61550 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of an 

erroneous activation of the control column 

shaker during takeoff. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent erroneous activation of the control 

column shaker during takeoff, which could 

result in runway overrun, failure to clear 

terrain or obstacles after takeoff, or reduced 

controllability of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection 

Within 36 months after the effective date 

of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of 

the left and right angle of attack (AOA) 

sensor as applicable, to determine if a certain 

AOA sensor with a paddle type vane is 

installed, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service information specified in 

paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. 

(1) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 727–34–0245, dated June 4, 2008 

(for Model 727 airplanes). 

(2) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–34–2102, dated June 5, 2008 

(for Model 737–100, –200, and –200C series 

airplanes). 

(3) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 747–34–2925, dated June 4, 2008 

(for Model 747–100, –100B, –100B SUD, 

–200B, –200C, –200F, –300, –400, –400D, 

–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes). 

(h) Operational Test and Replacement 

If, during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, an AOA sensor with 

a paddle type vane is installed: Before further 

flight, do an operational test of the stall 

warning system, in accordance with Part 2 of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service information specified in 

paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. 

(1) For group 2 airplanes identified in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

747–34–2925, dated June 4, 2008: If you 

cannot get the values given in the table 

specified in Part 2 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–34–2925, dated June 4, 

2008, before further flight, replace the AOA 

sensor, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–34– 

2925, dated June 4, 2008. 

(2) For all airplanes, except those 

identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: If 

the AOA sensor fails to activate the control 

column shaker in the operational test, replace 

the AOA sensor with a new AOA sensor, in 

accordance with Part 3 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service information specified in 

paragraph (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii), or (h)(2)(iii) of 

this AD. 

(i) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 727–34–0245, dated June 4, 2008 

(for Model 727 airplanes). 

(ii) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–34–2102, dated June 5, 2008 

(for Model 737–100, –200, and –200C series 

airplanes). 

(iii) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 747–34–2925, dated June 4, 2008 

(for Model 747–100, –100B, –100B SUD, 

–200B, –200C, –200F, –300, –400, –400D, 

–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes). 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(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 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. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Ray Mei, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057– 

3356; phone: (425) 917–6467; fax: (425) 917– 

6590; email: raymont.mei@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 

September 26, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24807 Filed 10–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0155; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–141–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company 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 certain Model 737–200, –200C, –300, 

–400, and –500 series airplanes. That 

proposed AD would have superseded an 

existing AD that applies to certain The 

Boeing Company Model 737–200, 

–200C, –300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. The existing AD currently 

requires repetitive inspections to find 

fatigue cracking of certain upper and 

lower skin panels of the fuselage, and 

follow-on and corrective actions if 

necessary. The existing AD also 

includes a terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections of certain 

modified or repaired areas only. That 

NPRM proposed to add new inspections 

for cracking of the fuselage skin along 

certain chem-milled lines, and 

corrective actions if necessary. That 

NPRM also proposed to reduce certain 

thresholds and intervals required by the 

existing AD. This action revises that 

NPRM by reducing the proposed 

repetitive inspection intervals. We are 

proposing this supplemental NPRM to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking of the 

skin panels, which could result in 

sudden fracture and failure of the skin 

panels of the fuselage, and consequent 

rapid decompression of the airplane. 

Since these actions impose an 

additional burden over that proposed in 

the previous 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 

26, 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 

http://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 proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61551 

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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

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: 

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6447; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

wayne.lockett@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–2011–0155; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–141–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 http:// 

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 an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain Model 737–200, –200C, 

–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. 

That NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on March 8, 2011 (76 FR 

12619). That NPRM proposed to 

supersede AD 2004–18–06, Amendment 

39–13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 

2004), to continue to require repetitive 

inspections to find fatigue cracking of 

certain upper and lower skin panels of 

the fuselage, and follow-on and 

corrective actions if necessary. That 

NPRM also included a terminating 

action for the repetitive inspections of 

certain modified or repaired areas only. 

That NPRM proposed to add new 

inspections for cracking of the fuselage 

skin along certain chem-milled lines, 

and corrective actions if necessary. That 

NPRM also proposed to reduce certain 

thresholds and intervals required by the 

existing AD. That NPRM resulted from 

reports indicating new findings of 

cracks were found along the edges of the 

chem-milled pockets in the upper skin 

at certain stringers. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the previous NPRM 

(76 FR 12619, March 8, 2011), extensive 

continued evaluation of the chem-mill 

step cracking has been done, which 

resulted in a determination that the 

repetitive inspection intervals and the 

compliance time for the inspections of 

the crown area and other known areas 

of fuselage skin cracking must be 

reduced in order to adequately address 

the identified unsafe condition. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the previous NPRM (76 FR 

12619, March 8, 2011). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

previous NPRM and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Supportive Comments 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board and Jonathan W. Ketron support 

the content of the previous NPRM (76 

FR 12619, March 8, 2011). 

Request To Supersede AD 2003–14–06, 

Amendment 39–13225 (68 FR 42956, 

July 21, 2003) 

Alaska Airlines (ASA) asked that we 

change the previous NPRM (76 FR 

12619, March 8, 2011) to also supersede 

AD 2003–14–06, Amendment 39–13225 

(68 FR 42956, July 21, 2003). ASA 

explained that paragraph (g) of AD 

2004–18–06, Amendment 39–13784 (69 

FR 54206, September 8, 2004), allows 

accomplishing one-time internal 

inspections in accordance with 

paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of AD 

2003–14–06 in order to terminate the 

repetitive inspections required by 

paragraph (a) of AD 2004–18–06 

(paragraph (g) of the previous NPRM). 

ASA added that the previous NPRM 

restates these required external 

inspections. ASA noted that AD 2003– 

14–06 was initially released to address 

inadequate phosphoric anodizing of the 

skin panels, leading to disbonding of 

internal doublers. ASA stated further 

that subsequent events showed that 

fatigue cracking of chem-milled skins 

cannot be solely attributed to improper 

anodizing or disbonded doublers. ASA 

added that the previous NPRM does not 

clearly address the requirements in AD 

2003–14–06, which will remain in effect 

until after the final rule is released. 

