special Lap Joint
inspections, which are required before
certain airplane-level scribe inspections;
these inspections take place for highercycle unmodified airplanes and allow
service to extend into the approved
4,500-flight-cycle grace period (as stated
in Figure 1 of the service bulletin). The
inspections specified in Part 12 of the
service bulletin occur after an airplanelevel inspection has identified scribe
damage. The inspection program in Part
12 allows continued operation with
ongoing inspections. Figure 44
identifies additional lap joint
inspections affiliated with this program.
We have not changed the AD regarding
this issue.
Request To Revise Inspection
Requirements for Decals
The proposed AD would require
inspection of areas where any decal,
regardless of size, has been removed.
One commenter (United Airlines)
requests that we address decals the
same way we address external repair
doublers for scribe inspections, i.e., that
we require inspections only for decal
edges with a dimension of 18 inches or
longer. The commenter considers that
decal damage would be equivalent to a
damaged external doubler of the same
size.
We disagree with the request.
Although the damage from decals may
be equivalent, unlike major repairs,
decals are easily removable without
leaving any indication of their size or
location. Additionally, operators may
not have detailed records regarding
decal application and removal so the
extent of possible damage would not be
known. However, according to the
provisions of paragraph (p) of the final
rule, we may approve requests for relief
from certain associated requirements, if
the operator’s records can conclusively
determine the decal dimensions and if
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16213
supporting data are provided that would
ensure an acceptable level of safety. We
have not changed the final rule
regarding this issue.
Requests To Remove Certain Inspection
Requirements Under Certain
Conditions
The proposed AD would require
inspection of the area under the dorsal
fin fairing. One commenter (United
Airlines) requests that this area be
treated the same as the wing-to-body
fairing; i.e., if the area under the dorsal
fin fairing has never been stripped or
repainted since delivery, then the scribe
inspection should not be required in
that area.
We agree. The area under the dorsal
fin fairing is similar to the area under
the wing-to-body fairing. We have
added new paragraph (k) in this final
rule to remove the requirement to
inspect that area, under the conditions
specified by the commenter. We have
reidentified subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.
The proposed AD specifies that no
inspections would be required where an
existing repair covers a potential scribe
line, provided the repair spans a
minimum of three rows of fasteners
beyond each side of the potential scribe
line location. One commenter (United
Airlines) requests that this provision be
revised to allow for a ten-inch extension
of the repair beyond the scribe damage,
instead of a three-row overlap. The
commenter contends that some existing
FAA-approved repairs do not meet the
three-row criteria. The commenter refers
to section 53–00–01, Figure 217, of the
Boeing 737 SRM. The commenter states
that the proposed AD criteria would add
a burden by requiring operators to
remove and replace existing FAAapproved repairs.
We disagree with the request to
change the inspection requirements for
those conditions. Repairs that span less
than three rows above and below
potential scribed areas will not provide
an adequate alternative load path for a
lap joint with a scribe. For repairs of
locations that do not meet the three-row
criteria, this AD requires operators to
contact the FAA for options to removing
the repair (i.e., through inspections), for
which operators may request AMOCs in
accordance with paragraph (p) of this
AD.
Request To Clarify Provisions for
Continued Operation with Scribe Lines
One commenter (America West)
requests that we revise the proposed AD
to clarify that Part 14 of the service
bulletin, while not mandatory, is an
FAA-approved method for continued
E:\FR\FM\31MRR1.SGM
31MRR1
16214
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
final rule. These additional paragraphs
do not require additional work by any
operator; therefore, we do not need to
revise the proposed AD to reopen the
period for public comment on this issue.
Request To Extend Certain Compliance
Times
One commenter, an operator (Delta
Air Lines), reports that a number of its
airplanes have been inspected using
procedures developed before Alert
Service Bulletin 737–53A1262 was
issued. The operator plans to request
AMOC approval for these procedures.
The commenter raises several questions
regarding compliance times for
submitting AMOCs and reports (of
cracks) for these airplanes, and requests
that we revise the proposed AD to
require a report within 30 days after the
AMOC is approved for those airplanes.
We disagree. Individual operator
deviations to the required inspection
and reporting procedures may be
handled as AMOCs, which operators
may request in accordance with
paragraph (p) of this AD. We have not
changed the final rule regarding this
issue.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
operation if scribe lines are found before
the compliance times.
We agree. We have explained this
provision in paragraph (g) in this final
rule.
Request To Emphasize Importance of
Crack Reports
Boeing requests that we revise the
proposed AD to describe the fleet
experience of numerous ‘‘false positive’’
indications, i.e., discrepancies that were
initially identified as cracks but were
upon further analysis determined not to
be cracks. Boeing also requests that we
recommend that operators submit
cracked parts to Boeing for analysis. In
support of these requests, Boeing asserts
that further analysis of crack findings
could change the compliance
specifications in Alert Service Bulletin
737–53A1262. Correctly identifying
cracks is imperative to reflect actual
fleet findings in any future changes to
the service bulletin. One operator
provided Boeing with nine cut-out
samples, which contained positive crack
indications based on ultrasonic
nondestructive inspections. However,
metallurgical analysis revealed no
cracks. Boeing emphasizes that potential
future changes to the compliance
requirements of the service bulletin
should be based on confirmed crack
findings—not positive crack indications,
which may be false positive findings.
We acknowledge Boeing’s concerns.
But we disagree with the request to
require operators to submit cracked
parts to Boeing. Although operators may
benefit from coordinated efforts to
minimize the number of false positive
results, requiring operators to send
cracked parts to Boeing will add to the
costs associated with this AD without
further enhancing safety. We have not
changed the final rule regarding this
issue.
Request To Clarify Service Bulletin
Instructions
Boeing requests that we revise the
proposed AD to address some
inadvertent omissions in Alert Service
Bulletin 737–53A1262.
1. Figure 37 is intended to identify
‘‘Restricted Zones’’ at door cutouts as
both the affected structure and Zone 1B.
However, Figure 37 does not identify
Zone 1B. This information is necessary
compliance information for Figure 1,
‘‘Compliance Threshold Calculation for
Zone 1.’’
2. Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, contain
two errors for Areas B, C, and E. Where
the service bulletin refers only to ‘‘areas
where the cutout modification shown in
Service Bulletin 737–53A1177 was
accomplished,’’ this text should be
followed by ‘‘or Zone 1B.’’ And the
phrase ‘‘[i]n areas where the cutout
modification shown in Service Bulletin
737–53A1177 was not accomplished’’
should be preceded by ‘‘For Zone 1A.’’
The commenter states that a 4,500flight-cycle grace period is incorporated
into the threshold calculation for
locations without potential multisite
damage (MSD), and a 1,200-cycle grace
period is incorporated into the
threshold calculations for locations with
potential MSD. Not subject to MSD,
Zone 1B locations are subject to the
4,500 cycles grace period only.
We agree with the requested changes.
We have clarified these omissions in
new paragraphs (l), (m), and (n) in this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Mar 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
Request To Extend Compliance Time
for Reporting
If the inspection reveals any cracks,
the proposed AD would require
operators to submit a report within 30
days after the inspection. Two operators
(Southwest Airlines and America West)
speculate that most airplanes will be
inspected at a heavy check maintenance
facility, and that obtaining the
information for the report could take
longer than 30 days. The commenters
request that we revise the proposed AD
to require reports within 30 days after
the airplane is returned to service,
rather than 30 days after the inspection.
In light of the issue described above,
we do not find it appropriate to change
this compliance time. The purpose of
the report is to gather timely
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
information on crack findings. Heavy
checks can take a long time, and
delaying the report until the end of the
heavy check could defeat the purpose of
the report. Further, this AD requires a
report only when cracks are found, so a
report will likely not be necessary for all
airplanes.
Requests To More Accurately Describe
Corrective Actions
As written, paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD would require operators to
repair scribe lines and cracks. Two
commenters note that appropriate
corrective actions for scribe lines may
also include further inspections. Boeing
requests that we distinguish the
corrective actions in paragraph (h) to
identify both inspections and repairs, as
applicable. Another commenter (Delta
Air Lines) requests that we replace
‘‘repair’’ with ‘‘inspection/repair’’ in
paragraph (k)(2) of the proposed AD.
We partially agree that clarification
may be necessary. We have revised
paragraph (h) accordingly in this final
rule. But we cannot revise paragraph
(p)(3) (paragraph (k)(2) in the proposed
AD) because Boeing authorized
representatives for the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Delegation
Option Authorization Organization are
not delegated to approve changes to
inspection programs.
Request To Allow Previous FAAApproved Repairs
One commenter (Alaska Airlines)
requests that we revise the proposed AD
to address scribed areas repaired before
the effective date of the AD in
accordance with a method approved by
the FAA. The commenter states that the
proposed AD would not allow
previously approved repairs for scribe
lines as AMOCs.
We agree. New paragraph (p)(4) in
this AD provides AMOC credit for
repairs approved by the Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) or a Boeing
Company designated engineering
representative or authorized
representative, via FAA Form 8110–3 or
8100–9 issued before the effective date
of this AD, provided the repair plan
specifically addressed scribe line
damage as stated in the title of the form.
Request To Clarify Requirements for
Demonstrating Compliance
One commenter (KLM) notes that the
initial inspection thresholds and the
LRTS inspection intervals are based on
the first scribing opportunity, which the
commenter contends is basically the
first repainting. The commenter adds
that maintenance records may show the
dates an airplane has been repainted,
E:\FR\FM\31MRR1.SGM
31MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
but not the order of the repainting (first
repainting, second, etc.). The
commenter surmises that, if the date of
the first repainting cannot be
determined, the airplane must be
inspected before the airplane
accumulates 5,000 total flight cycles. To
avoid defaulting to this threshold, the
commenter asks how an operator can
prove that a certain repainting was the
first for a specific airplane. The
commenter requests that we revise the
proposed AD to include this
consideration in the definition of the
‘‘first scribing opportunity.’’
We disagree with the request. Each
operator’s system of records will vary in
detail, scope, and retrievability;
developing a standard protocol would
most likely burden rather than help
operators. An operator’s showing of
compliance regarding maintenance
records will vary based on whether the
operator has owned the airplane since it
was delivered from Boeing or purchased
it from another source. Any operator
who owned the airplane since delivery
from Boeing may be able to determine
the date of the first repainting and the
extent of work performed such as a
complete stripping or a scuff-and-paint
operation. If the airplane has a
maintenance history from a previous
owner/operator, then assembling
complete repainting records might be
more difficult. The level of detail for
recording maintenance such as painting
varies from operator to operator
depending on acceptability by local
airworthiness authorities; a standard
protocol would be impossible to
develop. Individual operators should
contact their airworthiness authorities
for a showing of compliance. We have
not changed the final rule regarding this
issue.
Request To Revise Inspection
Requirement
One commenter (Air North) requests
that the present level of inspection be
permitted to monitor the condition of
the pressure skin per Boeing SB 737–
53A1177 until the lap splice terminating
action, at 1200 flight cycles (LFEC), with
250-flight-hour visual inspections.
We have worked extensively with
Boeing to align this AD’s inspection and
LRTS program with existing inspection
and modification programs on the 737
Classic fuselage skin. We do not find it
necessary to further revise the proposed
inspection program. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (p) in this final
rule, we may approve requests for
AMOCs that include data substantiating
that the alternative method would
provide an acceptable level of safety.
We have not changed the final rule
regarding this issue.
Request To Advise of Related ADs
One commenter (Delta Air Lines)
notes that Part 1, Step 2 (Zone 1
Threshold Determination and PreThreshold Special Lap Joint
Inspections), of the Work Instructions of
Service Bulletin 737–53A1262 refers to
‘‘Special Lap Joint Inspections in
Paragraph 1.E., Compliance.’’ The
inspections that appear as Special Lap
Joint Inspection (1) are related to AD
2002–07–08, amendment 39–12702 (67
FR 17917, April 12, 2002). The
inspections that appear as Special Lap
Joint Inspection (2) are related to AD
2003–08–15, amendment 39–13128 (68
FR 20341, April 25, 2003).
