Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes, 50407-50411 [2012-20470]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules
only be able to redeem his or her
property by submitting an unclaimed
property claim form to the State. At a
minimum, a consumer first would need
to determine that the card should still
have been usable, and then would need
to determine which State to contact to
reclaim funds corresponding to the
unclaimed gift card. As discussed
above, when an issuer has no record of
the gift card owner’s name, unused
funds for the card will transfer to the
State of incorporation of the gift card
issuer. Thus, for example, a consumer
who purchases and uses in New York a
gift card that was issued by a company
incorporated in Maine or Tennessee
may be required to contact Maine or
Tennessee, rather than New York, to
attempt to claim funds that have
transferred to the State. It is not clear,
however, how the consumer would
know to do this. In addition, the
consumer would be required to spend
time and perhaps money completing
and submitting any required claim
form(s), as well as to wait perhaps
several weeks or months to receive his
or her property. Finally, the Bureau
understands that Maine’s and
Tennessee’s existing processes for
claiming unclaimed property generally
rely on property owners’ names and
addresses. It may be difficult for gift
card owners to locate and successfully
claim their property under those
processes, particularly if gift card
issuers do not know, and thus do not
report to the State, the names of the
consumers who own the unclaimed
cards (i.e., the gift card recipients).
The Bureau notes that at least one
judicial decision has weighed the
relative benefits to consumers of the
EFTA and Regulation E and States’
unclaimed property laws as applied to
gift cards. In January 2012, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
upheld a decision by the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey that
declined to preliminarily enjoin the
application to gift cards of New Jersey’s
unclaimed property law, which at the
time presumed gift cards abandoned
after two years of non-use.23 The District
Court concluded, and the Third Circuit
agreed, that the plaintiffs were unlikely
to prove that Federal law preempted
New Jersey’s unclaimed gift card law.
The Third Circuit identified certain
benefits of New Jersey’s law that, in the
court’s view, weighed in favor of a
conclusion that New Jersey’s law was
more protective of consumers than the
23 See N.J. Retail Merchants Ass’n v. SidamonEristoff, 669 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2012), reh’g denied
(3d Cir. Feb. 24, 2012).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Aug 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
EFTA and Regulation E.24 Specifically,
once New Jersey received unclaimed gift
card funds, it would have held them for
consumers indefinitely (i.e., not merely
for the minimum five years required
under Federal law). In addition, a
consumer who submitted a successful
claim for his or her funds would have
received cash back from the State, as
opposed to a card solely redeemable for
goods or services.25 The Bureau notes
that the court reached its conclusion in
the absence of any specific guidance or
determination from the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System or from the Bureau.
As noted, the Bureau invites public
comment on all or any aspects of this
notice, including on the application of
Maine’s and Tennessee’s unclaimed
property laws to gift cards, on the nature
of any inconsistency between those laws
and the expiration date provisions of the
EFTA and Regulation E, and on whether
Maine’s and Tennessee’s laws afford
consumers greater protection than
Federal law. After the close of the
comment period, the Bureau will
analyze any comments received,
conduct any further analysis that may
be required, and will publish a notice of
final action in the Federal Register.
Dated: August 16, 2012.
Richard Cordray,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
[FR Doc. 2012–20531 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2012–0855; Directorate
Identifier 2011–NM–136–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to supersede an
existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to all The Boeing Company
Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300,
–400, and –500 series airplanes. The
existing AD currently requires repetitive
inspections to detect cracking of the
lower corners of the door frame and
SUMMARY:
24 Id.
25 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50407
cross beam of the forward cargo door,
and corrective actions if necessary. The
existing AD also requires eventual
modification of the outboard radius of
the lower corners of the door frame and
reinforcement of the cross beam of the
forward cargo door, which would
constitute terminating action for the
existing repetitive inspections. Since we
issued that AD, we have received
additional reports of fatigue cracking in
the radius of the lower frames and in the
lower number 5 cross beam of the
forward cargo door. This proposed AD
would revise the compliance times for
the preventive modification; add certain
inspections for cracks in the number 5
cross beam of the forward cargo door;
and add inspections of the number 4
cross beam if cracks are found in the
number 5 cross beam, and corrective
actions if necessary. For certain
airplanes, this proposed AD would also
add a one-time inspection for airplanes
previously modified or repaired, and a
one-time inspection of the
reinforcement angle for excessive
shimming or fastener pull-up, and
corrective actions if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to prevent fatigue
cracking of the lower corners of the door
frame and number 5 cross beam of the
forward cargo door, which could result
in rapid depressurization of the
airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by October 5, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail
address above 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; 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.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM
21AUP1
50408
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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:
Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425)
917–6450; fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
alan.pohl@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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–2012–0855; Directorate Identifier
2011–NM–136–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.
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 March 31, 2000, we issued AD
2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65
FR 19302, April 11, 2000), for Model
737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and
–500 series airplanes. That AD requires
repetitive inspections to detect cracking
of the lower corners of the door frame
and cross beam of the forward cargo
door, and corrective actions, if
necessary. That AD also requires
eventual modification of the outboard
radius of the lower corners of the door
frame and reinforcement of the cross
beam of the forward cargo door, which
would constitute terminating action for
the repetitive inspections. That AD
resulted from reports indicating that
fatigue cracks were detected in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Aug 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
lower corners of the door frame and
cross beam of the forward cargo door.
We issued that AD to prevent fatigue
cracking of the lower corners of the door
frame and cross beam of the forward
cargo door, which could result in rapid
depressurization of the airplane.
Actions Since AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302,
April 11, 2000) Was Issued
Since we issued AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302,
April 11, 2000), we have received
additional reports of fatigue cracking in
the radius of the lower frames and in the
Web of the number 5 lower cross beam
of the forward cargo door. One report
was of a rapid loss of cabin pressure
during descent, as a result of a door
crack. Other reports indicated improper
nesting when installing the aft
reinforcement angle during
accomplishment of the modification
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin
737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March
31, 1994; and Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 3,
dated July 20, 2000.
Relevant Service Information
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5,
dated February 14, 2011; and Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–
52–1149, dated December 11, 2003. For
information on the procedures and
compliance times, see this service
information at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FAA’s Determination
We are proposing this AD 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.
Proposed AD Requirements
This proposed AD would retain all of
the requirements of AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302,
April 11, 2000). This proposed AD
would also require accomplishing the
actions specified in the service
information described previously,
except as discussed under ‘‘Differences
Between the Proposed AD and the
Service Information.’’ Related
investigative actions include inspecting
the number 4 cross beam on the forward
cargo door for cracking if cracking is
found on the number 5 cross beam, a
one-time high frequency eddy current
inspection for cracking of the lower
corner frame, and a one-time inspection
of the reinforcement angle. Corrective
actions include the following: Installing
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a preventive modification, replacing the
frame and repairing any cracking,
repairing or replacing the number 5
cross beam, and replacing the
reinforcement angle.
Explanation of Changes Made to
Existing Requirements
The compliance times required by AD
2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65
FR 19302, April 11, 2000), are specified
in flight cycles on the airplane.
However, the compliance times in the
new actions specified in the revised
service information are specified in door
flight cycles, which are flight cycles
accumulated on the forward cargo
doors. These doors are interchangeable
between airplanes and they are often
interchanged. Since the unsafe
condition stems from the total flight
cycles accumulated on the door and not
on the airplane itself, this proposed AD
will specify door flight cycles for the
new compliance times.
We have changed all references to a
‘‘detailed visual inspection’’ in the
retained requirements of the existing AD
to a ‘‘detailed inspection’’ in this
proposed AD.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes has
received an ODA. We have revised the
retained requirements of the existing AD
to delegate the authority to approve an
alternative method of compliance for
any repair required by this proposed AD
to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
ODA rather than a Designated
Engineering Representative (DER).
We have included Note 2 of the
restated requirements of AD 2000–07–
06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR
19302, April 11, 2000), in paragraph (h)
of this proposed AD. Note 3 of the
restated requirements of AD 2000–07–
06 is no longer applicable and has been
removed from this proposed AD. These
changes do not add any additional
burden on the public with regard to the
restated requirements of the existing
AD.
