Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER Series Airplanes, 62649-62653 [2011-26104]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
62649
JOINT STAKEHOLDERS—Continued
Manufacturers
Advocates
Friedrich
A/C U-Line
Samsung
Sharp Electronics
Miele
Heat
Controller
AGA Marvel
Brown Stove
Haier
Fagor
America
Airwell
Group
Arcelik Fisher & Paykel
Scotsman Ice
Indesit
Kuppersbusch
Kelon
DeLonghi
[FR Doc. 2011–26169 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25001; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–079–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C,
–800, –900, and –900ER Series
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM);
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
We are revising an earlier
proposed airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. That
second supplemental NPRM proposed a
one-time inspection to determine the
part numbers of the aero/fire seals of the
blocker doors on the thrust reverser
torque boxes on the engines, and
replacing affected aero/fire seals with
new, improved aero/fire seals. That
second supplemental NPRM was
prompted by a report that the top 3
inches of the aero/fire seals of the
blocker doors on the thrust reverser
torque boxes are not fireproof. This
action revises the second supplemental
NPRM by prohibiting installation of
certain non-fireproof thrust reverser
seals. We are proposing this third
supplemental NPRM to prevent a fire in
the fan compartment (a fire zone) from
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
migrating through the seal to a
flammable fluid in the thrust reverser
actuator compartment (a flammable
fluid leakage zone), which could result
in an uncontrolled fire. Since these
actions impose an additional burden
over that proposed in the second
supplemental NPRM, we are reopening
the comment period to allow the public
the chance to comment on these
proposed changes.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this supplemental NPRM by November
25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• 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.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65,
Seattle, Washington 98124–2207;
telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1;
fax 206–766–5680; e-mail
me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 425–227–
1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chris Parker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–
917–6496; fax: 425–917–6590; e-mail:
chris.r.parker@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2006–25001; Directorate Identifier
2006–NM–079–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
62650
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We issued a second supplemental
NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to
include an airworthiness directive (AD)
that would apply to all Model 737–600,
–700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER
series airplanes. That second
supplemental NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on July 16, 2009
(74 FR 34518). That second
supplemental NPRM proposed to
require a one-time inspection to
determine the part numbers of the aero/
fire seals of the blocker doors on the
thrust reverser torque boxes on the
engines, and replacing affected aero/fire
seals with new, improved aero/fire
seals. That second supplemental NPRM
also proposed to reduce the compliance
time for the replacement of the affected
aero/fire seals.
Actions Since Second Supplemental
NPRM Was Issued
Since we issued the second
supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July
16, 2009), we have determined that it is
necessary to propose to prohibit
installation of certain non-fireproof
thrust reverser seals in this third
supplemental NPRM, because we have
received information indicating that
some thrust reversers with non-fireproof
seals could be installed on certain
airplanes.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to
comment on the second supplemental
NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009). The
following presents the comments
received on the second supplemental
NPRM and the FAA’s response to each
comment.
Request To Include Parts Installation
Paragraph
Boeing requested that the second
supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July
16, 2009) be revised to address spare
thrust reverser halves being installed on
any Model 737 Next Generation
airplane. Boeing explained that some
spare thrust reverser halves could be
equipped with non-fireproof seals and
that if these spare units are installed
after the inspection, some airplanes will
have non-fireproof seals.
We partially agree. While we
explained in the first supplemental
NPRM (73 FR 51382, September 3,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
2008) that we understood affected spare
assemblies had been purged from the
parts supply system, we have now
received information that thrust reverser
interchangeability instructions might
allow older thrust reverser seals having
part number (P/N) 315A2245–1 or
315A2245–2 to be installed on newly
delivered airplanes. While we cannot
apply the inspections proposed by this
third supplemental NPRM to spare
parts, we can require that parts being
installed on the airplane be compliant
with this third supplemental NPRM. We
have added paragraph (i) to this third
supplemental NPRM to prohibit
installation of non-fireproof thrust
reverser seals.
third supplemental NPRM to specify
that operators have within 6 months
after doing the inspection in paragraph
(g) of this third supplemental NPRM to
replace a non-fireproof seal. Under the
provisions of paragraph (k) of this third
supplemental NPRM, we will consider
requests for approval of an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) that
provides an acceptable level of safety, if
parts availability becomes a problem.