We infer that the commenter requests
that we revise paragraph (b) (‘‘Affected
ADs’’) of the proposed AD to give credit
for actions accomplished as part of other
16215
related airworthiness directives. We
disagree. Although the actions in all
three ADs are the same, the compliance
times and in some cases the affected
airplanes are different. For some
airplanes, the inspections of this AD
may be required before the compliance
times required by the other cited ADs.
If an operator finds that actions
accomplished for one AD should be
credited to another AD, we will evaluate
and approve requests for credit on a
case-by-case basis, based on a showing
of an acceptable level of safety.
Additional Changes to Proposed AD
We have simplified paragraph (h) in
this final rule by referring to the
‘‘Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)’’ paragraph of this AD for
repair methods.
We have revised this action to clarify
the appropriate procedure for notifying
the principal inspector before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the
available data, including the comments
received, 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 3,132 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet.
The following table provides the
estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Zone
Action
1 .......
Sealant removal ........................................................................
Inspection ..................................................................................
Sealant removal ........................................................................
Inspection ..................................................................................
Sealant removal ........................................................................
Inspection ..................................................................................
2 .......
3 .......
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Mar 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
Work hours
Average
labor rate
per hour
66
4
38
29
88
38
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
$65
65
65
65
65
65
Cost per
airplane
$4,290
260
2,470
1,885
5,720
2,470
Number of
U.S.registered
airplanes
1,384
1,384
1,384
1,384
1,384
1,384
Fleet cost
$5,937,360
359,840
3,418,480
2,608,840
7,916,480
3,418,480
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
E:\FR\FM\31MRR1.SGM
31MRR1
16216
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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 and placed it in the AD docket.
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 Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
I
2006–07–12 Boeing: Amendment 39–14539.
Docket No. FAA–2005–20918;
Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–269–AD.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective May 5, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model
737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500
series airplanes, certificated in any category.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Mar 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from reports of fuselage
skin cracks adjacent to the skin lap joints on
airplanes that had scribe lines. Scribe line
damage can also occur at many other
locations, including butt joints, external
doublers, door scuff plates, the wing-to-body
fairing, and areas of the fuselage where
decals have been applied or removed. We are
issuing this AD to prevent rapid
decompression of the airplane due to fatigue
cracks resulting from scribe lines on
pressurized fuselage structure.
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) Do a detailed inspection for scribe lines
and cracks in the fuselage skin at certain lap
joints, butt joints, external repair doublers,
and other areas, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated
December 9, 2004, except as provided by
paragraphs (g), (j), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of this
AD. Do the actions at the time specified in
paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of the service
bulletin, except as required by paragraph (i)
of this AD. Acceptable inspection
exemptions are described in paragraph 1.E.1.
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–
53A1262.
(1) If no scribe line is found, no further
work is required by this AD.
(2) If any scribe line is found: Do all
applicable investigative and corrective
actions at the time specified by doing all
applicable actions specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin, except as required by paragraph (h)
of this AD.
Note 1: A detailed inspection is defined in
Note 10 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–
53A1262 under 3.A., ‘‘General Information.’’
Specific magnification requirements may be
specified in the steps of the Work
Instructions.
Exceptions to and Clarification of Service
Bulletin 737–53A1262 Procedures
(g) This AD requires accomplishment of
Parts 1 through 11 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated December 9,
2004. Parts 12 and 13 of the service bulletin
may be accomplished, if applicable, to allow
temporary return to service. This AD does
not require accomplishment of Part 14 of the
service bulletin, although the FAA-approved
procedures described in Part 14 are
acceptable for continued operation with
scribe lines found before the applicable
compliance time.
(h) If any scribe line or crack is found
during any inspection required by this AD,
and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–
53A1262, dated December 9, 2004, specifies
to contact Boeing for appropriate action:
Before further flight, inspect or repair scribe
lines and repair cracks using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737–53A1262, dated December 9, 2004,
specifies a compliance time after the issuance
of the service bulletin, this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance
time after the effective date of this AD.
(j) Certain figures are incorrectly identified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–
53A1262, dated December 9, 2004. The figure
cited in Part 8, step 3, should be Figure 39,
not Figure 38. The figure cited in Part 9, step
4, should be Figure 38, not Figure 39.
(k) If the operator’s records show that the
airplane has never been stripped and
repainted under the dorsal fin fairing since
delivery from Boeing, then this AD does not
require inspections of the butt joint, lap joint,
and repair, as specified in paragraph (f) of
this AD, in the areas under the dorsal fin
fairing.
(l) Figure 37 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated December 9,
2004, defines ‘‘Restricted Zones’’ at door
cutouts as the only affected structure. This
AD considers this area to also include Zone
1B.
(m) In Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated
December 9, 2004, the first condition for the
initial compliance threshold for Areas B, C,
and E is for areas where the cutout
modification shown in Boeing Service
Bulletin 737–53A1177 was accomplished.
This AD considers this condition to also
include Zone 1B.
(n) In Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated
December 9, 2004, the second condition for
the initial compliance threshold for Areas B,
C, and E is for areas where the cutout
modification shown in Boeing Service
Bulletin 737–53A1177 was not
accomplished. This AD considers this
condition to apply only to Zone 1A.
Reporting Requirement
(o) At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this AD, submit
a report of positive findings of cracks found
during the inspection required by paragraph
(f) of this AD to the Boeing Commercial
Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207. Alternatively,
operators may submit reports to their Boeing
field service representatives. The report shall
contain, as a minimum, the following
information: airplane serial number, flight
cycles at time of discovery, location(s) and
extent of positive crack findings. Under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection
requirements contained in this AD and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.
(1) If the inspection was done before the
effective date of this AD: Send the report
within 30 days after the effective date of this
AD.
(2) If the inspection was done after the
effective date of this AD: Send the report
within 30 days after the inspection is done.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(p)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
E:\FR\FM\31MRR1.SGM
31MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
the appropriate principal inspector in the
FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding
District Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair
required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative (AR) for the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation
Option Authorization 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 refer to this AD.