We do not agree to supersede AD 

2003–14–06, Amendment 39–13255 (68 

FR 42956, July 21, 2003). The one-time 

internal inspection in that AD is 

required for safety and is not related to 

the chem-milled step cracking 

addressed by this supplemental NPRM. 

In addition, the one-time inspection 

required by AD 2003–14–06 only 

terminates the external eddy current 

inspections required by paragraph (a) of 

AD 2004–18–06, Amendment 39–13784 

(69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004), 

which is restated in paragraph (g) of this 

supplemental NPRM. All external 

detailed inspections are still required by 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM. We have made no change to this 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request for Clarification of Language in 

Paragraphs (g) and (h) of the Previous 

NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 2011) 

Boeing requested that paragraphs (g) 

and (h) of the previous NPRM (76 FR 

12619, March 8, 2011) be revised to 

better distinguish between existing and 

new requirements. Specifically, Boeing 

stated that the language used in 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of the previous 

NPRM could be interpreted to mean that 

using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009, is optional for accomplishing the 

required actions at the inspection 

thresholds and intervals required by AD 

2004–18–06, Amendment 39–13784 (69 

FR 54206, September 8, 2004). Boeing 

requested clarification of the wording to 

indicate that the inspection, methods, 

thresholds, and ‘‘repeats’’ in accordance 

with Revision 3 of this service bulletin 

are now required. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009, can be used for accomplishing the 

required actions in AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004). However, it is not 

required to use Revision 3 of this service 

bulletin to accomplish the requirements 

of the existing AD; rather, it is required 

to use that revision for the new actions 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61552 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

required by paragraphs (p), (q), and (s) 

of this supplemental NPRM. 

Consequently, we have revised 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of this 

supplemental NPRM to remove the 

sentence beginning ‘‘As of the effective 

date of this AD * * *’’ to clarify that 

using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009, is not required for accomplishing 

the requirements of the existing AD. 

Request To Change ‘‘Internal’’ Detailed 

Inspection to ‘‘External’’ Detailed 

Inspection 

Boeing asked that we change the 

‘‘internal’’ detailed inspection specified 

in paragraph (h)(1) of the previous 

NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 2011) to 

an ‘‘external’’ detailed inspection. 

Boeing stated that this is a typographical 

error because it is a restatement of the 

requirements of AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004). 

We agree that the reference to an 

‘‘internal’’ detailed inspection is a 

typographical error. We have changed 

paragraph (h)(1) of this supplemental 

NPRM to specify an ‘‘external’’ detailed 

inspection. 

Request To Remove a Paragraph 

Reference 

Boeing asked that we remove the 

reference to ‘‘paragraph (m)’’ in the 

third sentence of paragraph (g) of the 

previous NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 

2011). Boeing stated that paragraph (m) 

of the previous NPRM addresses 

disbond inspections, which should not 

terminate the detailed or eddy current 

inspection, as specified. 

We find that clarification is necessary. 

Paragraph (m) of this supplemental 

NPRM states that accomplishing the 

optional terminating action ‘‘before the 

effective date of this AD’’ terminates the 

eddy current inspections required by 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM. In addition, paragraph (m) of 

this supplemental NPRM states that the 

detailed inspections specified in 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM are not terminated. Paragraph 

(m) of this supplemental NPRM states 

further that, ‘‘as of the effective date of 

this AD,’’ the optional terminating 

action does not terminate the repetitive 

eddy current inspections required by 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM. 

We find it necessary to retain the 

reference to paragraph (m) of this 

supplemental NPRM in paragraph (g) to 

indicate that accomplishing the 

terminating action in paragraph (m) of 

this supplemental NPRM ‘‘before the 

effective date of this AD’’ terminates the 

eddy current inspections required by 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM. However, we have revised 

paragraph (m) of this supplemental 

NPRM to indicate that neither detailed 

nor eddy current inspections can be 

terminated by accomplishing the 

optional terminating action ‘‘on or after 

the effective date of this AD.’’ 

Request To Clarify Terminating Action 

Boeing asked that the preventative 

modification language specified in 

paragraph (w) of the previous NPRM (76 

FR 12619, March 8, 2011) be clarified to 

specify that doing the modification 

terminates only the repetitive 

inspections of the chem-milled steps 

common to stringer 12. Boeing stated 

that Note (c) of Table 2, paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009, specifies that 

accomplishing the preventative 

modification only terminates the 

inspections at stringer 12. Boeing added 

that there have been post-modification 

cracks reported at the chem-milled steps 

common to stringer 10, even though the 

modification doubler covers the area. 

Boeing noted that the internal 

modification doubler does not span the 

stringer 10 or stringer 13 chem-milled 

steps by three rows of fasteners; 

therefore, inspections should continue 

at those locations even though the 

modification doubler is common to 

them. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. Doing the preventive 

modification of the chem-milled areas 

in the skin at stringer 12, as specified in 

Part 7 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009, ends the repetitive 

inspections for the modified areas 

common to stringer 12 only. Cracking of 

the chem-milled steps has been found at 

locations where doublers do not extend 

a minimum of three fastener rows 

beyond the chem-milled step. We have 

changed paragraph (w) of this 

supplemental NPRM accordingly. 