We have determined that replacement of
the non-fireproof seal within 6 months
after doing the inspection in paragraph
(g) of this third supplemental NPRM
will not adversely affect safety. We have
revised this third supplemental NPRM
accordingly.
Requests To Extend Compliance Time
for Replacement
The Air Transport Association (ATA),
on behalf of two member airlines (Air
Tran Airways and American Airlines),
and Boeing requested that we change
the proposed compliance time for the
replacement of the aero/fire seals
specified in paragraph (h) of the second
supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July
16, 2009).
Air Tran Airways (Air Tran)
explained that the second supplemental
NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009)
proposed to allow up to 60 months or
8,200 flight cycles after the effective
date of the AD to comply with the
proposed inspection specified in
paragraph (g) of the second
supplemental NPRM. However, Air
Tran pointed out that if a non-fireproof
aero/fire seal is found on a thrust
reverser, the seal must be changed prior
to further flight. Air Tran reasoned that
the second supplemental NPRM should
allow a more realistic time frame to
have the seal replaced. Air Tran
provided no technical justification for
this request.
Boeing explained that the compliance
time from the original NPRM (71 FR
34025, June 13, 2006) should be used,
regardless of when the inspection for
aero/fire seals of the thrust reverser
torque boxes on the engines was done.
Boeing stated that the second
supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July
16, 2009) would likely ground airplanes
because operators would only
accomplish the inspections if they have
replacement seals on hand; Boeing only
carries limited quantities of the seals
and the re-order lead time for these seals
is approximately 20 weeks.
We agree to revise this third
supplemental NPRM to change the
proposed compliance time specified in
paragraph (h) of this third supplemental
NPRM. However, we are revising the
compliance time in paragraph (h) of this
Request To Specify Terminating Action
The ATA, on behalf of its member
American Airlines, requested that the
replacement of the non-fireproof seal be
done in accordance with Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737–78–
1074, Revision 1, dated September 15,
2005, and that the proposed AD state
that this replacement is terminating
action.
We agree that the replacement of the
non-fireproof seals can be done in
accordance with Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737–78–
1074, Revision 1, dated September 15,
2005, and that the replacement of the
non-fireproof seals is terminating action
for the inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this third supplemental NPRM.
We have added this information to
paragraph (h) of this AD.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Requests To Apply AD to Part Rather
Than Airplane
The ATA, on behalf of its member Air
Tran, and Boeing requested that the
second supplemental NPRM (74 FR
34518, July 16, 2009) apply only to
thrust reverser assemblies having
certain part numbers as opposed to
applying to the airplane.
Air Tran explained that thrust
reversers are rotable, line replaceable
unit assemblies, which may be
uninstalled, stand-alone spares, and can
be rotated among other airplanes. For
this reason, Air Tran suggested that the
applicability of the second
supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July
16, 2009) should be against thrust
reverser assembly part numbers rather
than the airplane.
Boeing explained that the proposed
applicability in the second
supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July
16, 2009) is open-ended and would
apply to new Model 737 airplanes that
are already compliant. Boeing explained
further that thrust reversers having part
number (P/Ns) 315A2295–195 through
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
315A2295–500 were delivered with
seals with a fireproof section, and that
interchangeability definitions for thrust
reversers having P/Ns 315A2245–7 and
315A2245–8 (fireproof section) do not
allow these seals to be replaced with
seals having P/Ns 315A2245–1 and
315A2245–2 (non-fireproof). Boeing
recommended limiting the proposed
applicability to thrust reversers having
P/Ns 315A2295–3 through 315A2295–
194, and P/Ns 315A2295–503 through
315A2295–694.
We disagree to change the
applicability of this third supplemental
NPRM to apply to thrust reversers
having certain part numbers. The seal is
not integral to the thrust reverser and is
replaceable. Therefore, a non-fireproof
seal could be used on any thrust
reverser—even a thrust reverser
originally built with a compliant
fireproof seal. It is the operator’s
responsibility to maintain compliance
once an AD has been accomplished. The
operator must ensure that the thrust
reversers on its airplanes have been
inspected and are using a fireproof seal.
