Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes, 44744-44746 [E7-15220]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44744
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 153 / Thursday, August 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Service information
Revision level
Boeing Component Service Bulletin 233N3209–24–04 .........................................................................
Boeing Service Bulletin 757–24–0093 ....................................................................................................
Boeing Service Bulletin 757–24–0094 ....................................................................................................
1 .............................
Original ..................
Original ..................
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30,
2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–15410 Filed 8–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2004–18814; Directorate
Identifier 2003–NM–286–AD; Amendment
39–15144; AD 2007–16–05]
Examining the Docket
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.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
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 repetitive inspections
for discrepancies of the elevator tab
control rod assemblies and/or damage to
the surrounding structure, and related
corrective action. This AD results from
reports indicating loose jam nuts and/or
thread wear at the rod ends on the
elevator tab control rod assembly. We
are issuing this AD to find and fix
discrepancies of the elevator tab control
rod assembly, which could result in
excessive freeplay in the elevator tab
control rods. Such freeplay could cause
loss of both load paths, subsequent
elevator tab flutter, and consequent
reduced structural integrity and loss of
controllability of the airplane.
DATES: This AD becomes effective
September 13, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in the AD
as of September 13, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Aug 08, 2007
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC.
Contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207, for service
information identified in this AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth Frey, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–
130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 917–6468; fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Jkt 211001
You may examine the airworthiness
directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
https://dms.dot.gov or in person at the
Docket Operations office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Docket
Operations office (telephone (800) 647–
5527) is located on the ground floor of
the West 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. The NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on
August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48424). That
NPRM proposed to require repetitive
inspections for discrepancies of the
elevator tab control rod assemblies and/
or damage to the surrounding structure,
and related corrective action.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments that have
been submitted on the NPRM.
Supportive Comments
Airline Pilots Association
International concurs with the NPRM
and the proposed implementation
schedule therein.
Air Transport Association (ATA) and
Alaska Airlines (Alaska) generally
support the intent of the AD.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Date
August 14, 2003.
August 14, 2003.
April 17, 2003.
ATA, on behalf of its member, Alaska,
states that the inspection action
specified in the NPRM is acceptable
provided there are adequate parts
available for replacement when
discrepancies are discovered. Alaska
adds that the proposed compliance
intervals and repeat inspections are
acceptable as proposed, as they will
allow compliance at heavy check
maintenance visits. We have verified
with Boeing that adequate replacement
parts are available.
Request To Revise Service Information
Jet Airways asks that the FAA advise
Boeing to revise the referenced service
bulletin. Jet Airways states that since
there is a difference between the NPRM
and the service bulletin, in that the
service bulletin recommends a one-time
inspection of the control rod tab
assemblies and the NPRM requires
repetitive inspections, the service
bulletin should be revised to include the
repetitive inspections.
We agree with Jet Airways for the
reasons provided. Since we issued the
NPRM, Boeing has issued Alert Service
Bulletin 737–27A1266, Revision 1,
dated January 2, 2007. The procedures
in Revision 1 are essentially the same as
those in the original issue of the service
bulletin; however, Revision 1 clarifies
procedures for visually inspecting for
the presence of inspection putty on each
jam nut and ensuring that the inspection
putty is intact and is not cracked or
damaged. In addition, the one-time
inspection for discrepancies of the
elevator tab control rod assemblies and/
or damage to the surrounding structure
was changed to repetitive inspections.
Therefore, Revision 1 eliminates the
difference between this AD and the
service bulletin that was noted in the
NPRM. We have changed paragraph (f)
of this AD to refer to Revision 1 and give
credit for inspections and corrective
action accomplished using the original
issue of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737–27A1266, dated September 18,
2003.
Request for Locking Provision for
Control Rod Jam Nuts
Jet Airways also states that the
repetitive inspection requirement is
only needed because there is no locking
provision for the jam nuts. Jet Airways
E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM
09AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 153 / Thursday, August 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
adds that the FAA and Boeing should
develop a provision for installation of
lockwire to avoid looseness of the jam
nuts and to terminate the repetitive
inspection requirement.
We partially agree with Jet Airways,
as follows:
We agree that locking provisions for
certain elevator tab control rods with
lockwire might be beneficial; however,
we do not agree that the repetitive
inspection requirement is needed only
because there is no locking provision for
the jam nuts. Repetitive inspections of
the elevator control tab assemblies will
identify discrepancies of the inspection
putty, loose jam nuts, worn threads, and
damage to surrounding structure that
resulted from improperly torqued jam
nuts. As previously described, Revision
1 of the service bulletin clarifies
procedures for visually inspecting for
the presence of inspection putty on each
jam nut and ensuring that the inspection
putty is intact and is not cracked or
damaged. We have made no change to
the AD in this regard.