Requests To Revise Certain Compliance 

Times 

Boeing asked that the compliance 

time specified in paragraph (p)(1) of the 

previous NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 

2011) be changed. Boeing stated that it 

is unclear why airplanes that have 

accomplished paragraphs (i), (j)(1)(ii), 

(k), (l), or (m) of the previous NPRM 

(which are repairs and disbond 

inspections) must be inspected within 

1,800 flight cycles after the effective 

date of the AD. Boeing added that 

airplanes identified in paragraph (p)(2) 

of the previous NPRM that have not 

accomplished those paragraphs are 

allowed to wait until 4,500 flight cycles 

after the last inspection, or 1,800 flight 

cycles after the effective date of the AD, 

whichever is later. Boeing questioned 

why the airplanes on which repairs 

have not been installed or a disbond 

inspection has not been accomplished 

have a different compliance time than 

airplanes that do have these repairs and 

inspections. Boeing noted that by using 

‘‘whichever occurs later’’ in paragraph 

(p)(2) of the previous NPRM, an 

operator may accumulate up to 6,299 

flight cycles (4,499 + 1,800) between 

inspections that were previously 

required at 4,500-flight-cycle intervals 

in accordance with AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004). 

We agree that the compliance times 

required by paragraph (p) of this 

supplemental NPRM should be 

clarified. After further review of the new 

inspection requirements in paragraph 

(p) of this supplemental NPRM, we have 

determined that those inspections are 

not related to existing installed repairs 

or the disbond inspection. The 

compliance times should not be based 

on local repairs that may be installed on 

the airplanes. For areas that have repairs 

installed in accordance with paragraphs 

(i), (j)(1)(ii), (k), (l), and (m) of this AD, 

the inspection is already terminated for 

these areas only. Therefore, we have 

deleted paragraphs (p)(1) and (p)(2) of 

the previous NPRM (76 FR 12619, 

March 8, 2011), and included the 

following reduced compliance time in 

paragraph (p) of this supplemental 

NPRM: ‘‘Within 4,500 flight cycles after 

doing the most recent inspection 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or 

within 1,800 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever is 

earlier.’’ 

Boeing also asked that the compliance 

time specified in paragraph (s) of the 

previous NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 

2011) be changed. Boeing stated that the 

repetitive interval should be changed to 

1,800 flight cycles for inspections in 

areas of known cracking in the lower 

lobe and Section 41, and when both 

eddy current and detailed inspections 

are required, in accordance with Part 4 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009. 

Boeing also noted that for inspections 

in areas with no known cracking, the 

threshold should be at the latest of 

35,000 total flight cycles, or at the 

earliest of 4,500 flight cycles from the 

release of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61553 

2009, or 9,000 flight cycles after the 

previous inspection. Boeing stated that, 

based on additional crack growth data, 

the repetitive inspections in areas of 

known cracking should be reduced to 

1,800 flight cycles. Boeing added that 

the inspection threshold should be at 

the latest of 35,000 total flight cycles, or 

at the earliest of 1,800 flight cycles from 

the release of that service bulletin or 

4,500 flight cycles after the previous 

inspection. Boeing concluded that in 

areas of no known cracking, the 

inspections are in place to monitor for 

new cracking; therefore, the repetitive 

inspection intervals can be extended. 

We agree that the compliance times 

should be changed based on the data 

provided by the manufacturer. We have 

moved the compliance times for the 

initial and repetitive inspections 

identified in paragraph (s) of the 

previous NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 

2011) to paragraphs (s)(1) and (s)(2) of 

this supplemental NPRM. We also 

reduced the repetitive inspection 

interval for known cracking in 

paragraph (s)(2) of this supplemental 

NPRM to 1,800 flight cycles. 

Boeing also asked that the compliance 

times and repetitive intervals specified 

in paragraphs (t), (u)(1), and (u)(2) of the 

previous NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 

2011) be changed. Boeing requested that 

all compliance times (initial and 

repetitive) that specify 4,500 flight 

cycles be changed to 1,800 flight cycles. 

Boeing stated that the window belt skin 

area is equivalent to the crown skin 

area, and the initial threshold and 

repetitive interval should be the same as 

required for the crown area. 

We agree that the compliance times 

should be changed based on the 

information provided. We have changed 

the compliance times and repetitive 

intervals in paragraphs (t), (u)(1), and 

(u)(2) of this supplemental NPRM 

accordingly. 

Request To Provide Certain 

Clarifications 

Southwest Airlines (SWA) asked that 

we change paragraph (h) of the previous 

NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 2011) to 

provide clarification whether the 

inspections identified in Figures 26, 27, 

and 31 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009, are required. SWA asked whether 

an eddy current or external detailed 

inspection is necessary for certain 

locations if those inspection figures are 

required. SWA stated that paragraph (h) 

of the previous NPRM specifies an 

external detailed inspection of the lower 

lobe area and Section 41 of the fuselage, 

in accordance with Part 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of that 

service bulletin. SWA added that Part 4 

also specifies eddy current inspections 

every 1,800 flight cycles. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. The subject inspections 

identified in Figures 26, 27, and 31 of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009, are specified in this supplemental 

NPRM; however, the inspections in 

those figures are required by paragraph 

(s), not paragraph (h), of this 

supplemental NPRM. No change to 

either paragraph (h) or (s) of this 

supplemental NPRM is necessary. 

SWA also asked how paragraphs (s) 

and (u) of the previous NPRM (76 FR 

12619, March 8, 2011) are related, and 

if paragraph (u) of the previous NPRM 

applies to airplane groups 4, 11, and 16. 

SWA noted that the inspections 

identified in paragraph (s) of the 

previous NPRM are applicable to 

Groups 1 through 21 and are done in 

accordance with Part 4 of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 

3, dated July 16, 2009; except as 

required by paragraph (u) of the 

previous NPRM. SWA also noted that 

the inspections identified in paragraph 

(u) of the previous NPRM are applicable 

to Groups 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 

19, 20, and 21, and are done in 

accordance with Part 2 of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 

3, dated July 16, 2009. SWA stated that 

it is unsure how Part 2 and Part 4 are 

related. SWA added that Part 2 

addresses Groups 4, 11, and 16; 

however, those groups are not specified 

in paragraph (u) of the previous NPRM. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary because the exception in 

paragraph (s) of the previous NPRM (76 

FR 12619, March 8, 2011) is a 

typographical error and should have 

identified paragraph (x) instead of 

paragraph (u) of the previous NPRM. We 

have changed paragraph (s) of this 

supplemental NPRM accordingly, which 

also addresses the commenter’s concern 

about Groups 4, 11, and 16. 