If an operator replaces a thrust reverser,
the thrust reverser must be inspected to
ensure compliance with this third
supplemental NPRM. We have not
changed the applicability of this third
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
However, we have determined that
the inspection required by paragraph (g)
of this third supplemental NPRM is only
necessary for certain airplanes.
Therefore, we have revised paragraph
(g) of this third supplemental NPRM to
specify that only the following airplanes
are subject to the requirements of that
paragraph: ‘‘For airplanes having an
original airworthiness certificate issued
before the effective date of this AD, and
for airplanes on which the date of
issuance of the original export
certificate of airworthiness is before the
effective date of this AD * * * .’’
Request for Clarification of Use of
Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) as
Maintenance Record
All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested
that we clarify if their IPC can be used
as a form of maintenance record to
identify if the airplane has the fireproof
seal installed. ANA explained that the
seals are not controlled by any type of
part-control system, and that operators
visually verify the stamped part number
instead. ANA stated that since the
stamped part number is often
unreadable, the operator would be
forced to replace the seal in order to
remain in compliance with the AD,
regardless if the seal was already a
fireproof seal. ANA asserted that
replacing a possible fireproof seal (to
remain in compliance with the
proposed AD) simply because the part
number is unreadable, is an
unreasonable action.
We disagree to allow use of the IPC as
a maintenance record. If the required
maintenance records, which do not
include the IPC, are not available to
show that the correct fireproof seal has
been installed, and the part number is
worn off the aero/fire seals, it is still
possible to verify that the correct part is
installed by visually inspecting the seal
for color content, as specified in
paragraph (g) of the second
supplemental NPRM. We have not
changed this third supplemental NPRM
in this regard.
Request for Clarification of the
Difference in the Applicability Between
the Original NPRM and the Second
Supplemental NPRM
ANA also requested that we clarify
the difference in the applicability
between the original NPRM (71 FR
34025, June 13, 2006) and the second
supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July
16, 2009). ANA explained that the
applicability in the original NPRM was
for all Model 737–600, –700,–700C,
–800, and –900 series airplanes, which
is what is listed in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737–78–
1074, Revision 1, dated September 15,
2005 (referenced in the original NPRM
as the source of service information for
replacing aero/fire seals).
We agree to clarify differences in the
applicability of the various NPRMs. The
applicability of the original NPRM (71
FR 34025, June 13, 2006) referenced that
service bulletin for affected airplanes.
62651
After we issued the original NPRM, we
received information on the
interchangeability of the affected aero/
fire seals. The applicability of the first
supplemental NPRM (73 FR 51382,
September 3, 2008) was revised to
specify ‘‘all’’ Model 737 airplanes
(including Model 737–900ER series
airplanes, which had been added to the
U.S. type certificate data sheet), since all
of these airplanes could be affected by
the interchangeability of the seals. No
change to this third supplemental
NPRM is necessary in this regard.
Explanation of Change Made to This
Proposed AD
We have revised this proposed AD to
identify the legal name of the
manufacturer as published in the most
recent type certificate data sheet for the
affected airplane models.
FAA’s Determination
We are proposing this third
supplemental NPRM because we
evaluated all the relevant information
and determined the unsafe condition
described previously is likely to exist or
develop in other products of these same
type designs. Certain changes described
above expand the scope of the second
supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July
16, 2009). As a result, we have
determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this third supplemental
NPRM.
Explanation of Change to Costs of
Compliance
Since issuance of the original NPRM
(71 FR 34025, June 13, 2006), we have
increased the labor rate used in the
Costs of Compliance from $80 per workhour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of
Compliance information, below, reflects
this increase in the specified labor rate.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD
affects 803 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to
comply with this proposed AD:
ESTIMATED COSTS
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Action
Labor cost
Inspection for part
number.
Parts cost
1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per
inspection cycle.
None .......................
We estimate the following costs to do
any necessary replacements that would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
Cost per product
$85 per inspection
cycle.
be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. We have no way of
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Cost on U.S. operators
$68,255 per inspection cycle.
determining the number of aircraft that
might need this replacement:
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
62652
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ON-CONDITION COSTS
Action
Labor cost
Replacement ........................
5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 ............................................................................
According to the manufacturer, some
of the costs of this proposed AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby
reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty
coverage for affected individuals. As a
result, we have included all costs in our
cost estimate.