(4) A repair plan approved by a Boeing
Company AR or Designated Engineering
Representative before the effective date of
this AD is acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2) and (h) of
this AD, provided the approval was
documented via FAA Form 8110–3 or 8100–
9, and identified scribe line damage in the
title of the form.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(q) You must use Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated December 9,
2004, to perform the actions that are required
by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by
reference of this document in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O.
Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207,
for a copy of this service information. You
may review copies at the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL–401,
Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the
Internet at https://dms.dot.gov; or at 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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March
20, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 06–3066 Filed 3–30–06; 8:45 am]
hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. FAA–2005–19411; SFAR No.
105]
RIN 2120–AI47
Reservation System for Unscheduled
Arrivals at Chicago’s O’Hare
International Airport
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; extension of
expiration date.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action extends the
expiration date of Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 105
through October 28, 2006. This action is
necessary to maintain the reservation
system established for unscheduled
arrivals at O’Hare International Airport
while the FAA completes rulemaking
associated with scheduled arrivals at the
airport.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
March 27, 2006, and SFAR No. 105
published at 70 FR 39610 (July 8, 2005),
as amended in this rule, shall remain in
effect until October 28, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gerry Shakley, System Operations
Services, Air Traffic Organization;
Telephone: (202) 267–9424; E-mail:
gerry.shakley@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using
the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of
Transportation’s electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page
(https://dms.dot.gov/search);
(1) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(2) Accessing the Government
Printing Office’s Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending a
request to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to
identify the amendment number or
docket number of this rulemaking.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with
small entity requests for information or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Mar 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16217
advice about compliance with statutes
and regulations within its jurisdiction.
Therefore, any small entity that has a
question regarding this document may
contact their local FAA official, or the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out
more about SBREFA on the Internet at
our site, https://www.faa.gov/
regulations_policies/rulemaking/
sbre_act/.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The U.S. Government has exclusive
sovereignty over the airspace of the
United States.1 Under this broad
authority, Congress has delegated to the
Administrator extensive and plenary
authority to ensure the safety of aircraft
and the efficient use of the Nation’s
navigable airspace. In this regard, the
Administrator is required to assign by
regulation or order use of the airspace
to ensure its efficient use.2
The FAA’s broad statutory authority
to manage the efficient use of airspace
encompasses management of the
nationwide system of air commerce and
air traffic control. To ensure the efficient
use of the airspace, the FAA must take
steps to prevent congestion at an airport
from disrupting or adversely affecting
the air traffic system for which the FAA
is responsible. Inordinate delays of the
sort experienced at O’Hare in late 2003
and much of 2004 can have a crippling
effect on other parts of the system,
causing significant losses in time and
money for individuals and businesses,
as well as the air carriers and other
operators at O’Hare and beyond. This
rule facilitates the Agency’s exercise of
its authority to manage the safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace.
Background
Since November 2003, O’Hare has
suffered an inordinate and unacceptable
number of delays as the result of overscheduling at the airport, which was
also having a crippling effect on the
entire National Airspace System. In
August 2004, the FAA intervened by
ordering a limit on the number of
scheduled arrivals at the airport during
the peak operating hours of 7:00 a.m.
through 8:59 p.m., Central Time,
effective November 1, 2004, so that the
system could return to a reasonably
balanced level of operations and delay.3
On October 20, 2004, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
seeking public comments on a proposed
reservation system for unscheduled
1 49
U.S.C. 40103(a).
U.S.C. 40103(b)(1).
3 Operating Limitations at Chicago International
Airport. Docket No. FAA–2004–16944.
2 49
E:\FR\FM\31MRR1.SGM
31MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16211-16217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3066]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2005-20918; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-269-AD;
Amendment 39-14539; AD 2006-07-12]
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 all
Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This AD requires a one-time inspection for scribe lines and
cracks in the fuselage skin at certain lap joints, butt joints,
external repair doublers, and other areas; and related investigative/
corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of
fuselage skin cracks adjacent to the skin lap joints on airplanes that
had scribe lines. Scribe line damage can also occur at many other
locations, including butt joints, external doublers, door scuff plates,
the wing-to-body fairing, and areas of the fuselage where decals have
been applied or removed. We are issuing this AD to prevent rapid
decompression of the airplane due to fatigue cracks resulting from
scribe lines on pressurized fuselage structure.
DATES: This AD becomes effective May 5, 2006.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 5, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
room PL-401, Washington, DC.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, PO Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425) 917-6438; fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Examining the Docket
You may examine the airworthiness directive (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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.
Discussion
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 737-
100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2005 (70 FR 22272). That
NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection for scribe lines and
cracks in the fuselage skin at certain lap joints, butt joints,
external repair doublers, and other areas; and related investigative/
corrective actions if necessary.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Support for Proposed AD
One commenter (AWAS Aviation Services) agrees that fatigue cracks
on the fuselage should be addressed in a suitable time period. The
commenter considers the proposed compliance time acceptable.
Request To Consider Similar Rulemaking for Other Airplanes
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) believes that the
proposed AD will address scribe-type damage on the affected airplanes
in a timely manner. However, the NTSB is concerned that this type of
damage is not limited to those airplanes, but could be present on
virtually every pressurized airplane currently in service. The NTSB
urges the FAA to examine similar rulemaking for other makes and models
of pressurized airplanes.
We acknowledge the NTSB's concerns. This is a long-term durability
issue that is not limited to any particular aircraft model. The effect
on each aircraft model will vary with each model's design
characteristics and the conditions to which they may be operated. In
support of this, we have been in contact with other governing
regulatory agencies and other manufacturers, and we may consider
[[Page 16212]]
further rulemaking applicable to other airplanes as a result of these
efforts.
Request To Allow SRM for Repairs
For repairing ``typical'' scribed areas, this proposed AD would
require operators to contact the FAA for approval of repairs. One
commenter (USAir) asserts that the Boeing 737 Structural Repair Manual
(SRM) provides several repair schemes for localized damage at typical
scribed areas, and that omitting the SRM as a repair option could
result in many requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs).