We have added Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5,
dated February 14, 2011, to paragraph
(i)(2) of this AD as the source of service
information for accomplishing the
preventive modification and the
reinforcement modification.
Differences Between the Proposed AD
and the Service Information
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–
52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14,
2011, specifies to contact the
manufacturer for instructions on how to
repair certain conditions, but this
proposed AD would require repairing
those conditions in one of the following
ways:
E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM
21AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules
• In accordance with a method that
we approve; or
• Using data that meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and
that have been approved by the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) whom
we have authorized to make those
findings.
Changes to Existing AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302,
April 11, 2000) Format
This proposed AD would retain all
requirements of AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302,
April 11, 2000). Since AD 2000–07–06
was issued, the AD format has been
revised, and certain paragraphs have
been rearranged. As a result, the
corresponding paragraph identifiers
have changed in this proposed AD, as
listed in the following table:
REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS
Requirement in AD 2000–
07–06, Amendment
39-11660 (65 FR 19302,
April 11, 2000)
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Corresponding
requirement in
this proposed
AD
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
50409
Explanation of Change to Costs of
Compliance
Since issuance of AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302,
April 11, 2000), 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 581 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to
comply with this proposed AD:
ESTIMATED COSTS
Action
Labor cost
Inspections retained from AD
2000–07–06,
Amendment
39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April
11, 2000).
Modification retained from AD
2000–07–06.
Inspections, new proposed action
1 work-hour × $85 per hour =
$85 per inspection cycle.
$0
18 work-hours × $85 per hour =
$1,530.
9 work-hours × $85 per hour =
$765.
We estimate the following costs to do
any necessary modifications that would
Parts cost
Cost per product
Cost on U.S. operators
$85 per inspection
cycle.
$49,385 per inspection cycle.
$1,865
$3,395 .......................
$1,972,495.
$0
$765 ..........................
$444,465.
be required based on the results of the
proposed inspections. We have no way
of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these modifications:
ON-CONDITION COSTS
Action
Labor cost
Parts cost
Cost per
product
Modification ......................................
84 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,140 ...................................................
$12,395
$19,535
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Authority for This Rulemaking
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
We have received no definitive data
that would enable us to provide cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs/
replacements specified in this proposed
AD.
We have 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 that the 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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:59 Aug 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
Regulatory Findings
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(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.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by
removing airworthiness directive (AD)
E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM
21AUP1
50410
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules
2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65
FR 19302, April 11, 2000), and adding
the following new AD:
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA–
2012–0855; Directorate Identifier 2011–
NM–136–AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this
AD action by October 5, 2012.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April
11, 2000).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all The Boeing
Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C,
–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes,
certificated in any category.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America
Code 52, Doors.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by additional
reports of fatigue cracking in the radius of the
lower frames and in the lower number 5
cross beam of the forward cargo door. We are
issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of
the lower corners of the door frame and
number 5 cross beam of the forward cargo
door, which could result in rapid
depressurization of the airplane.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Retained High Frequency Eddy Current
(HFEC) Initial/Repetitive Inspections
This paragraph restates the requirements of
paragraph (a) of AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April
11, 2000), with revised service information.
Within 1 year or 4,500 flight cycles after May
16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–07–
06), whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC
inspection to detect cracking of the lower
corners (forward and aft) of the door frame
of the forward cargo door, in accordance with
Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test (NDT)
Manual, D6–37239, Part 6, Section 51–00–00,
Figure 4, dated August 5, 1997, or April 5,
2007, or Figure 23, dated August 5, 1997 or
April 5, 2004, as applicable.
(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the
HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 4,500 flight cycles, until the
requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD have
been accomplished.
(2) If any cracking is detected during any
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD, which constitute
terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD.
(i) Accomplish the requirements of
paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) or (g)(2)(i)(B) of this
AD, and install a cross beam repair and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Aug 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
reinforcement modification of the cross
beam, in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated
March 31, 1994.