Request To Exclude Certain Inspection 

Areas 

SWA asked that, to avoid mandating 

additional inspections in the previous 

NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 2011), we 

exclude the inspection areas identified 

in AD 2009–21–01, Amendment 39– 

16038 (74 FR 52395, October 13, 2009). 

SWA stated that the inspection 

threshold and repetitive intervals 

required by AD 2009–21–01 are more 

restrictive for certain areas of the lower 

lobe skins than those in the previous 

NPRM. 

We agree that the inspection 

threshold and repetitive intervals 

required by AD 2009–21–01, 

Amendment 39–16038 (74 FR 52395, 

October 13, 2009), are more restrictive 

for certain areas. Therefore, we have 

added a new paragraph (y)(5) to this 

supplemental NPRM (and reidentified 

subsequent paragraphs) to specify that 

inspections and corrective actions 

required by paragraph (g) of AD 2009– 

21–01 meet the corresponding 

provisions of paragraph (s) of this 

supplemental NPRM. 

Request To Require Eddy Current 

Inspections Only 

SWA asked that only nondestructive 

inspections (NDI) be used in areas 

where the previous NPRM (76 FR 

12619, March 8, 2011) requires both 

external detailed and eddy current 

inspections every 1,800 flight cycles. 

SWA stated that paragraph (f) of AD 

2008–19–03, Amendment 39–15670 (73 

FR 56958, October 1, 2008), requires 

repetitive inspections along the chemmilled steps at stringers S–1 and S–2R, 

between STA 400 and STA 460. SWA 

added that for line numbers 1001 

through 2552, the operator has the 

option of accomplishing repetitive 

external detailed inspections every 

2,300 flight cycles, or NDI every 4,500 

flight cycles. SWA noted that the 

previous NPRM reduces the repetitive 

inspection interval specified in Tables 1 

through 5 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009, from 4,500 flight 

cycles to 1,800 flight cycles. SWA made 

its request due to this reduced 

inspection interval. 

We do not agree that only NDI can be 

used where both external detailed and 

eddy current inspections are required. 

The overall safety concern related to 

Model 737 fuselage skin panels 

addressed in this supplemental NPRM 

is mitigated by using detailed 

inspections in conjunction with eddy 

current inspections. We have made no 

change to the supplemental NPRM in 

this regard. 

Request To Use Ultrasonic Phased 

Array (UTPA) Inspection 

SWA asked that it be allowed to use 

a UTPA inspection to inspect areas 

where the previous NPRM (76 FR 

12619, March 8, 2011) requires external 

NDI methods. SWA stated Boeing 

confirmed that it is satisfactory to 

inspect areas covered by the dorsal fin 

by internally using the UTPA inspection 

in lieu of the NDI methods, using 

information in the nondestructive test 

manual, in lieu of the external NDI 

methods. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61554 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

We agree that a UTPA inspection 

might be able to be used instead of the 

external NDI method. However, we do 

not agree to include the UTPA 

inspection in this supplemental NPRM 

because we cannot include individual 

operators’ methods of compliance. 

Under the provisions of paragraph (y) of 

this supplemental NPRM, we will 

consider requests for approval of a 

change to the inspection type if 

sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that the inspection would 

provide an acceptable level of safety. 

We have made no change to the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Allow a General Visual 

Inspection (GVI) Instead of Detailed 

Inspection 

SWA and British Airways asked that 

we allow a GVI in lieu of the detailed 

inspection specified in paragraphs (p) 

and (q) of the previous NPRM (76 FR 

12619, March 8, 2011). SWA stated that 

both paragraphs specify doing external 

detailed and eddy current inspections of 

the crown area and other known areas 

of fuselage skin cracking in accordance 

with Part 1 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009. SWA noted that 

Part 1 provides doing a GVI with a 

reduced inspection interval of 1,000 

flight cycles in non-lap splice areas as 

an alternative to the detailed inspection. 

SWA and British Airways stated that the 

previous NPRM does not identify the 

reference in Note (b) of Table 1 of 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of that 

service bulletin, which allows 

performing a GVI at a reduced 

inspection interval in lieu of the 

detailed inspection in areas away from 

the lapjoints. SWA also asked if the GVI 

applies to Figures 32 through 37 of this 

service bulletin. 

We agree with the commenters’ 

requests because we have determined 

that doing the GVI at a reduced 

inspection interval provides an 

acceptable level of safety. In addition, 

the GVI does apply to Figures 32 

through 37 of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009, because the figures 

are part of the Accomplishment 

Instructions, which is the part of the 

service bulletin referred to in the 

requirements. We have revised 

paragraphs (p), (q), and (s) of this 

supplemental NPRM to allow this 

option. 

Request To Allow Use of Corrosion 

Inhibiting Compound 

US Airways asked that we allow the 

use of an alternative corrosion 

inhibiting compound (CIC) during 

repairs. US Airways stated that 

paragraphs (u) and (w) of the previous 

NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 2011) 

refer to Parts 7 and 8 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009; Parts 7 

and 8 refer to Figures 10 and 24, 

respectively. US Airways added that the 

figures specify applying CIC BMS 3–23, 

Type 2, when completing repairs. US 

Airways noted that Boeing has approved 

newer CIC BMS 3–35, which is 

compatible with CIC BMS 3–23, and is 

identified in the applicable corrosion 

prevention manual. US Airways added 

that Boeing does not plan to add CIC 

BMS 3–35 to its FAA-approved repair 

documents. US Airways stated that 

adding this to the previous NPRM 

would avoid requests for approval of 

AMOCs. 

We agree that CIC BMS 3–35 can be 

used as an alternative to CIC BMS 3–23. 