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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD
would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This
proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska, and
(4) 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
Parts cost
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA–
2006–25001; Directorate Identifier 2006–
NM–079–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by
November 25, 2011.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all The Boeing
Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C,
–800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes,
certificated in any category.
Subject
(d) Joint Aircraft System Component
(JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 78: Engine exhaust.
Unsafe Condition
(e) This AD was prompted by a report that
the top 3 inches of the aero/fire seals of the
blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque
boxes are not fireproof. We are issuing this
AD to prevent a fire in the fan compartment
(a fire zone) from migrating through the seal
to a flammable fluid in the thrust reverser
actuator compartment (a flammable fluid
leakage zone), which could result in an
uncontrolled fire.
Compliance
(f) Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
Inspection to Determine Type of Aero/Fire
Seals
(g) For airplanes having an original
airworthiness certificate issued before the
effective date of this AD, and for airplanes on
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Cost per
product
$4,770
$5,195
which the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness is before
the effective date of this AD: Within 60
months or 8,200 flight cycles, whichever
occurs first, after the effective date of this
AD, perform a one-time detailed inspection
to determine the color of the aero/fire seals
of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser
torque boxes on the engines. For any aero/fire
seal having a completely grey color (which is
the color of seals with part number (P/N)
315A2245–1 or 315A2245–2), with no red at
the upper end of the seal, do the actions
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. For any
aero/fire seal having a red color at the upper
end of the seal (which indicates installation
of seals with P/N 315A2245–7 or 315A2245–
8), no further action is required by this AD.
A review of airplane maintenance records is
acceptable in lieu of this inspection if from
that review the part number of the correct
aero/fire seals (P/N 315A2245–7 or –8) can be
conclusively determined to be installed.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive
examination of a specific item, installation,
or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
Inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying
lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.’’
Replacement of the Aero/Fire Seals
(h) For any aero/fire seal identified during
the inspection/records check required by
paragraph (g) of this AD to have a nonfireproof seal: Within six months after doing
the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, replace the aero/fire seals of the blocker
doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on
the engines with new, improved aero/fire
seals, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–78–
1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005.
Replacing the aero/fire seals of the blocker
doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on
the engines with new, improved aero/fire
seals, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–78–
1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005,
is terminating action for the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
Parts Installation
(i) As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may install a non-fireproof thrust
reverser seal having P/N 315A2245–1 or
P/N 315A2245–2 on any airplane.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Credit for Actions Accomplished in
Accordance with Previous Service
Information
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
(j) Replacements done before the effective
date of this AD in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–78–
1074, dated April 7, 2005, are acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (h) of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector
or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the
Related Information section of this AD.
Information may be e-mailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
Related Information
(l) For more information about this AD,
contact Chris Parker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057–
3356; phone: 425–917–6496; fax: 425–917–
6590; e-mail: chris.r.parker@faa.gov.
(m) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65,
Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone
206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–
5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
425–227–1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
September 30, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–26104 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2011–1060; Directorate
Identifier 2011–NM–015–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model
A310 Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would
supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify
and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as:
SUMMARY:
Within the scope of the Fuel System Safety
Program (FSSP), analyses of the wire routing
showed that the route 2S of the fuel electrical
circuit in the Right Hand (RH) wing must be
modified in order to ensure better segregation
between fuel quantity indication wires and
the 115 Volts Alternating Current (VAC)
wires of route 2S.
This condition, if not corrected, could
result in short circuits leading to arcing, and
possible fuel tank explosion.
*
*
*
*
*
The proposed AD would require actions
that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by November 25,
2011.
You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• 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.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS–
EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond
Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62653
Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail:
account.airworth-eas@airbus.com;
Internet https://www.airbus.com. You
may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 425–227–
1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Operations office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 227–2125; fax (425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2011–1060; Directorate Identifier
2011–NM–015–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD based on those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
On January 3, 2008, we issued AD
2008–01–05, Amendment 39–15330 (73
FR 2795, January 16, 2008). That AD
required actions intended to address an
unsafe condition on the products listed
above.