(A) Repair the door frame of the forward
cargo door in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate; or in accordance with
data meeting the type certification basis of
the airplane approved by the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has
been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO, to make such findings. For a repair or
modification method to be approved by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this
paragraph, and paragraphs (g)(2)(ii), (h)(2),
(h)(3)(ii), and (i)(2) of this AD, the Manager’s
approval letter must specifically reference
this AD.
(B) Replace the door frame of the forward
cargo door with a new door frame, in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin
737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31,
1994.
(ii) Modify the repaired or replaced door
frame of the forward cargo door, in
accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with
data meeting the type certification basis of
the airplane approved by the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to
make those findings.
Note 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of
this AD: Accomplishment of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated
March 31, 1994, does not supersede the
requirements of AD 90–06–02, Amendment
39–6489 (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990).
(h) Retained Initial Detailed Inspection and
Repetitive Inspections
This paragraph restates the requirements of
paragraph (b) of AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April
11, 2000). Within 1 year or 4,500 flight cycles
after May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD
2000–07–06), whichever occurs later,
perform a detailed inspection to detect
cracking of the cross beam (i.e., upper and
lower chord and Web sections) of the forward
cargo door, in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2,
dated March 31, 1994. 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.’’
(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 4,500 flight cycles until the
requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD have
been accomplished.
(2) If any cracking is detected on the lower
chord section of the cross beam during any
inspection required by paragraph (h) of this
AD, prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with
data meeting the type certification basis of
the airplane approved by the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to
make those findings.
(3) If any cracking is detected on any area
excluding the lower chord section of the
cross beam (i.e., upper chord and Web
section) during any inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to further
flight, accomplish the requirements of
paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (h)(3)(ii) of this AD, as
applicable, which constitutes terminating
action for the repetitive inspections required
by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes with line numbers 1
through 1231: Install a cross beam repair and
preventative modification of the outboard
radius of the lower corners (forward and aft)
of the door frame, in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2,
dated March 31, 1994.
(ii) For airplanes with line numbers 1232
and subsequent: Install a cross beam repair
and preventative modification of the
outboard radius of the lower corners (forward
and aft) of the door frame, in accordance with
a method approved by the Manager, Seattle
ACO, or in accordance with data meeting the
type certification basis of the airplane
approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by
the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those
findings.
(i) Retained Terminating Action
This paragraph restates the requirements of
paragraph (c) of AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April
11, 2000), with revised service information.
Within 4 years or 12,000 flight cycles after
May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–
07–06), whichever occurs later: Install the
preventative modification of the outboard
radius of the lower corners (forward and aft)
of the door frame and the reinforcement
modification of the cross beam of the forward
cargo door, in accordance with paragraph
(i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
Accomplishment of paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2)
of this AD, as applicable, constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and
(h)(1) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes with line numbers 1
through 1231: Accomplish the preventative
modification and the reinforcement
modification, in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2,
dated March 31, 1994.
(2) For airplanes with line numbers 1232
and subsequent: Accomplish the preventative
modification and the reinforcement
modification, in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or in
accordance with data meeting the type
certification basis of the airplane approved
by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA
that has been authorized by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, to make those findings; or in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated
February 14, 2011. As of the effective date of
this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated
E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM
21AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules
February 14, 2011, to accomplish the
modifications required by this paragraph.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(j) Retained Action for Airplanes on Which
Modifications Were Accomplished
Previously
This paragraph restates the requirements of
paragraph (d) of AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April
11, 2000). For all airplanes on which
modifications of the forward lower corner of
the door frame and the cross beam of the
forward cargo door were accomplished in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin
737–52–1100, dated August 25, 1988, or
Revision 1, dated July 20, 1989; or in
accordance with the requirements of AD 90–
06–02, Amendment 39–6489 (55 FR 8372,
March 7, 1990): Within 4 years or 12,000
flight cycles after May 16, 2000 (the effective
date of AD 2000–07–06), whichever occurs
later, install the reinforcement modification
of the aft corner of the door frame of the
forward cargo door, in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100,
Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994.