CIC BMS 3–35 has been qualified and 

approved as an AMOC for other repair 

situations that specify CIC BMS 3–23. 

We have added a new statement to 

paragraphs (u) and (w) of this 

supplemental NPRM to include the 

option of using CIC BMS 3–35 as an 

equivalent CIC. 

Changes to Supplemental NPRM 

The exception in paragraph (o) of this 

supplemental NPRM was included in 

the requirements of AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004); however, it was 

inadvertently removed from the 

proposed requirements in the previous 

NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 2011). 

We have included the exception in 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of this 

supplemental NPRM. 

We have removed the reference to the 

Boeing 737 Non-Destructive Test 

Manual specified in paragraph (o) of 

this supplemental NPRM; the inspection 

identified in that paragraph may be 

done using Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009. 

We have removed the definition of a 

‘‘detailed inspection’’ in Note 1 of the 

previous NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 

2011) from this supplemental NPRM. 

That definition is provided in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009. 

Due to a typographical error in 

paragraph (w) of the previous NPRM (76 

FR 12619, March 8, 2011), we have 

changed the reference in paragraph (w) 

of this supplemental NPRM to 

paragraph (u), instead of paragraph (p) 

or (q), respectively. 

We have revised the optional repair 

method specified in paragraph (k) of 

this supplemental NPRM to remove the 

reference to repairing any cracking per 

the applicable structural repair manual 

(SRM) identified in Table 1 of the 

previous NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 

2011). Instead, we have added a 

statement to paragraph (k) of this 

supplemental NPRM to specify that 

guidance on repairing any cracking can 

be found in the applicable SRM 

identified in paragraphs (k)(1) through 

(k)(4) of this supplemental NPRM. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this 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 the same type 

design. Certain changes described above 

expand the scope of the previous NPRM 

(76 FR 12619, March 8, 2011). 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 

supplemental NPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of the 

Supplemental NPRM 

This supplemental NPRM would 

require the actions proposed in the 

previous NPRM (76 FR 12619, March 8, 

2011). However, this supplemental 

NPRM reduces the proposed repetitive 

inspection intervals and the compliance 

time for the inspections of the crown 

area and other known areas of fuselage 

skin cracking in the previous NPRM (76 

FR 12619, March 8, 2011). 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 903 airplanes of U.S. 

registry affected by AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004). 

The inspections of the crown area that 

are required by AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004), take about 94 work 

hours per airplane to accomplish, at an 

average labor rate of $85 per work hour. 

Based on these figures, the estimated 

cost of the currently required 

inspections is $7,990 per airplane, per 

inspection cycle. 

The inspections of the lower lobe area 

that are required by AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004), take about 96 work 

hours per airplane to accomplish, at an 

average labor rate of $85 per work hour. 

Based on these figures, the estimated 

cost of the currently required 

inspections is $8,160 per airplane, per 

inspection cycle. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61555 

Should an operator elect to install the 

preventive modification specified in AD 

2004–18–06, Amendment 39–13784 (69 

FR 54206, September 8, 2004), it will 

take about 108 work hours per airplane 

to accomplish, at an average labor rate 

of $85 per work hour. Based on these 

figures, the estimated cost of the 

modification is $9,180 per airplane. 

The new proposed inspections would 

affect about 701 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. 

The new proposed inspections would 

take about 27 work hours per airplane, 

at an average labor rate of $85 per work 

hour. Based on these figures, the 

estimated cost of the new actions 

specified in this proposed AD for U.S. 

operators is $1,608,795, or $2,295 per 

airplane, per inspection cycle. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We 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. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing AD 2004–18–06, Amendment 

39–13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 

2004), and adding the following new 

AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2011–0155; Directorate Identifier 2009– 

NM–141–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by November 

26, 2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

(1) This AD supersedes AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004). 

(2) AD 2002–07–08, Amendment 39–12702 

(67 FR 17917, April 12, 2002); and AD 2003– 

14–06, Amendment 39–13225 (68 FR 42956, 

July 21, 2003); and AD 2009–21–01, 

Amendment 39–16038 (74 FR 52395, October 

13, 2009); affect this AD. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 737–200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 

series airplanes, certificated in any category, 

as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by new findings of 

vertical cracks along chem-milled steps 

adjacent to the butt joints. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of 

the skin panels, which could result in 

sudden fracture and failure of the skin panels 

of the fuselage, and consequent rapid 

decompression of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained External Detailed and Eddy 

Current Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004) with revised service 

information. For Groups 1 through 5 

airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 1, dated 

October 25, 2001: Before the accumulation of 

35,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 

flight cycles after October 13, 2004 (the 

effective date of AD 2004–18–06), whichever 

is later, do external detailed and eddy current 

inspections of the crown area and other 

known areas of fuselage skin cracking, in 

accordance with Part 1 and Figure 1 of the 

Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 1, dated 

October 25, 2001; or in accordance with Part 

1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009; except as 

provided by paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat 

the external detailed and eddy current 

inspections at intervals not to exceed 4,500 

flight cycles until paragraph (i), (j)(1)(ii), (k), 

(l), or (m) of this AD has been done, as 

applicable. Although paragraph 1.D. of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 1, dated October 25, 2001, 

references a reporting requirement, such 

reporting is not required by this AD. 

Accomplishing the actions required by 

paragraph (p) or (q) of this AD ends the 

repetitive requirements in this paragraph. 

(h) Retained External Detailed Inspection 

With Reduced Compliance Time 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (b) of AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004) with revised service 

information. For all airplanes identified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 1, dated October 25, 2001, do an 

external detailed inspection of the lower lobe 

area and section 41 of the fuselage for 

cracking, in accordance with Part 2 and 

Figure 2 of the Work Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 1, dated October 25, 2001; or in 

accordance with Part 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009; except as provided by 

paragraph (o) of this AD. At the earlier of the 

times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and 

(h)(2) of this AD, do the inspection specified 

in this paragraph, and repeat the inspection 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 

flight cycles until paragraph (j)(2) or 

paragraph (k), as applicable, of this AD has 

been done. Accomplishing the actions 

required by paragraph (s) of this AD ends the 

requirements in this paragraph. 