Request To Change Description of the
Unsafe Condition
Boeing states that the unsafe
condition, as specified in the NPRM, is
incorrect. That unsafe condition states,
‘‘We are proposing this AD to find and
fix excessive freeplay in the tab control
mechanism, which could result in
elevator tab flutter and consequent loss
of controllability of the airplane.’’
Boeing states that there is no freeplay
check identified in the procedure
specified in the referenced service
information. Boeing asks that the
wording be changed to read, ‘‘We are
proposing this AD to prevent excessive
thread wear in the rod ends of the
elevator tab control rods as a result of
loose jam nuts. Excessive rod end thread
wear results in increased freeplay in the
elevator tab control loop. Airframe
vibration can occur with sufficient
freeplay, leading to a degradation of
handling characteristics of the
airplane.’’
Boeing also asks that the unsafe
condition, as specified in the Discussion
section of the NPRM, be changed for the
same reason to read, ‘‘Excessive freeplay
in the elevator tab control rods, if not
found and fixed, could result in the loss
of both load paths, leading to elevator
tab flutter and consequent loss of
controllability of the airplane.’’
We agree to change the description of
the unsafe condition because Boeing is
accurate in the statement that there is no
freeplay check identified in the
procedure specified in the referenced
service bulletin. We have changed the
description of the unsafe condition to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Aug 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
read, ‘‘We are issuing this AD to find
and fix discrepancies of the elevator tab
control rod assembly, which could
result in excessive freeplay in the
elevator tab control rods. Such freeplay
could cause loss of both load paths,
subsequent elevator tab flutter, and
consequent reduced structural integrity
and loss of controllability of the
airplane.’’ We have changed the
wording for the unsafe condition to
include the intent of the information
provided by Boeing. The discrepancies
(loose jam nuts and/or thread wear at
the rod ends) are referred to in the
sentence immediately preceding the
unsafe condition and do not need to be
repeated. Concerning Boeing’s comment
on the Discussion section of the NPRM,
since that section of the preamble does
not reappear in the final rule, no change
to the AD is necessary.
Clarification of Alternative Method of
Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph
We have revised this AD 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 2,878 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet.
This AD affects about 1,078 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The inspection takes about
2 work hours per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based
on these figures, the estimated cost of
the AD for U.S. operators is $172,480, or
$160 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
Section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in Subtitle VII,
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44745
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will
not have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132. This AD will
not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this AD 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
I
2007–16–05 Boeing: Amendment 39–15144.
Docket No. FAA–2004–18814;
Directorate Identifier 2003–NM–286–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective September
13, 2007.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM
09AUR1
44746
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 153 / Thursday, August 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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 indicating
loose jam nuts and/or thread wear at the rod
ends on the elevator tab control rod
assembly. We are issuing this AD to find and
fix discrepancies of the elevator tab control
rod assembly, which could result in
excessive freeplay in the elevator tab control
rods. Such freeplay could cause loss of both
load paths, subsequent elevator tab flutter,
and consequent reduced structural integrity
and loss of controllability of the airplane.
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.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Repetitive Inspections
(f) Within 4,500 flight cycles or 6,000 flight
hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever is first: Do a detailed inspection
for discrepancies of the inspection putty of
the elevator tab control rod assemblies and/
or damage to the surrounding structure, by
doing all the actions, including all applicable
related corrective actions, as specified in
paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737–27A1266, Revision 1, dated January 2,
2007. Do all applicable related corrective
actions before further flight, in accordance
with the service bulletin. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 4,500 flight cycles or 6,000 flight
hours, whichever is first. Actions
accomplished before the effective date of this
AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–27A1266, dated September 18,
2003, are considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding actions
specified in this paragraph.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive
examination of a specific item, installation,
or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying
lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.’’