Since we issued AD 2008–01–05,
Amendment 39–15330 (73 FR 2795,
January 16, 2008), we have determined
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62649-62653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26104]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2006-25001; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-079-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700,
-700C, -800, -900, and -900ER Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for the products listed above. That second supplemental NPRM
proposed a one-time inspection to determine the part numbers of the
aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque
boxes on the engines, and replacing affected aero/fire seals with new,
improved aero/fire seals. That second supplemental NPRM was prompted by
a report that the top 3 inches of the aero/fire seals of the blocker
doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes are not fireproof. This
action revises the second supplemental NPRM by prohibiting installation
of certain non-fireproof thrust reverser seals. We are proposing this
third supplemental NPRM to prevent a fire in the fan compartment (a
fire zone) from migrating through the seal to a flammable fluid in the
thrust reverser actuator compartment (a flammable fluid leakage zone),
which could result in an uncontrolled fire. Since these actions impose
an additional burden over that proposed in the second supplemental
NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the
chance to comment on these proposed changes.
DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by November
25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
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.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000,
extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Parker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:
425-917-6496; fax: 425-917-6590; e-mail: chris.r.parker@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2006-
25001; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-079-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
[[Page 62650]]
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We issued a second supplemental NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to
include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to all Model
737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. That
second supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July
16, 2009 (74 FR 34518). That second supplemental NPRM proposed to
require a one-time inspection to determine the part numbers of the
aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque
boxes on the engines, and replacing affected aero/fire seals with new,
improved aero/fire seals. That second supplemental NPRM also proposed
to reduce the compliance time for the replacement of the affected aero/
fire seals.
Actions Since Second Supplemental NPRM Was Issued
Since we issued the second supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16,
2009), we have determined that it is necessary to propose to prohibit
installation of certain non-fireproof thrust reverser seals in this
third supplemental NPRM, because we have received information
indicating that some thrust reversers with non-fireproof seals could be
installed on certain airplanes.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the second
supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009). The following presents
the comments received on the second supplemental NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.
Request To Include Parts Installation Paragraph
Boeing requested that the second supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518,
July 16, 2009) be revised to address spare thrust reverser halves being
installed on any Model 737 Next Generation airplane. Boeing explained
that some spare thrust reverser halves could be equipped with non-
fireproof seals and that if these spare units are installed after the
inspection, some airplanes will have non-fireproof seals.
We partially agree. While we explained in the first supplemental
NPRM (73 FR 51382, September 3, 2008) that we understood affected spare
assemblies had been purged from the parts supply system, we have now
received information that thrust reverser interchangeability
instructions might allow older thrust reverser seals having part number
(P/N) 315A2245-1 or 315A2245-2 to be installed on newly delivered
airplanes. While we cannot apply the inspections proposed by this third
supplemental NPRM to spare parts, we can require that parts being
installed on the airplane be compliant with this third supplemental
NPRM. We have added paragraph (i) to this third supplemental NPRM to
prohibit installation of non-fireproof thrust reverser seals.
Requests To Extend Compliance Time for Replacement
The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of two member
airlines (Air Tran Airways and American Airlines), and Boeing requested
that we change the proposed compliance time for the replacement of the
aero/fire seals specified in paragraph (h) of the second supplemental
NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009).
Air Tran Airways (Air Tran) explained that the second supplemental
NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009) proposed to allow up to 60 months or
8,200 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD to comply with
the proposed inspection specified in paragraph (g) of the second
supplemental NPRM. However, Air Tran pointed out that if a non-
fireproof aero/fire seal is found on a thrust reverser, the seal must
be changed prior to further flight. Air Tran reasoned that the second
supplemental NPRM should allow a more realistic time frame to have the
seal replaced. Air Tran provided no technical justification for this
request.
Boeing explained that the compliance time from the original NPRM
(71 FR 34025, June 13, 2006) should be used, regardless of when the
inspection for aero/fire seals of the thrust reverser torque boxes on
the engines was done. Boeing stated that the second supplemental NPRM
(74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009) would likely ground airplanes because
operators would only accomplish the inspections if they have
replacement seals on hand; Boeing only carries limited quantities of
the seals and the re-order lead time for these seals is approximately
20 weeks.