(1) Within 9,000 flight cycles after doing 

the most recent external detailed inspection. 

(2) Within 4,500 flight cycles after October 

13, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004–18– 

06, Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004)), or before the 

accumulation of 40,000 total flight cycles, 

whichever occurs later. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Retained Preventive Modification at 

Stringer 12 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (c) of AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004) with revised service 

information. For Groups 3 and 5 airplanes 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 1, dated October 25, 

2001: If no cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD, doing the preventive modification of the 

chem-milled pockets in the upper skin as 

specified in Part 5 of the Work Instructions 

of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1210, Revision 1, dated October 25, 2001; 

or as specified in Part 7 of the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009, except as required by paragraph (x) of 

this AD; ends the repetitive external detailed 

and eddy current inspections required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD for the modified area 

only. As of the effective date of this AD, use 

only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009. 

(j) Retained Corrective Actions 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (d) of AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004), with revised service 

information. If any cracking is found during 

any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h), 

(p), (q), or (s) of this AD, before further flight, 

do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) 

and (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in 

accordance with the Work Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 1, dated October 25, 2001; or in 

accordance with the Work Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009. As of the 

effective date of this AD, use only Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009. Where 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 1, dated October 25, 2001; or 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009; specify to 

contact Boeing for repair instructions, before 

further flight, repair in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or 

in accordance with data meeting the type 

certification basis of the airplane if it is 

approved by the Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes Organization Designation 

Authorization (ODA) or any other person 

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. 

(1) Except as provided by paragraph (k) of 

this AD, for cracking of the crown area, do 

the repair specified in either paragraph 

(j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Do a time-limited repair in accordance 

with Part 4 of the Work Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 1, dated October 25, 2001; or in 

accordance with Part 6 of the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009, except as required by paragraph (x) of 

this AD, then do the actions required by 

paragraph (l) of this AD at the times specified 

in that paragraph. 

(ii) Do a permanent repair in accordance 

with Part 3 of the Work Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 1, dated October 25, 2001; or in 

accordance with Part 5 of the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009. Installation of a permanent repair ends 

the repetitive inspections required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD for the repaired area 

only. Installation of the lap joint repair 

specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2002–07–08, 

Amendment 39–12702 (67 FR 17917, April 

12, 2002), is considered acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

permanent repair specified in this paragraph 

for the repaired areas only. 

(2) Except as provided by paragraph (k) of 

this AD, for cracking of the lower lobe area 

and Section 41, repair in accordance with 

Part 2 of the Work Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 1, dated October 25, 2001; or in 

accordance with paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) 

of this AD. Accomplishment of this repair 

ends the repetitive inspections required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD for the repaired area 

only. As of the effective date of this, do the 

repair specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or 

(j)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Do a time-limited repair in accordance 

with Part 6 of the Work Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, except as 

required by paragraph (x) of this AD, then do 

the actions required by paragraph (l) of this 

AD at the times specified in that paragraph. 

(ii) Do a permanent repair in accordance 

with Part 5 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009. 

(k) Retained Optional Repair Method 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (e) of AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004) with revised service 

information. For cracking in any area 

specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this 

AD within the limitations of the applicable 

structural repair manual (SRM) specified in 

paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD, 

repair any cracks, in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO; or in accordance with data meeting the 

type certification basis of the airplane if it is 

approved by the Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes ODA or any other person 

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. 

Accomplishment of the applicable repair 

terminates the repetitive inspections required 

by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for the 

repaired area only. Guidance on repairing the 

cracking can be found in the applicable SRM 

specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) 

of this AD. 

(1) For Model 737–100, –200 series 

airplanes, Subject 53–30–3, Figure 48, of 

Boeing 737–100/–200 SRM D6–15565, 

Revision 102, dated September 10, 2010. 

(2) For Model 737–300 series airplanes, 

Subject 53–00–01, Figure 229, of Boeing 737– 

300 SRM D6–37635, Revision 92, dated 

November 10, 2010. 

(3) For Model 737–400 series airplanes, 

Subject 53–00–01, Figure 231, of Boeing 737– 

400 SRM, D6–38246, Revision 75, dated 

November 10, 2010. 

(4) For Model 737–500 series airplanes, 

Subject 53–00–01, Figure 229, of Boeing 737– 

500 SRM, D6–38441, Revision 70, dated 

November 10, 2010. 

(l) Retained Follow-on and Corrective 

Actions 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (f) of AD 2004–18–06, Amendment 

39–13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004) 

with revised service information. If a timelimited repair is done, as specified in 

paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(2)(i) of this AD: Do 

the actions specified in paragraphs (l)(1), 

(l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD, at the times 

specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) 

of this AD, in accordance with the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 1, dated October 25, 

2001; or in accordance with the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009. 

(1) Within 3,000 flight cycles after doing 

the repair: Do the actions specified in 

paragraph (l)(1)(i) or (l)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

Then repeat the applicable inspection 

specified in paragraph (l)(1)(i) or (l)(1)(ii) of 

this AD at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight 

cycles until permanent rivets are installed in 

the repaired area, which ends the repetitive 

inspections for this paragraph. As of the 

effective date of this AD, do only the 

inspections specified in paragraph (l)(1)(ii) of 

this AD. 

(i) For repairs done before the effective 

date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of 

the repaired area for loose fasteners in 

accordance with Part 4 of the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 1, dated October 25, 

2001, or do the actions specified in paragraph 

(l)(1)(ii) of this AD. If any loose fastener is 

found, before further flight, replace with a 

new fastener, in accordance with the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 1, dated October 25, 

2001. 

(ii) For repairs done after the effective date 

of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the 

repaired area for loose, damaged, and missing 

fasteners, in accordance with Part 6 of the 

Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 

16, 2009. If any loose, missing, or damaged 

fastener is found, before further flight, 

replace with a new fastener, in accordance 

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009. 