Accomplishment of such modification
constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspections required by paragraphs
(g)(1) and (h)(1) of this AD.
(k) New Inspections and Corrective Actions
Except as provided by paragraphs (m)(1)
and (m)(2) of this AD: At the applicable time
specified in paragraph 1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100,
Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, do the
inspections required by paragraphs (k)(1) and
(k)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Do all
applicable related investigative and
corrective actions before further flight, in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14,
2011; except as required by paragraph (m)(3)
of this AD. Accomplishment of the
inspections required by paragraph (k) of this
AD terminates the requirements of the
repetitive inspections required by paragraphs
(g)(1) and (h)(1) of this AD. If any cracking
is found in the number 4 cross beam, before
further flight, repair in accordance with
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737–52–1149, dated December 11, 2003.
Note 2 to paragraph (k) of this AD: Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100,
Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, refers to
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737–52–1149, dated December 11, 2003, as
an additional source of guidance for the
inspection for cracks of the number 4 cross
beam.
(1) For airplanes identified in Tables 1 and
2 of paragraph 1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100,
Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011: Do a
one-time HFEC inspection of the applicable
location for cracks, in accordance with the
Work Instructions, Part I, of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5,
dated February 14, 2011.
(2) For airplanes identified in Table 3 of
paragraph 1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5,
dated February 14, 2011: Do a one-time
general visual inspection of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Aug 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
reinforcement angle for excessive shimming
or fastener pull-up, in accordance with the
Work Instructions, Part III, of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5,
dated February 14, 2011.
(l) No Supplemental Structural Inspections
Required by This AD
(1) The supplemental structural
inspections specified in Table 4 of paragraph
1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ and Part 5 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5,
dated February 14, 2011, are not required by
this AD.
(2) The supplemental structural
inspections specified in Table 4 of paragraph
1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated
February 14, 2011, may be used in support
of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or
129.109(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR
129.109(c)(2)). The corresponding actions
specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14,
2011, are not required by this AD.
(m) Exceptions to Certain Service
Information
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100,
Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011,
specifies a compliance time relative to the
Revision 5 issue date of the service bulletin,
this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
(2) Where Table 1, ‘‘Condition’’ column of
Paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100,
Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011,
specifies ‘‘airplanes without either the repair
or modification accomplished in accordance
with previous releases of this service
bulletin,’’ the corresponding condition in this
AD is for ‘‘airplanes on which either a repair
or modification was not accomplished before
the effective date of this AD.’’
(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14,
2011, specifies to contact Boeing for certain
actions: Before further flight, do the repair
using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1)
of this AD.
(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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 emailed 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50411
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair
required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has
been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO
to make those findings. For a repair method
to be approved, the repair must meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously in
accordance with AD 2000–07–06,
Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April
11, 2000), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding requirements of this AD.
(o) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle
ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; phone (425) 917–
6450; fax (425) 917–6590; email
alan.pohl@faa.gov.
(2) 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; 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 August
13, 2012.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–20470 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2012–0856; Directorate
Identifier 2012–NM–093–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747–100,
747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B,
747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–
400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP
series airplanes; Model 767–200, –300,
–300F, and –400ER series airplanes; and
Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and
–300ER series airplanes. This proposed
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM
21AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50407-50411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20470]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2012-0855; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-136-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C,
-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The existing AD currently
requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the lower corners
of the door frame and cross beam of the forward cargo door, and
corrective actions if necessary. The existing AD also requires eventual
modification of the outboard radius of the lower corners of the door
frame and reinforcement of the cross beam of the forward cargo door,
which would constitute terminating action for the existing repetitive
inspections. Since we issued that AD, we have received additional
reports of fatigue cracking in the radius of the lower frames and in
the lower number 5 cross beam of the forward cargo door. This proposed
AD would revise the compliance times for the preventive modification;
add certain inspections for cracks in the number 5 cross beam of the
forward cargo door; and add inspections of the number 4 cross beam if
cracks are found in the number 5 cross beam, and corrective actions if
necessary. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also add a
one-time inspection for airplanes previously modified or repaired, and
a one-time inspection of the reinforcement angle for excessive shimming
or fastener pull-up, and corrective actions if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the lower corners of
the door frame and number 5 cross beam of the forward cargo door, which
could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 5, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above 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; 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.