Another commenter (Japan Transocean Air) requests approval of the SRM
for instructions for permanent rework of tactile marks, if the SRM
revises the allowable damage limits for fuselage skin.
We disagree with the requests. Merely repairing the detected scribe
lines may be inadequate to address the identified unsafe condition.
Scribe damage has been found to exceed well beyond the region where it
was originally discovered by visual inspection. Current SRM repairs may
not be adequate because of the nature of damage caused by scribes.
Scribe damage is widespread, frequently concealed by the upper skin of
a lap splice, and thus difficult or impossible to detect. At this time,
the SRM repairs for the scribed areas do not address the widespread
nature of this type of damage and the follow-up inspections that may be
required and therefore cannot be used. We are currently working with
Boeing to develop repair schemes that may address this issue. These
efforts may result in additional FAA methods of compliance that provide
clarification and relief in future but are not available at this time.
We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Allow Other Service Information for Repairs
One commenter (USAir) suggests that incorporation of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53A1177, 737-53-1168, or 737-53-1187, which would remove
scribe lines from the entire skin panel, would terminate the repetitive
inspections of the area. Further, since these service bulletins are FAA
approved and available, the commenter requests that we revise the
proposed AD to require operators to repair all discrepancies found
during the scribe line inspections in accordance with an approved FAA
method; or, alternatively, in accordance with Service Bulletin 737-
53A1177, 737-53-1168, or 737-53-1187, which would terminate the
repetitive inspections of the repaired areas.
We partially agree with the requests. Service Bulletins 737-
53A1177, 737-53-1168, and 737-53-1187, which were developed to address
a specific unsafe condition, involve a significant level of complexity.
The actions specified in the service bulletins might be adequate to
terminate the repetitive inspections in certain areas; we may consider
a fleetwide AMOC presented by the manufacturer as acceptable for
terminating action. In the meantime, we may approve individual operator
requests for alternative repair methods under the provisions of
paragraph (p) in this final rule, if the requests include data that
prove that the alternative method would provide an acceptable level of
safety.
Request To Revise Cost Estimates
Several commenters (USAir, Alaska Airlines, America West, and KLM)
allege that the figures provided in the Costs of Compliance section of
the proposed AD do not accurately reflect the actual cost to the
airline industry. The commenters assert that most airplanes will need
the exterior paint stripped, and the surface prepared for inspection
and repainted. These additional actions will add considerable downtime
to the inspection required by this proposed AD. One commenter suggests
that either the Limited Return to Service (LRTS) should be made less
complex or the work hours necessary for planning and engineering should
be considered in the cost estimates. The commenters add that the cost
estimates do not include the cost to repeat the inspection or do any
repairs if scribe lines are found, which would result in additional
downtime for the airplanes and a substantial impact on operations.
Therefore, the commenters request that we revise the Costs of
Compliance section to reflect the whole effect of the proposed AD on
operators.
We acknowledge the commenters' concerns and recognize the
additional preparatory work that could be involved on some airplanes,
but disagree with the requests. While the LRTS is indeed complex, it is
not required. This option was intended to provide operators flexibility
in deciding the best compliance method for their fleet. Moreover, the
cost information included in an AD describes only the direct costs of
the specific actions required by the AD. Based on the best data
available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours necessary
to do the required actions. We recognize that, in doing the actions
required by the AD, operators may incur incidental costs in addition to
the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however,
typically does not include incidental costs such as the time for
planning or handling other administrative actions, or gaining access
and closing up. These costs are almost impossible to calculate. Also,
the economic analysis of an AD does not consider the costs of
conditional actions, such as repairing a crack detected during a
required inspection. Such conditional repairs or follow-on actions
would be required--regardless of AD direction--to correct an unsafe
condition identified in an airplane and to ensure that the airplane is
operated in an airworthy condition, as required by the Federal Aviation
Regulations.
Request To Refine Definition of ``Scribe Line''
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262, dated December 9, 2004
(cited as the appropriate source of service information for the actions
of the proposed AD), describes a scribe line as damage up to 0.006 inch
deep. Two commenters (AWAS and Japan Transocean Air) assert that the
use of this definition has led to many findings of damage that had no
appreciable depth and therefore contributed to no appreciable decrease
in fatigue life, yet resources were expended to repair or repetitively
inspect this damage to accomplish the actions specified in this service
bulletin. Including a minimum depth would eliminate many of these
positive findings and allow better use of Boeing and FAA engineering
resources and decrease operators' costs. Therefore, the commenters
request that a ``typical scribe'' be further defined by including a
minimum measurement limit.
We acknowledge and share these commenters' concerns, but cannot
include the definitive criteria that these commenters desire in this
final rule because of the complicated nature of the definition of
scribe lines. We do agree that a better definition may enhance the
inspection process. To this end, we are working with Boeing to develop
and present the criteria in a usable format. These efforts may result
in additional FAA methods of compliance that provide clarification and
relief in the future but are not available at this time. We have not
changed the final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Delay AD Pending Issuance of Repair Service Bulletin
The proposed AD does not provide for repairs for scribe marks that
are outside the limits of Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262. One
commenter (Alaska Airlines) notes that Boeing is in the process of
developing a new service bulletin that will address many
[[Page 16213]]
conditions that might be found during the inspection. Therefore, the
commenter requests that we delay issuing the final rule until repair
procedures are published in a new service bulletin that addresses
scribe lines outside the limits addressed in Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1262. The commenter recommends that the final rule refer to this
new, as yet unpublished service bulletin as well as Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1262 for repair procedures.
We disagree with the request. Boeing has not yet developed a repair
service bulletin. To address the unsafe condition in a timely manner,
we must proceed with inspection of the fleet for this safety-related
damage. When a repair service bulletin becomes available we anticipate
it will be approved through the AMOC process. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Inspection Requirements for Certain Locations
One operator (Alaska Airlines) requests that we revise the proposed
AD to exempt the inspection of the area around the wing-to-body fairing
if the sealant has been removed in accordance with the procedures in
Appendix A of Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262. The commenter
provides no further explanation or technical justification for the
request.