We agree to revise this third supplemental NPRM to change the
proposed compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of this third
supplemental NPRM. However, we are revising the compliance time in
paragraph (h) of this third supplemental NPRM to specify that operators
have within 6 months after doing the inspection in paragraph (g) of
this third supplemental NPRM to replace a non-fireproof seal. Under the
provisions of paragraph (k) of this third supplemental NPRM, we will
consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) that provides an acceptable level of safety, if parts
availability becomes a problem. We have determined that replacement of
the non-fireproof seal within 6 months after doing the inspection in
paragraph (g) of this third supplemental NPRM will not adversely affect
safety. We have revised this third supplemental NPRM accordingly.
Request To Specify Terminating Action
The ATA, on behalf of its member American Airlines, requested that
the replacement of the non-fireproof seal be done in accordance with
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-78-1074, Revision 1,
dated September 15, 2005, and that the proposed AD state that this
replacement is terminating action.
We agree that the replacement of the non-fireproof seals can be
done in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
78-1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005, and that the replacement
of the non-fireproof seals is terminating action for the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this third supplemental NPRM. We have
added this information to paragraph (h) of this AD.
Requests To Apply AD to Part Rather Than Airplane
The ATA, on behalf of its member Air Tran, and Boeing requested
that the second supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009) apply
only to thrust reverser assemblies having certain part numbers as
opposed to applying to the airplane.
Air Tran explained that thrust reversers are rotable, line
replaceable unit assemblies, which may be uninstalled, stand-alone
spares, and can be rotated among other airplanes. For this reason, Air
Tran suggested that the applicability of the second supplemental NPRM
(74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009) should be against thrust reverser assembly
part numbers rather than the airplane.
Boeing explained that the proposed applicability in the second
supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009) is open-ended and would
apply to new Model 737 airplanes that are already compliant. Boeing
explained further that thrust reversers having part number (P/Ns)
315A2295-195 through
[[Page 62651]]
315A2295-500 were delivered with seals with a fireproof section, and
that interchangeability definitions for thrust reversers having P/Ns
315A2245-7 and 315A2245-8 (fireproof section) do not allow these seals
to be replaced with seals having P/Ns 315A2245-1 and 315A2245-2 (non-
fireproof). Boeing recommended limiting the proposed applicability to
thrust reversers having P/Ns 315A2295-3 through 315A2295-194, and P/Ns
315A2295-503 through 315A2295-694.
We disagree to change the applicability of this third supplemental
NPRM to apply to thrust reversers having certain part numbers. The seal
is not integral to the thrust reverser and is replaceable. Therefore, a
non-fireproof seal could be used on any thrust reverser--even a thrust
reverser originally built with a compliant fireproof seal. It is the
operator's responsibility to maintain compliance once an AD has been
accomplished. The operator must ensure that the thrust reversers on its
airplanes have been inspected and are using a fireproof seal. If an
operator replaces a thrust reverser, the thrust reverser must be
inspected to ensure compliance with this third supplemental NPRM. We
have not changed the applicability of this third supplemental NPRM in
this regard.
However, we have determined that the inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this third supplemental NPRM is only necessary for
certain airplanes. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g) of this
third supplemental NPRM to specify that only the following airplanes
are subject to the requirements of that paragraph: ``For airplanes
having an original airworthiness certificate issued before the
effective date of this AD, and for airplanes on which the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness is before
the effective date of this AD * * * .''
Request for Clarification of Use of Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) as
Maintenance Record
All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we clarify if their IPC can
be used as a form of maintenance record to identify if the airplane has
the fireproof seal installed. ANA explained that the seals are not
controlled by any type of part-control system, and that operators
visually verify the stamped part number instead. ANA stated that since
the stamped part number is often unreadable, the operator would be
forced to replace the seal in order to remain in compliance with the
AD, regardless if the seal was already a fireproof seal. ANA asserted
that replacing a possible fireproof seal (to remain in compliance with
the proposed AD) simply because the part number is unreadable, is an
unreasonable action.
We disagree to allow use of the IPC as a maintenance record. If the
required maintenance records, which do not include the IPC, are not
available to show that the correct fireproof seal has been installed,
and the part number is worn off the aero/fire seals, it is still
possible to verify that the correct part is installed by visually
inspecting the seal for color content, as specified in paragraph (g) of
the second supplemental NPRM. We have not changed this third
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request for Clarification of the Difference in the Applicability
Between the Original NPRM and the Second Supplemental NPRM
ANA also requested that we clarify the difference in the
applicability between the original NPRM (71 FR 34025, June 13, 2006)
and the second supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009). ANA
explained that the applicability in the original NPRM was for all Model
737-600, -700,-700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, which is what is
listed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-78-1074,
Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005 (referenced in the original NPRM
as the source of service information for replacing aero/fire seals).