[[Page 50408]]
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: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-
6450; fax: (425) 917-6590; email: alan.pohl@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-2012-0855;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-136-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.
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 March 31, 2000, we issued AD 2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65
FR 19302, April 11, 2000), for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400,
and -500 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to
detect cracking of the lower corners of the door frame and cross beam
of the forward cargo door, and corrective actions, if necessary. That
AD also requires eventual modification of the outboard radius of the
lower corners of the door frame and reinforcement of the cross beam of
the forward cargo door, which would constitute terminating action for
the repetitive inspections. That AD resulted from reports indicating
that fatigue cracks were detected in the lower corners of the door
frame and cross beam of the forward cargo door. We issued that AD to
prevent fatigue cracking of the lower corners of the door frame and
cross beam of the forward cargo door, which could result in rapid
depressurization of the airplane.
Actions Since AD 2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11,
2000) Was Issued
Since we issued AD 2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302,
April 11, 2000), we have received additional reports of fatigue
cracking in the radius of the lower frames and in the Web of the number
5 lower cross beam of the forward cargo door. One report was of a rapid
loss of cabin pressure during descent, as a result of a door crack.
Other reports indicated improper nesting when installing the aft
reinforcement angle during accomplishment of the modification specified
in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1100, Revision 2, dated March 31,
1994; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 3, dated
July 20, 2000.
Relevant Service Information
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 5,
dated February 14, 2011; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-52-1149, dated December 11, 2003. For information on the procedures
and compliance times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov.
FAA's Determination
We are proposing this AD 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.
Proposed AD Requirements
This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2000-
07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000). This proposed
AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the
service information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.''
Related investigative actions include inspecting the number 4 cross
beam on the forward cargo door for cracking if cracking is found on the
number 5 cross beam, a one-time high frequency eddy current inspection
for cracking of the lower corner frame, and a one-time inspection of
the reinforcement angle. Corrective actions include the following:
Installing a preventive modification, replacing the frame and repairing
any cracking, repairing or replacing the number 5 cross beam, and
replacing the reinforcement angle.
Explanation of Changes Made to Existing Requirements
The compliance times required by AD 2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660
(65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), are specified in flight cycles on the
airplane. However, the compliance times in the new actions specified in
the revised service information are specified in door flight cycles,
which are flight cycles accumulated on the forward cargo doors. These
doors are interchangeable between airplanes and they are often
interchanged. Since the unsafe condition stems from the total flight
cycles accumulated on the door and not on the airplane itself, this
proposed AD will specify door flight cycles for the new compliance
times.
We have changed all references to a ``detailed visual inspection''
in the retained requirements of the existing AD to a ``detailed
inspection'' in this proposed AD.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes has received an ODA. We have revised
the retained requirements of the existing AD to delegate the authority
to approve an alternative method of compliance for any repair required
by this proposed AD to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA rather than
a Designated Engineering Representative (DER).
We have included Note 2 of the restated requirements of AD 2000-07-
06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), in paragraph (h)
of this proposed AD. Note 3 of the restated requirements of AD 2000-07-
06 is no longer applicable and has been removed from this proposed AD.
These changes do not add any additional burden on the public with
regard to the restated requirements of the existing AD.
We have added Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision
5, dated February 14, 2011, to paragraph (i)(2) of this AD as the
source of service information for accomplishing the preventive
modification and the reinforcement modification.
Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 5, dated
February 14, 2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
[[Page 50409]]
In accordance with a method that we approve; or
Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.
Changes to Existing AD 2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302,
April 11, 2000) Format
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2000-07-06,
Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000). Since AD 2000-07-06
was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have
been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers
have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:
Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement in AD 2000-07-06, Amendment
39[dash]11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, Corresponding requirement in
2000) this proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (a) paragraph (g)
paragraph (b) paragraph (h)
paragraph (c) paragraph (i)
paragraph (d) paragraph (j)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance
Since issuance of AD 2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302,
April 11, 2000), 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 581 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections retained from AD 2000-07- 1 work-hour x $85 per $0 $85 per inspection cycle $49,385 per inspection cycle.