We disagree with the request. The wing-to-body fairings are removed
more often than the airplane is stripped and repainted and are
therefore subject to many more scribe opportunities. The sealant
removal procedures documented in Appendix A were not available before
the service bulletin was issued; the subject area therefore will
probably have scribe lines. Considering the age of the fleet and the
frequency of fairing removal for standard maintenance, this exemption
would not apply. We have not changed the final rule regarding this
issue.
Request To Clarify Figure References
One commenter (Alaska Airlines) notes an error in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262. The
figure cited in Part 8, step 3, should be Figure 39, not Figure 38. The
figure cited in Part 9, step 3 [sic], should be Figure 38, not Figure
39.
We acknowledge these errors in the service bulletin; however, the
error in Part 9 is in step 4. In this final rule, we have clarified
this requirement in new paragraph (j) and renumbered subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.
Request To Clarify Certain Compliance Times
One commenter (United Airlines) identifies conflicting compliance
times in Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262 for the Figure 44
inspections as part of the LRTS plan. The commenter observes that Part
12, item 10.a.(4), recommends doing the Figure 44 inspections between
40,000 and 45,000 flight cycles; however, for airplanes with 40,000
flight cycles, Figure 40 specifies doing a nondestructive test (NDT)
inspection before further flight. The commenter requests that we
clarify these compliance thresholds.
The compliance times do not conflict with each other but merely
refer to different stages of the overall program. Figure 40 is part of
the Special Lap Joint inspections, which are required before certain
airplane-level scribe inspections; these inspections take place for
higher-cycle unmodified airplanes and allow service to extend into the
approved 4,500-flight-cycle grace period (as stated in Figure 1 of the
service bulletin). The inspections specified in Part 12 of the service
bulletin occur after an airplane-level inspection has identified scribe
damage. The inspection program in Part 12 allows continued operation
with ongoing inspections. Figure 44 identifies additional lap joint
inspections affiliated with this program. We have not changed the AD
regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Inspection Requirements for Decals
The proposed AD would require inspection of areas where any decal,
regardless of size, has been removed. One commenter (United Airlines)
requests that we address decals the same way we address external repair
doublers for scribe inspections, i.e., that we require inspections only
for decal edges with a dimension of 18 inches or longer. The commenter
considers that decal damage would be equivalent to a damaged external
doubler of the same size.
We disagree with the request. Although the damage from decals may
be equivalent, unlike major repairs, decals are easily removable
without leaving any indication of their size or location. Additionally,
operators may not have detailed records regarding decal application and
removal so the extent of possible damage would not be known. However,
according to the provisions of paragraph (p) of the final rule, we may
approve requests for relief from certain associated requirements, if
the operator's records can conclusively determine the decal dimensions
and if supporting data are provided that would ensure an acceptable
level of safety. We have not changed the final rule regarding this
issue.
Requests To Remove Certain Inspection Requirements Under Certain
Conditions
The proposed AD would require inspection of the area under the
dorsal fin fairing. One commenter (United Airlines) requests that this
area be treated the same as the wing-to-body fairing; i.e., if the area
under the dorsal fin fairing has never been stripped or repainted since
delivery, then the scribe inspection should not be required in that
area.
We agree. The area under the dorsal fin fairing is similar to the
area under the wing-to-body fairing. We have added new paragraph (k) in
this final rule to remove the requirement to inspect that area, under
the conditions specified by the commenter. We have reidentified
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
The proposed AD specifies that no inspections would be required
where an existing repair covers a potential scribe line, provided the
repair spans a minimum of three rows of fasteners beyond each side of
the potential scribe line location. One commenter (United Airlines)
requests that this provision be revised to allow for a ten-inch
extension of the repair beyond the scribe damage, instead of a three-
row overlap. The commenter contends that some existing FAA-approved
repairs do not meet the three-row criteria. The commenter refers to
section 53-00-01, Figure 217, of the Boeing 737 SRM. The commenter
states that the proposed AD criteria would add a burden by requiring
operators to remove and replace existing FAA-approved repairs.
We disagree with the request to change the inspection requirements
for those conditions. Repairs that span less than three rows above and
below potential scribed areas will not provide an adequate alternative
load path for a lap joint with a scribe. For repairs of locations that
do not meet the three-row criteria, this AD requires operators to
contact the FAA for options to removing the repair (i.e., through
inspections), for which operators may request AMOCs in accordance with
paragraph (p) of this AD.
Request To Clarify Provisions for Continued Operation with Scribe Lines
One commenter (America West) requests that we revise the proposed
AD to clarify that Part 14 of the service bulletin, while not
mandatory, is an FAA-approved method for continued
[[Page 16214]]
operation if scribe lines are found before the compliance times.
We agree. We have explained this provision in paragraph (g) in this
final rule.
Request To Extend Certain Compliance Times
One commenter, an operator (Delta Air Lines), reports that a number
of its airplanes have been inspected using procedures developed before
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262 was issued. The operator plans to
request AMOC approval for these procedures. The commenter raises
several questions regarding compliance times for submitting AMOCs and
reports (of cracks) for these airplanes, and requests that we revise
the proposed AD to require a report within 30 days after the AMOC is
approved for those airplanes.
We disagree. Individual operator deviations to the required
inspection and reporting procedures may be handled as AMOCs, which
operators may request in accordance with paragraph (p) of this AD. We
have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Clarify Service Bulletin Instructions
Boeing requests that we revise the proposed AD to address some
inadvertent omissions in Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262.
1. Figure 37 is intended to identify ``Restricted Zones'' at door
cutouts as both the affected structure and Zone 1B. However, Figure 37
does not identify Zone 1B. This information is necessary compliance
information for Figure 1, ``Compliance Threshold Calculation for Zone
1.''
2. Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, contain two errors for Areas B, C, and
E. Where the service bulletin refers only to ``areas where the cutout
modification shown in Service Bulletin 737-53A1177 was accomplished,''
this text should be followed by ``or Zone 1B.'' And the phrase ``[i]n
areas where the cutout modification shown in Service Bulletin 737-
53A1177 was not accomplished'' should be preceded by ``For Zone 1A.''