(2) At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (l)(2)(i) and (l)(2)(ii) of this AD: Do 

inspections of the repaired area for cracking 

in accordance with Part 4 of the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 1, dated October 25, 

2001; or in accordance with Part 6 of the 

Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61557 

16, 2009. If any cracking is found, before 

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 if it is 

approved by the Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes ODA or any other person 

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. 

(i) For repairs done before the effective 

date of this AD: Within 4,000 flight cycles 

after doing the repair, do the inspections. 

(ii) For repairs done on or after the 

effective date of this AD: Within 3,000 flight 

cycles after doing the repair, do the 

inspections. 

(3) At the earlier of the times specified in 

paragraphs (l)(3)(i) and (l)(3)(ii) of this AD: 

Make the repair permanent in accordance 

with Part 4 and Figure 20 of the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 1, dated October 25, 

2001, or do the permanent repair, in 

accordance with Part 5 of the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009, which ends the repetitive inspections 

for the repaired area only. As of the effective 

date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 

16, 2009, can be used to make the repair 

permanent. 

(i) Within 10,000 flight cycles after doing 

the repair in accordance with Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 1, 

dated October 25, 2001. 

(ii) At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (l)(3)(ii)(A) and (l)(3)(ii)(B) of this 

AD. 

(A) Within 6,000 flight cycles after doing 

the repair. 

(B) Within 1,000 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(m) Retained Optional Terminating Action 

for Repetitive Eddy Current Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004) with revised service 

information. Accomplishment of paragraph 

(b) or (c), as applicable, of AD 2003–14–06, 

Amendment 39–13225 (68 FR 42956, July 21, 

2003), before the effective date of this AD 

ends the repetitive eddy current inspections 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that 

skin panel only; however, the repetitive 

external detailed inspections required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD are still required for 

all areas. Accomplishing paragraph (b) or (c), 

as applicable, of AD 2003–14–06, on or after 

the effective date of this AD, does not end 

either the repetitive detailed or eddy current 

inspections required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD. 

(n) Retained Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (h) of AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004). Inspections, repairs, and 

preventive modifications done before 

October 13, 2004 (the effective date of AD 

2004–18–06), in accordance with Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, dated 

December 14, 2000, are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding actions 

required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and 

(l) of this AD. 

(o) Retained Exception to Service Bulletin 

Procedures 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (i) of AD 2004–18–06, Amendment 

39–13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004) 

with revised service information. For 

airplanes subject to the requirements of 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD: Inspections 

are not required in areas that are spanned by 

an FAA-approved repair that has a minimum 

of 3 rows of fasteners above and below the 

chem-milled step. If an external doubler 

covers the chem-milled step, but does not 

span it by a minimum of 3 rows of fasteners 

above and below, in lieu of requesting 

approval for an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC), one option to comply 

with the inspection requirement of 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD is to inspect 

all chem-milled steps covered by the repair 

in accordance with the Work Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009. 

(p) New Requirements of This AD: Repetitive 

External Detailed and Eddy Current 

Inspections of the Crown Area and Other 

Known Areas of Fuselage Skin Cracking, 

and Corrective Actions 

For Groups 1 through 5 and Groups 9 

through 21 airplanes identified in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, on which the 

inspections required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD have been done before the effective date 

of this AD: Within 4,500 flight cycles after 

doing the most recent inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 1,800 

flight cycles after the effective date of this 

AD, whichever is earlier; do external detailed 

and eddy current inspections of the crown 

area and other known areas of the fuselage 

skin cracking, in accordance with Part 1 of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009; except as 

provided by paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat 

the external detailed and eddy current 

inspections thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 1,800 flight cycles. Accomplishing 

the inspections required by this paragraph 

ends the repetitive inspections required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD. Before further flight, 

do all applicable corrective actions as 

specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. For the 

locations specified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 

16, 2009; in lieu of doing detailed 

inspections, operators may do general visual 

inspections, provided that the general visual 

inspections are done at intervals not to 

exceed 1,000 flight cycles. 

(q) New Requirements of This AD: Repetitive 

External Detailed and Eddy Current 

Inspections of the Crown Area and Other 

Known Areas of Fuselage Skin Cracking, 

and Corrective Actions 

For Groups 1 through 5 and 9 through 21 

airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 

16, 2009; on which the inspections required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD have not been 

done before the effective date of this AD: 

Before the accumulation of 28,000 total flight 

cycles, or within 1,800 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever is later, 

do external detailed and eddy current 

inspections of the crown area and other 

known areas of fuselage skin cracking, in 

accordance with Part 1 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009, except as provided by 

paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat the external 

detailed and eddy current inspections 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,800 

flight cycles. Accomplishing the inspections 

required by this paragraph ends the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD. Before further flight, do all applicable 

corrective actions as specified in paragraph 

(j) of this AD. For the locations specified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009; in lieu of 

doing detailed inspections, operators may do 

general visual inspections, provided that the 

general visual inspections are done at 

intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles. 

(r) New Requirements of This AD: Repetitive 

External Detailed and Eddy Current 

Inspections of the Fuselage Skin Along the 

Chem-Milled Steps of the Butt Joints, and 

Corrective Actions 

For Group 1 through 5, and 9 through 21 

airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 

16, 2009: At the later of the times specified 

in paragraphs (r)(1) and (r)(2) of this AD, do 

external detailed and eddy current 

inspections for vertical cracks in the fuselage 

skin along the chem-milled steps of the butt 

joints, in accordance with Part 3 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009. Repeat the inspections 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,800 

flight cycles or 1,800 flight hours, whichever 

occurs first. If any cracking is found, before 

further flight, repair in accordance with Part 

5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009. Doing the 

repair terminates the repetitive inspections 

specified in this paragraph for the repaired 

area only. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 55,000 total 

flight cycles or 55,000 total flight hours, 

whichever occurs first. 

