[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 66 (Thursday, April 7, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17596-17598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6688]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2004-18997; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-19-AD; 
Amendment 39-14036; AD 2005-07-12]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for 
certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series 
airplanes. This AD requires repetitive detailed and eddy current 
inspections to detect cracking of the frame web around the cutout for 
the doorstop intercostal strap at the aft side of the body station 
291.5 frame at stringer 16R, and corrective actions if necessary. This 
AD is prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the web of the body 
station 291.5 frame near the forward galley door. We are issuing this 
AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the aft frame and frame 
support structure of the forward galley door, which could result in a 
severed fuselage frame web, rapid decompression of the airplane, and 
possible loss of the forward galley door.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 12, 2005.
    The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in 
the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 
12, 2005.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.
    Docket: The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any 
final disposition. You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-
5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL-401, 
Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2004-18997; the directorate 
identifier for this docket is 2004-NM-19-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Hall, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 
917-6430; fax (425) 917-6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 39 
with an AD for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, 
and -500 series airplanes. That action, published in the Federal 
Register on September 3, 2004 (69 FR 53858), proposed to require 
repetitive detailed and eddy current inspections to detect cracking of 
the frame web around the cutout for the doorstop intercostal strap at 
the aft side of the body station 291.5 frame at stringer 16R, and 
corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the 
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been 
submitted on the proposed AD.

Request To Delay Issuing AD

    Several commenters note that the proposed AD does not provide a 
terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in the 
proposed AD. Two commenters suggest that a terminating action be 
included in either the final AD action or in the instructions of the 
structural inspection document. One commenter requests that the FAA 
delay issuing the final AD action until Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
737-53A1241, dated June 13, 2002, has been revised to include a 
terminating modification. (That service bulletin was referenced in the 
proposed AD as the appropriate source of service information for 
accomplishing the repetitive inspections.) One commenter states that 
the proposed repetitive intervals will allow enough time for 
accomplishment of the inspections during its fleet's heavy maintenance 
visits, but that it would be helpful if terminating action instructions 
were provided.
    We agree that a terminating action for the repetitive inspections 
would benefit operators. The airplane manufacturer is currently 
developing a terminating action. Once the proposed terminating action 
has been submitted to us for review, and we have approved the proposed 
action as terminating action for the requirements of the AD, anyone may 
use that terminating action as an alternative method of compliance 
(AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD. We do not 
agree that we should delay issuing this AD until a terminating action 
is developed. We have determined that an unsafe condition exists, and 
we do not have any technical justification for delaying the release of 
this AD. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.
    One commenter requests that operators be allowed to review the 
additional service history information referenced in the proposed AD 
before the FAA issues the final AD action. The commenter states that it 
has requested that Boeing disseminate that additional history 
information to all operators. The commenter notes that the initial 
inspection threshold specified in the proposed AD is 20 percent lower 
than the threshold specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1241. The commenter concludes that the additional history 
information had an obvious impact on the FAA's decision to include a 
lowered initial inspection threshold in the proposed AD.
    We agree with the intent of the commenter's request. As stated in 
the ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin'' 
section of the proposed AD, the service bulletin includes an initial 
inspection threshold of 50,000 total flight cycles, and the proposed AD 
includes an initial inspection threshold of 40,000 total flight cycles. 
The threshold specified in the service bulletin is based on the first 
two reported cracks, which were found on an airplane that had 
accumulated more than 54,000 total flight cycles. After the release of 
the service bulletin, a subsequent crack was reported on an

[[Page 17597]]

airplane that had accumulated only 44,153 total flight cycles. In light 
of this additional service history, we met with Boeing and determined 
that a threshold of 40,000 total flight cycles was appropriate for the 
initial inspection. We do not agree to delay issuing this AD until 
operators have had the opportunity to review the additional service 
history referenced in the proposed AD. We do not have any technical 
justification for such a delay. We have not changed this AD regarding 
this issue.

Request To Revise Repetitive Inspection Interval

    Two commenters state that the repetitive inspection interval 
specified in the proposed AD is not synchronized with their maintenance 
programs, and that doing the inspection at the interval specified in 
the proposed AD would be a significant burden for operators that need 
to remove the galley to do an inspection. We infer that the commenters 
are requesting that the repetitive inspection interval of ``not to 
exceed 4,500 flight cycles,'' which is specified in the proposed AD, be 
increased so the interval is synchronized with the commenters' 
maintenance programs.
    We agree that it would be a significant burden if operators have to 
remove the galley outside of a scheduled maintenance visit in order to 
perform an inspection. We do not agree to revise this AD so the 
repetitive inspection interval is synchronized with the maintenance 
programs of specific operators. In developing the repetitive inspection 
interval for this AD we considered the manufacturer's recommendation, 
the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, and 
the practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspection at an 
interval that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most 
affected operators. However, under the provisions of paragraph (h) of 
this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the repetitive interval if 
the request includes data that justify that a different interval would 
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD 
regarding this issue.