The commenter states that a 4,500-flight-cycle grace period is
incorporated into the threshold calculation for locations without
potential multisite damage (MSD), and a 1,200-cycle grace period is
incorporated into the threshold calculations for locations with
potential MSD. Not subject to MSD, Zone 1B locations are subject to the
4,500 cycles grace period only.
We agree with the requested changes. We have clarified these
omissions in new paragraphs (l), (m), and (n) in this final rule. These
additional paragraphs do not require additional work by any operator;
therefore, we do not need to revise the proposed AD to reopen the
period for public comment on this issue.
Request To Emphasize Importance of Crack Reports
Boeing requests that we revise the proposed AD to describe the
fleet experience of numerous ``false positive'' indications, i.e.,
discrepancies that were initially identified as cracks but were upon
further analysis determined not to be cracks. Boeing also requests that
we recommend that operators submit cracked parts to Boeing for
analysis. In support of these requests, Boeing asserts that further
analysis of crack findings could change the compliance specifications
in Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262. Correctly identifying cracks is
imperative to reflect actual fleet findings in any future changes to
the service bulletin. One operator provided Boeing with nine cut-out
samples, which contained positive crack indications based on ultrasonic
nondestructive inspections. However, metallurgical analysis revealed no
cracks. Boeing emphasizes that potential future changes to the
compliance requirements of the service bulletin should be based on
confirmed crack findings--not positive crack indications, which may be
false positive findings.
We acknowledge Boeing's concerns. But we disagree with the request
to require operators to submit cracked parts to Boeing. Although
operators may benefit from coordinated efforts to minimize the number
of false positive results, requiring operators to send cracked parts to
Boeing will add to the costs associated with this AD without further
enhancing safety. We have not changed the final rule regarding this
issue.
Request To Extend Compliance Time for Reporting
If the inspection reveals any cracks, the proposed AD would require
operators to submit a report within 30 days after the inspection. Two
operators (Southwest Airlines and America West) speculate that most
airplanes will be inspected at a heavy check maintenance facility, and
that obtaining the information for the report could take longer than 30
days. The commenters request that we revise the proposed AD to require
reports within 30 days after the airplane is returned to service,
rather than 30 days after the inspection.
In light of the issue described above, we do not find it
appropriate to change this compliance time. The purpose of the report
is to gather timely information on crack findings. Heavy checks can
take a long time, and delaying the report until the end of the heavy
check could defeat the purpose of the report. Further, this AD requires
a report only when cracks are found, so a report will likely not be
necessary for all airplanes.
Requests To More Accurately Describe Corrective Actions
As written, paragraph (h) of the proposed AD would require
operators to repair scribe lines and cracks. Two commenters note that
appropriate corrective actions for scribe lines may also include
further inspections. Boeing requests that we distinguish the corrective
actions in paragraph (h) to identify both inspections and repairs, as
applicable. Another commenter (Delta Air Lines) requests that we
replace ``repair'' with ``inspection/repair'' in paragraph (k)(2) of
the proposed AD.
We partially agree that clarification may be necessary. We have
revised paragraph (h) accordingly in this final rule. But we cannot
revise paragraph (p)(3) (paragraph (k)(2) in the proposed AD) because
Boeing authorized representatives for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization are not delegated to
approve changes to inspection programs.
Request To Allow Previous FAA-Approved Repairs
One commenter (Alaska Airlines) requests that we revise the
proposed AD to address scribed areas repaired before the effective date
of the AD in accordance with a method approved by the FAA. The
commenter states that the proposed AD would not allow previously
approved repairs for scribe lines as AMOCs.
We agree. New paragraph (p)(4) in this AD provides AMOC credit for
repairs approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) or
a Boeing Company designated engineering representative or authorized
representative, via FAA Form 8110-3 or 8100-9 issued before the
effective date of this AD, provided the repair plan specifically
addressed scribe line damage as stated in the title of the form.
Request To Clarify Requirements for Demonstrating Compliance
One commenter (KLM) notes that the initial inspection thresholds
and the LRTS inspection intervals are based on the first scribing
opportunity, which the commenter contends is basically the first
repainting. The commenter adds that maintenance records may show the
dates an airplane has been repainted,
[[Page 16215]]
but not the order of the repainting (first repainting, second, etc.).
The commenter surmises that, if the date of the first repainting cannot
be determined, the airplane must be inspected before the airplane
accumulates 5,000 total flight cycles. To avoid defaulting to this
threshold, the commenter asks how an operator can prove that a certain
repainting was the first for a specific airplane. The commenter
requests that we revise the proposed AD to include this consideration
in the definition of the ``first scribing opportunity.''
We disagree with the request. Each operator's system of records
will vary in detail, scope, and retrievability; developing a standard
protocol would most likely burden rather than help operators. An
operator's showing of compliance regarding maintenance records will
vary based on whether the operator has owned the airplane since it was
delivered from Boeing or purchased it from another source. Any operator
who owned the airplane since delivery from Boeing may be able to
determine the date of the first repainting and the extent of work
performed such as a complete stripping or a scuff-and-paint operation.
If the airplane has a maintenance history from a previous owner/
operator, then assembling complete repainting records might be more
difficult. The level of detail for recording maintenance such as
painting varies from operator to operator depending on acceptability by
local airworthiness authorities; a standard protocol would be
impossible to develop. Individual operators should contact their
airworthiness authorities for a showing of compliance. We have not
changed the final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Inspection Requirement
One commenter (Air North) requests that the present level of
inspection be permitted to monitor the condition of the pressure skin
per Boeing SB 737-53A1177 until the lap splice terminating action, at
1200 flight cycles (LFEC), with 250-flight-hour visual inspections.