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(g)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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) To request a different method of
compliance or a different compliance time
for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Aug 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
Material Incorporated by Reference
(h) You must use Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–27A1266, Revision 1, dated
January 2, 2007, 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 FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington; or at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30,
2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–15220 Filed 8–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2007–28911; Directorate
Identifier 2007–NM–002–AD; Amendment
39–15150; AD 2007–16–11]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker
Model F27 Mark 050 Airplanes
Equipped With Dowty Type R.352 or
R.410 Series Propellers
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Fokker Model F27 Mark 050 airplanes
equipped with Dowty Type R.352 or
R.410 series propellers. This AD
requires checking the maintenance
records to determine whether Minnesota
Mining and Manufacture Co. (3M)
1300L adhesive was used to attach the
de-icer assembly overshoes (boots) to
the propeller blades, repetitive
inspections of affected boots, and
replacing boots attached with defective
adhesive. This AD results from three
events of propeller blade de-icer
assembly boots debonding and
detaching during flight. This condition
was caused by using 3M 1300L adhesive
to attach the boot to the propeller blade.
We are issuing this AD to detect and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
correct boots attached with defective
adhesive, which could result in
debonding and separation of a boot from
the airplane, consequent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane, and
possible injury to passengers and crew.
DATES: This AD becomes effective
August 24, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in the AD
as of August 24, 2007.
We must receive comments on this
AD by September 10, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to submit comments on this
AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
https://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on
the ground floor of the West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Contact Fokker Services B.V.,
Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231,
2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the
Netherlands, for service information
identified in this AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1137;
fax (425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
The Civil Aviation Authority-The
Netherlands (CAA–NL), which is the
airworthiness authority for the
Netherlands, notified us that an unsafe
condition may exist on certain Fokker
Model F27 Mark 050 airplanes equipped
with Dowty Type R.352 or R.410 series
propellers. The CAA–NL advises that
there have been three events of
propeller blade de-icer assembly boots
debonding and detaching during flight.
In two of the incidents, the boot
impacted the fuselage causing
considerable damage, but did not
penetrate into the fuselage. In the third
incident the boot hit a passenger cabin
E:\FR\FM\09AUR1.SGM
09AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 153 (Thursday, August 9, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44744-44746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15220]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2004-18814; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-286-AD;
Amendment 39-15144; AD 2007-16-05]
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 repetitive inspections for discrepancies of
the elevator tab control rod assemblies and/or damage to the
surrounding structure, and related corrective action. This AD results
from reports indicating loose jam nuts and/or thread wear at the rod
ends on the elevator tab control rod assembly. We are issuing this AD
to find and fix discrepancies of the elevator tab control rod assembly,
which could result in excessive freeplay in the elevator tab control
rods. Such freeplay could cause loss of both load paths, subsequent
elevator tab flutter, and consequent reduced structural integrity and
loss of controllability of the airplane.
DATES: This AD becomes effective September 13, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 13,
2007.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Frey, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone (425) 917-6468; 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 Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is
located on the ground floor of the West 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. The NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48424).
That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for discrepancies
of the elevator tab control rod assemblies and/or damage to the
surrounding structure, and related corrective action.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
submitted on the NPRM.
Supportive Comments
Airline Pilots Association International concurs with the NPRM and
the proposed implementation schedule therein.
Air Transport Association (ATA) and Alaska Airlines (Alaska)
generally support the intent of the AD.
ATA, on behalf of its member, Alaska, states that the inspection
action specified in the NPRM is acceptable provided there are adequate
parts available for replacement when discrepancies are discovered.
Alaska adds that the proposed compliance intervals and repeat
inspections are acceptable as proposed, as they will allow compliance
at heavy check maintenance visits. We have verified with Boeing that
adequate replacement parts are available.
Request To Revise Service Information
Jet Airways asks that the FAA advise Boeing to revise the
referenced service bulletin. Jet Airways states that since there is a
difference between the NPRM and the service bulletin, in that the
service bulletin recommends a one-time inspection of the control rod
tab assemblies and the NPRM requires repetitive inspections, the
service bulletin should be revised to include the repetitive
inspections.
We agree with Jet Airways for the reasons provided. Since we issued
the NPRM, Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1266,
Revision 1, dated January 2, 2007. The procedures in Revision 1 are
essentially the same as those in the original issue of the service
bulletin; however, Revision 1 clarifies procedures for visually
inspecting for the presence of inspection putty on each jam nut and
ensuring that the inspection putty is intact and is not cracked or
damaged. In addition, the one-time inspection for discrepancies of the
elevator tab control rod assemblies and/or damage to the surrounding
structure was changed to repetitive inspections. Therefore, Revision 1
eliminates the difference between this AD and the service bulletin that
was noted in the NPRM. We have changed paragraph (f) of this AD to
refer to Revision 1 and give credit for inspections and corrective
action accomplished using the original issue of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-27A1266, dated September 18, 2003.