06, Amendment 39[dash]11660 (65 FR hour = $85 per
19302, April 11, 2000). inspection cycle.
Modification retained from AD 2000-07- 18 work-hours x $85 per $1,865 $3,395.................. $1,972,495.
06. hour = $1,530.
Inspections, new proposed action..... 9 work-hours x $85 per $0 $765.................... $444,465.
hour = $765.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary modifications
that would be required based on the results of the proposed
inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these modifications:
On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per
Action Labor cost Parts cost product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification.............................. 84 work-hours x $85 per hour = $12,395 $19,535
$7,140.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition repairs/replacements specified in
this proposed AD.
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 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 that the 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 removing airworthiness directive
(AD)
[[Page 50410]]
2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), and
adding the following new AD:
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-0855; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-136-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 5,
2012.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR
19302, April 11, 2000).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any
category.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by additional reports of fatigue cracking
in the radius of the lower frames and in the lower number 5 cross
beam of the forward cargo door. We are issuing this AD to prevent
fatigue cracking of the lower corners of the door frame and number 5
cross beam of the forward cargo door, which could result in rapid
depressurization of the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Retained High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) Initial/Repetitive
Inspections
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), with
revised service information. Within 1 year or 4,500 flight cycles
after May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-07-06), whichever
occurs later, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracking of the
lower corners (forward and aft) of the door frame of the forward
cargo door, in accordance with Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test (NDT)
Manual, D6-37239, Part 6, Section 51-00-00, Figure 4, dated August
5, 1997, or April 5, 2007, or Figure 23, dated August 5, 1997 or
April 5, 2004, as applicable.
(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the HFEC inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles, until the
requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD have been accomplished.
(2) If any cracking is detected during any inspection required
by paragraph (g) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD,
which constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(i) Accomplish the requirements of paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) or
(g)(2)(i)(B) of this AD, and install a cross beam repair and
reinforcement modification of the cross beam, in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1100, Revision 2, dated March 31,
1994.
(A) Repair the door frame of the forward cargo door in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or
in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the
airplane approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a repair or
modification method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as
required by this paragraph, and paragraphs (g)(2)(ii), (h)(2),
(h)(3)(ii), and (i)(2) of this AD, the Manager's approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
(B) Replace the door frame of the forward cargo door with a new
door frame, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1100,
Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994.
(ii) Modify the repaired or replaced door frame of the forward
cargo door, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, or in accordance with data meeting the type
certification basis of the airplane approved by the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, to make those findings.
Note 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD:
Accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1100, Revision 2,
dated March 31, 1994, does not supersede the requirements of AD 90-
06-02, Amendment 39-6489 (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990).
(h) Retained Initial Detailed Inspection and Repetitive Inspections
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD
2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000). Within
1 year or 4,500 flight cycles after May 16, 2000 (the effective date
of AD 2000-07-06), whichever occurs later, perform a detailed
inspection to detect cracking of the cross beam (i.e., upper and
lower chord and Web sections) of the forward cargo door, in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1100, Revision 2,
dated March 31, 1994. 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.''
(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles until the
requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD have been accomplished.
(2) If any cracking is detected on the lower chord section of
the cross beam during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of
this AD, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with data
meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings.
(3) If any cracking is detected on any area excluding the lower
chord section of the cross beam (i.e., upper chord and Web section)
during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to
further flight, accomplish the requirements of paragraph (h)(3)(i)
or (h)(3)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, which constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes with line numbers 1 through 1231: Install a
cross beam repair and preventative modification of the outboard
radius of the lower corners (forward and aft) of the door frame, in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1100, Revision 2,
dated March 31, 1994.