We have worked extensively with Boeing to align this AD's
inspection and LRTS program with existing inspection and modification
programs on the 737 Classic fuselage skin. We do not find it necessary
to further revise the proposed inspection program. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (p) in this final rule, we may approve requests
for AMOCs that include data substantiating that the alternative method
would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Advise of Related ADs
One commenter (Delta Air Lines) notes that Part 1, Step 2 (Zone 1
Threshold Determination and Pre-Threshold Special Lap Joint
Inspections), of the Work Instructions of Service Bulletin 737-53A1262
refers to ``Special Lap Joint Inspections in Paragraph 1.E.,
Compliance.'' The inspections that appear as Special Lap Joint
Inspection (1) are related to AD 2002-07-08, amendment 39-12702 (67 FR
17917, April 12, 2002). The inspections that appear as Special Lap
Joint Inspection (2) are related to AD 2003-08-15, amendment 39-13128
(68 FR 20341, April 25, 2003).
We infer that the commenter requests that we revise paragraph (b)
(``Affected ADs'') of the proposed AD to give credit for actions
accomplished as part of other related airworthiness directives. We
disagree. Although the actions in all three ADs are the same, the
compliance times and in some cases the affected airplanes are
different. For some airplanes, the inspections of this AD may be
required before the compliance times required by the other cited ADs.
If an operator finds that actions accomplished for one AD should be
credited to another AD, we will evaluate and approve requests for
credit on a case-by-case basis, based on a showing of an acceptable
level of safety.
Additional Changes to Proposed AD
We have simplified paragraph (h) in this final rule by referring to
the ``Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)'' paragraph of this AD
for repair methods.
We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure
for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, 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 3,132 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Average Cost per U.S.-
Zone Action Work hours labor rate airplane registered Fleet cost
per hour airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................. Sealant removal........... 66 $65 $4,290 1,384 $5,937,360
Inspection................ 4 65 260 1,384 359,840
2.................. Sealant removal........... 38 65 2,470 1,384 3,418,480
Inspection................ 29 65 1,885 1,384 2,608,840
3.................. Sealant removal........... 88 65 5,720 1,384 7,916,480
Inspection................ 38 65 2,470 1,384 3,418,480
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 16216]]
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 and placed it in the AD docket. 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
2006-07-12 Boeing: Amendment 39-14539. Docket No. FAA-2005-20918;
Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-269-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective May 5, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from reports of fuselage skin cracks
adjacent to the skin lap joints on airplanes that had scribe lines.
Scribe line damage can also occur at many other locations, including
butt joints, external doublers, door scuff plates, the wing-to-body
fairing, and areas of the fuselage where decals have been applied or
removed. We are issuing this AD to prevent rapid decompression of
the airplane due to fatigue cracks resulting from scribe lines on
pressurized fuselage structure.
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) Do a detailed inspection for scribe lines and cracks in the
fuselage skin at certain lap joints, butt joints, external repair
doublers, and other areas, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262, dated
December 9, 2004, except as provided by paragraphs (g), (j), (k),
(l), (m), and (n) of this AD. Do the actions at the time specified
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin, except
as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Acceptable inspection
exemptions are described in paragraph 1.E.1. of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1262.
(1) If no scribe line is found, no further work is required by
this AD.
(2) If any scribe line is found: Do all applicable investigative
and corrective actions at the time specified by doing all applicable
actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
Note 1: A detailed inspection is defined in Note 10 of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262 under 3.A., ``General
Information.'' Specific magnification requirements may be specified
in the steps of the Work Instructions.
Exceptions to and Clarification of Service Bulletin 737-53A1262
Procedures
(g) This AD requires accomplishment of Parts 1 through 11 of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262, dated December 9, 2004.
Parts 12 and 13 of the service bulletin may be accomplished, if
applicable, to allow temporary return to service. This AD does not
require accomplishment of Part 14 of the service bulletin, although
the FAA-approved procedures described in Part 14 are acceptable for
continued operation with scribe lines found before the applicable
compliance time.
(h) If any scribe line or crack is found during any inspection
required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262,
dated December 9, 2004, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Before further flight, inspect or repair scribe lines and
repair cracks using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
(i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262, dated
December 9, 2004, specifies a compliance time after the issuance of
the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(j) Certain figures are incorrectly identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1262, dated December 9, 2004. The figure
cited in Part 8, step 3, should be Figure 39, not Figure 38. The
figure cited in Part 9, step 4, should be Figure 38, not Figure 39.
(k) If the operator's records show that the airplane has never
been stripped and repainted under the dorsal fin fairing since
delivery from Boeing, then this AD does not require inspections of
the butt joint, lap joint, and repair, as specified in paragraph (f)
of this AD, in the areas under the dorsal fin fairing.
(l) Figure 37 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262,
dated December 9, 2004, defines ``Restricted Zones'' at door cutouts
as the only affected structure. This AD considers this area to also
include Zone 1B.
(m) In Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-
53A1262, dated December 9, 2004, the first condition for the initial
compliance threshold for Areas B, C, and E is for areas where the
cutout modification shown in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177 was
accomplished. This AD considers this condition to also include Zone
1B.
(n) In Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1262, dated December 9, 2004, the second condition
for the initial compliance threshold for Areas B, C, and E is for
areas where the cutout modification shown in Boeing Service Bulletin
737-53A1177 was not accomplished. This AD considers this condition
to apply only to Zone 1A.
Reporting Requirement
(o) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (o)(1) or
(o)(2) of this AD, submit a report of positive findings of cracks
found during the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD to
the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. Alternatively, operators may submit reports
to their Boeing field service representatives. The report shall
contain, as a minimum, the following information: airplane serial
number, flight cycles at time of discovery, location(s) and extent
of positive crack findings. Under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection
requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120-0056.
(1) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Send the report within 30 days after the effective date of this
AD.
(2) If the inspection was done after the effective date of this
AD: Send the report within 30 days after the inspection is done.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(p)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the
[[Page 16217]]
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance
with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 14 CFR
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards
Certificate Holding District Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative (AR) for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization 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 refer to this
AD.
(4) A repair plan approved by a Boeing Company AR or Designated
Engineering Representative before the effective date of this AD is
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)
and (h) of this AD, provided the approval was documented via FAA
Form 8110-3 or 8100-9, and identified scribe line damage in the
title of the form.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(q) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262,
dated December 9, 2004, to perform the actions that are required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this
document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You
may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL-401, Nassif
Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov; or
at 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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 06-3066 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