Request for Locking Provision for Control Rod Jam Nuts
Jet Airways also states that the repetitive inspection requirement
is only needed because there is no locking provision for the jam nuts.
Jet Airways
[[Page 44745]]
adds that the FAA and Boeing should develop a provision for
installation of lockwire to avoid looseness of the jam nuts and to
terminate the repetitive inspection requirement.
We partially agree with Jet Airways, as follows:
We agree that locking provisions for certain elevator tab control
rods with lockwire might be beneficial; however, we do not agree that
the repetitive inspection requirement is needed only because there is
no locking provision for the jam nuts. Repetitive inspections of the
elevator control tab assemblies will identify discrepancies of the
inspection putty, loose jam nuts, worn threads, and damage to
surrounding structure that resulted from improperly torqued jam nuts.
As previously described, Revision 1 of the service bulletin clarifies
procedures for visually inspecting for the presence of inspection putty
on each jam nut and ensuring that the inspection putty is intact and is
not cracked or damaged. We have made no change to the AD in this
regard.
Request To Change Description of the Unsafe Condition
Boeing states that the unsafe condition, as specified in the NPRM,
is incorrect. That unsafe condition states, ``We are proposing this AD
to find and fix excessive freeplay in the tab control mechanism, which
could result in elevator tab flutter and consequent loss of
controllability of the airplane.'' Boeing states that there is no
freeplay check identified in the procedure specified in the referenced
service information. Boeing asks that the wording be changed to read,
``We are proposing this AD to prevent excessive thread wear in the rod
ends of the elevator tab control rods as a result of loose jam nuts.
Excessive rod end thread wear results in increased freeplay in the
elevator tab control loop. Airframe vibration can occur with sufficient
freeplay, leading to a degradation of handling characteristics of the
airplane.''
Boeing also asks that the unsafe condition, as specified in the
Discussion section of the NPRM, be changed for the same reason to read,
``Excessive freeplay in the elevator tab control rods, if not found and
fixed, could result in the loss of both load paths, leading to elevator
tab flutter and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.''
We agree to change the description of the unsafe condition because
Boeing is accurate in the statement that there is no freeplay check
identified in the procedure specified in the referenced service
bulletin. We have changed the description of the unsafe condition to
read, ``We are issuing this AD to find and fix discrepancies of the
elevator tab control rod assembly, which could result in excessive
freeplay in the elevator tab control rods. Such freeplay could cause
loss of both load paths, subsequent elevator tab flutter, and
consequent reduced structural integrity and loss of controllability of
the airplane.'' We have changed the wording for the unsafe condition to
include the intent of the information provided by Boeing. The
discrepancies (loose jam nuts and/or thread wear at the rod ends) are
referred to in the sentence immediately preceding the unsafe condition
and do not need to be repeated. Concerning Boeing's comment on the
Discussion section of the NPRM, since that section of the preamble does
not reappear in the final rule, no change to the AD is necessary.
Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph
We have revised this AD 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 2,878 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 1,078 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The inspection takes about 2 work hours per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $172,480, or $160 per
airplane, per inspection cycle.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD 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 FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
2007-16-05 Boeing: Amendment 39-15144. Docket No. FAA-2004-18814;
Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-286-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective September 13, 2007.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
[[Page 44746]]
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 indicating loose jam nuts and/
or thread wear at the rod ends on the elevator tab control rod
assembly. We are issuing this AD to find and fix discrepancies of
the elevator tab control rod assembly, which could result in
excessive freeplay in the elevator tab control rods. Such freeplay
could cause loss of both load paths, subsequent elevator tab
flutter, and consequent reduced structural integrity and loss of
controllability of the airplane.
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.
Repetitive Inspections
(f) Within 4,500 flight cycles or 6,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever is first: Do a detailed
inspection for discrepancies of the inspection putty of the elevator
tab control rod assemblies and/or damage to the surrounding
structure, by doing all the actions, including all applicable
related corrective actions, as specified in paragraph 3.B. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
27A1266, Revision 1, dated January 2, 2007. Do all applicable
related corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with
the service bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles or 6,000 flight hours, whichever
is first. Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD
in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1266, dated
September 18, 2003, are considered acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding actions specified in this paragraph.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(g)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(h) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1266,
Revision 1, dated January 2, 2007, 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 FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-15220 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