(ii) For airplanes with line numbers 1232 and subsequent:
Install a cross beam repair and preventative modification of the
outboard radius of the lower corners (forward and aft) of the door
frame, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle
ACO, or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis
of the airplane approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that
has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those
findings.
(i) Retained Terminating Action
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD
2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), with
revised service information. Within 4 years or 12,000 flight cycles
after May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-07-06), whichever
occurs later: Install the preventative modification of the outboard
radius of the lower corners (forward and aft) of the door frame and
the reinforcement modification of the cross beam of the forward
cargo door, in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this
AD, as applicable. Accomplishment of paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of
this AD, as applicable, constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (h)(1) of
this AD.
(1) For airplanes with line numbers 1 through 1231: Accomplish
the preventative modification and the reinforcement modification, in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1100, Revision 2,
dated March 31, 1994.
(2) For airplanes with line numbers 1232 and subsequent:
Accomplish the preventative modification and the reinforcement
modification, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, or in accordance with data meeting the type
certification basis of the airplane approved by the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, to make those findings; or in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14,
2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 5, dated
[[Page 50411]]
February 14, 2011, to accomplish the modifications required by this
paragraph.
(j) Retained Action for Airplanes on Which Modifications Were
Accomplished Previously
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (d) of AD
2000-07-06, Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000). For
all airplanes on which modifications of the forward lower corner of
the door frame and the cross beam of the forward cargo door were
accomplished in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1100,
dated August 25, 1988, or Revision 1, dated July 20, 1989; or in
accordance with the requirements of AD 90-06-02, Amendment 39-6489
(55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990): Within 4 years or 12,000 flight cycles
after May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-07-06), whichever
occurs later, install the reinforcement modification of the aft
corner of the door frame of the forward cargo door, in accordance
with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1100, Revision 2, dated March
31, 1994. Accomplishment of such modification constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(1) and (h)(1) of this AD.
(k) New Inspections and Corrective Actions
Except as provided by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD:
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,''
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 5, dated
February 14, 2011, do the inspections required by paragraphs (k)(1)
and (k)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011;
except as required by paragraph (m)(3) of this AD. Accomplishment of
the inspections required by paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the
requirements of the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs
(g)(1) and (h)(1) of this AD. If any cracking is found in the number
4 cross beam, before further flight, repair in accordance with
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1149, dated
December 11, 2003.
Note 2 to paragraph (k) of this AD: Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, refers to
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1149, dated
December 11, 2003, as an additional source of guidance for the
inspection for cracks of the number 4 cross beam.
(1) For airplanes identified in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100,
Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011: Do a one-time HFEC inspection
of the applicable location for cracks, in accordance with the Work
Instructions, Part I, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100,
Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011.
(2) For airplanes identified in Table 3 of paragraph 1.E,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100,
Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011: Do a one-time general visual
inspection of the reinforcement angle for excessive shimming or
fastener pull-up, in accordance with the Work Instructions, Part
III, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 5, dated
February 14, 2011.
(l) No Supplemental Structural Inspections Required by This AD
(1) The supplemental structural inspections specified in Table 4
of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' and Part 5 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision
5, dated February 14, 2011, are not required by this AD.
(2) The supplemental structural inspections specified in Table 4
of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, may be used in
support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(c)(2)
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR
129.109(c)(2)). The corresponding actions specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, are not required by
this AD.
(m) Exceptions to Certain Service Information
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011,
specifies a compliance time relative to the Revision 5 issue date of
the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Table 1, ``Condition'' column of Paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100,
Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, specifies ``airplanes without
either the repair or modification accomplished in accordance with
previous releases of this service bulletin,'' the corresponding
condition in this AD is for ``airplanes on which either a repair or
modification was not accomplished before the effective date of this
AD.''
(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1100, Revision 5,
dated February 14, 2011, specifies to contact Boeing for certain
actions: Before further flight, do the repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(n)(1) of this AD.
(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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 emailed
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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to
be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2000-07-06,
Amendment 39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of this AD.
(o) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone (425)
917-6450; fax (425) 917-6590; email alan.pohl@faa.gov.
(2) 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; 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 August 13, 2012.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-20470 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