Request To Address Inspection of Areas With Existing Repairs

    One commenter notes that the proposed AD does not address 
inspection requirements if a repair exists in the subject areas. We 
infer that the commenter is requesting that we revise the proposed AD 
to include information regarding the inspection of areas with existing 
repairs.
    We acknowledge that special inspection procedures may be required 
if a previously installed repair prevents an operator from 
accomplishing the actions required by this AD. It is not possible to 
foresee all possible repair configurations and to provide an 
appropriate inspection. If this is the case, the operator must apply 
for an AMOC as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. We have not 
changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance

    Several commenters state that the estimated costs for compliance 
stated in the proposed AD are misleading. The commenters note that 
inspecting the subject areas may only take 2 hours per inspection cycle 
to accomplish, but the time for accessing and closing the inspection 
area may take an additional 20 hours per inspection cycle. The 
commenters state that these access and closing costs would be 
attributable to the proposed AD because the proposed compliance time 
would not allow for doing the proposed actions during a scheduled 
maintenance visit when the galley would be removed. We infer that the 
commenters are requesting that the estimated costs of compliance be 
revised to include labor hours for accessing and closing the inspection 
area.
    We do not agree to revise the ``Costs of Compliance'' section of 
this AD. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions 
represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions 
actually required by the AD. This AD requires repetitive detailed and 
eddy current inspections. We recognize that in accomplishing the 
requirements of any AD, operators may incur incidental costs in 
addition to the direct costs. However, the cost analysis in AD 
rulemaking actions typically does not include incidental costs, such as 
the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time 
necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs 
may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost 
impossible to calculate.

Explanation of Change to the Proposed AD

    Boeing has received a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA). We 
have revised this AD to delegate the authority to approve an AMOC for 
any replacement required by this AD to the Authorized Representative 
(AR) for the Boeing DOA Organization rather than the Designated 
Engineering Representative.
    We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to provide the option of 
requesting an AMOC from either the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or an approved AR of the Boeing DOA 
Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 
make such findings.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the 
comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and 
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described 
previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase 
the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    This AD affects about 3,113 airplanes worldwide. The following 
table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with 
this AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average                                                       Number of U.S.-
               Action                   Work     labor rate            Parts              Cost per airplane        registered           Fleet cost
                                        hours     per hour                                                          airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection, per inspection cycle....        2           $65   None...................  $130, per inspection                 876   $113,880, per
                                                                                        cycle.                                     inspection cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII,

[[Page 17598]]

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General requirements.''
    Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe 
flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for 
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary 
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that 
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to 
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to 
comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to 
examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness 
directive (AD):

2005-07-12 Boeing: Amendment 39-14036. Docket No. FAA-2004-18997; 
Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-19-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective May 12, 2005.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, 
-400, and -500 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as 
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1241, dated June 
13, 2002.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the web 
of the body station 291.5 frame near the forward galley door. We are 
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the aft 
frame and frame support structure of the forward galley door, which 
could result in a severed fuselage frame web, rapid decompression of 
the airplane, and possible loss of the forward galley door.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this 
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the 
actions have already been done.

Initial and Repetitive Inspections

    (f) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight cycles, or 
within 2,250 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, 
whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection and an eddy current 
inspection to detect cracking of the frame web around the cutout for 
the doorstop intercostal strap at the aft side of the body station 
291.5 frame at stringer 16R, in accordance with the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1241, dated 
June 13, 2002. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspections 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: 
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or 
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available 
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good 
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as 
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning 
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

Corrective Action

    (g) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this 
AD, and the bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate 
action: Before further flight, repair the crack according to a 
method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification 
Office (ACO), FAA; or according to data meeting the certification 
basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized Representative (AR) 
for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) Organization 
who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those 
findings. For a repair method to be approved, the approval must 
specifically reference this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve 
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures 
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used for any inspection required by this AD, if it is approved by an 
AR for the Boeing DOA who has been authorized by the Manager, 
Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For an inspection method to be 
approved, the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1241, 
dated June 13, 2002, to perform the actions that are required by 
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of this 
document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To 
get copies of the service information, go to Boeing Commercial 
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. To view 
the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL-401, Nassif 
Building, Washington, DC. To review copies of the service 
information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the 
NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 25, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.>
[FR Doc. 05-6688 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P