We agree to clarify differences in the applicability of the various
NPRMs. The applicability of the original NPRM (71 FR 34025, June 13,
2006) referenced that service bulletin for affected airplanes. After we
issued the original NPRM, we received information on the
interchangeability of the affected aero/fire seals. The applicability
of the first supplemental NPRM (73 FR 51382, September 3, 2008) was
revised to specify ``all'' Model 737 airplanes (including Model 737-
900ER series airplanes, which had been added to the U.S. type
certificate data sheet), since all of these airplanes could be affected
by the interchangeability of the seals. No change to this third
supplemental NPRM is necessary in this regard.
Explanation of Change Made to This Proposed AD
We have revised this proposed AD to identify the legal name of the
manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.
FAA's Determination
We are proposing this third supplemental NPRM because we evaluated
all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition
described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of
these same type designs. Certain changes described above expand the
scope of the second supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009). As
a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
this third supplemental NPRM.
Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance
Since issuance of the original NPRM (71 FR 34025, June 13, 2006),
we have increased the labor rate used in the Costs of Compliance from
$80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of Compliance
information, below, reflects this increase in the specified labor rate.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 803 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for part number........ 1 work-hour x $85 per None................ $85 per inspection $68,255 per inspection cycle.
hour = $85 per cycle.
inspection cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
this replacement:
[[Page 62652]]
On-condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per
Action Labor cost Parts cost product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.............................. 5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425......... $4,770 $5,195
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.
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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) 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.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2006-25001; Directorate
Identifier 2006-NM-079-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by November 25, 2011.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -
700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
Subject
(d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 78: Engine exhaust.
Unsafe Condition
(e) This AD was prompted by a report that the top 3 inches of
the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser
torque boxes are not fireproof. We are issuing this AD to prevent a
fire in the fan compartment (a fire zone) from migrating through the
seal to a flammable fluid in the thrust reverser actuator
compartment (a flammable fluid leakage zone), which could result in
an uncontrolled fire.
Compliance
(f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
Inspection to Determine Type of Aero/Fire Seals
(g) For airplanes having an original airworthiness certificate
issued before the effective date of this AD, and for airplanes on
which the date of issuance of the original export certificate of
airworthiness is before the effective date of this AD: Within 60
months or 8,200 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the
effective date of this AD, perform a one-time detailed inspection to
determine the color of the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on
the thrust reverser torque boxes on the engines. For any aero/fire
seal having a completely grey color (which is the color of seals
with part number (P/N) 315A2245-1 or 315A2245-2), with no red at the
upper end of the seal, do the actions specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD. For any aero/fire seal having a red color at the upper end
of the seal (which indicates installation of seals with P/N
315A2245-7 or 315A2245-8), no further action is required by this AD.
A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of
this inspection if from that review the part number of the correct
aero/fire seals (P/N 315A2245-7 or -8) can be conclusively
determined to be installed.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''
Replacement of the Aero/Fire Seals
(h) For any aero/fire seal identified during the inspection/
records check required by paragraph (g) of this AD to have a non-
fireproof seal: Within six months after doing the actions required
by paragraph (g) of this AD, replace the aero/fire seals of the
blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on the engines
with new, improved aero/fire seals, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-78-1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005.
Replacing the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust
reverser torque boxes on the engines with new, improved aero/fire
seals, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-78-1074, Revision 1, dated
September 15, 2005, is terminating action for the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
Parts Installation
(i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
non-fireproof thrust reverser seal having P/N 315A2245-1 or P/N
315A2245-2 on any airplane.
[[Page 62653]]
Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance with Previous Service
Information
(j) Replacements done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-78-1074, dated April 7, 2005, are
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of
this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be e-mailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
Related Information
(l) For more information about this AD, contact Chris Parker,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6496; fax: 425-
917-6590; e-mail: chris.r.parker@faa.gov.
(m) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 30, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-26104 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P