(2) Within 1,800 flight cycles or 1,800 

flight hours after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs first. 

(s) New Requirements of This AD: Repetitive 

Detailed and Eddy Current Inspections 

Along the Chem-Milled Lines of the Fuselage 

Skin of the Lower Lobe Area and Section 41, 

and Corrective Actions 

For Groups 1 through 21 airplanes 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009: At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (s)(1) or (s)(2) of this AD, do 

external detailed and eddy current 

inspections, as applicable, for horizontal 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

cracks along the chem-milled lines of the 

fuselage skin of the lower lobe area and 

section 41, in accordance with Part 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009; except as required by 

paragraph (x) of this AD. Repeat the 

inspections thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 1,800 flight cycles. Accomplishing 

the inspections required by this paragraph 

ends the repetitive inspections required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD. Before further 

flight, do all applicable corrective actions as 

specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. For the 

locations specified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 

16, 2009; in lieu of doing detailed 

inspections, operators may do general visual 

inspections, provided that the general visual 

inspections are done at intervals not to 

exceed 1,000 flight cycles. 

(1) In areas of no known cracking where 

only a detailed inspection is accomplished: 

Do the inspection at the later of the times 

specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (s)(1)(ii) 

of this AD. 

(i) Before the accumulation of 35,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(ii) Within 9,000 flight cycles after the most 

recent inspection required by paragraph (h) 

of this AD, or within 1,800 flight cycles after 

the effective date of this AD, whichever is 

earlier. 

(2) In areas of known cracking where both 

a detailed and eddy current inspection is 

accomplished: Do the inspection at the latest 

of the times specified in paragraphs (s)(2)(i) 

and (s)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Before the accumulation of 35,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(ii) Within 4,500 flight cycles after the most 

recent inspection required by paragraph (h) 

of this AD, or within 1,800 flight cycles after 

the effective date of this AD, whichever is 

earlier. 

(t) New Requirements of This AD: Repetitive 

External Detailed and Eddy Current 

Inspections Along the Chem-Milled Lines of 

the Fuselage Skin of the Window Belt Area, 

and Corrective Actions 

For Groups 4, 11, and 16 airplanes 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009: Before the accumulation of 25,000 total 

flight cycles or within 1,800 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is later, do external detailed and eddy current 

inspections for horizontal cracks along the 

chem-milled lines of the fuselage skin of the 

fuselage window belt area, in accordance 

with Part 2 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009. Repeat the inspections thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 1,800 flight cycles. If 

any cracking is found, before further flight, 

repair using a method approved in 

accordance with paragraph (y) of this AD. 

Doing the repair terminates the repetitive 

inspections specified in this paragraph for 

the repaired area only. 

(u) New Requirements of This AD: Repetitive 

External Detailed and Eddy Current 

Inspections Along the Chem-Milled Lines of 

the Fuselage Skin of the Fuselage Window 

Belt Area, and Corrective Actions 

For Groups 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 

19, 20, and 21 airplanes identified in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009: Do the 

actions specified in paragraph (u)(1) or (u)(2) 

of this AD, as applicable. Part 7 (Figure 10) 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, specifies 

applying corrosion inhibiting compound 

(CIC) BMS 3–23 to the surfaces of the 

repaired area. As an option to using CIC BMS 

3–23, operators may use CIC BMS 3–35, 

which is equivalent to CIC BMS 3–23. 

(1) For airplanes on which the inspections 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD have 

been done before the effective date of this 

AD: Within 4,500 flight cycles after doing the 

most recent inspection required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD, or within 1,800 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is earlier, do external detailed and eddy 

current inspections for horizontal cracks 

along the chem-milled lines of the fuselage 

skin of the fuselage window belt area, in 

accordance with Part 2 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009. Repeat the inspections 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,800 

flight cycles. If any cracking is found, before 

further flight, repair in accordance with Part 

8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, except as 

required by paragraph (x) of this AD. 

(2) For airplanes on which the inspections 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD have not 

been done before the effective date of this 

AD: Before the accumulation of 25,000 total 

flight cycles or within 1,800 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is later, do external detailed and eddy current 

inspections for horizontal cracks along the 

chem-milled lines of the fuselage skin of the 

fuselage window belt area, in accordance 

with Part 2 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009. Repeat the inspections thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 1,800 flight cycles. If 

any cracking is found, before further flight, 

repair in accordance with Part 8 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, Revision 3, 

dated July 16, 2009, except as required by 

paragraph (x) of this AD. 

(v) New Optional Repair 

For airplanes on which cracking is found 

during any inspection required by paragraph 

(p), (q), (r), or (s) of this AD, as applicable, 

doing the repair of the chem-milled area in 

the skin, as specified in Part 5 or Part 6 of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, ends the 

repetitive external detailed and eddy current 

inspections required by paragraph (p), (q), (r), 

or (s) of this AD, as applicable, for the 

repaired area only. 

NOTE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (V) OF THIS AD: Part 

8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, specifies a 

post-repair inspection of the skin chemmilled crack repair at stringer 12; that 

inspection is not required by this AD. The 

damage tolerance inspections specified in 

Table 7 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1210, 

Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, may be used 

in support of compliance with section 

121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(c)(2) of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) 

or 14 CFR 129.109(c)(2)). 

(w) New Optional Preventive Modification at 

Stringer 12 

For airplanes on which no cracking is 

found during any inspection required by 

paragraph (u) of this AD, doing the 

preventive modification of the chem-milled 

areas in the skin at stringer 12, as specified 

in Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions 

of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, 

except as required by paragraph (x) of this 

AD, ends the repetitive external detailed and 

eddy current inspections required by 

paragraph (u) of this AD, for the modified 

areas common to stringer 12 only. Part 7 

(Figure 10) of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 

2009, specifies applying CIC BMS 3–23 to the 

surfaces of the repaired area. As an option to 

using CIC BMS 3–23, operators may use CIC 

BMS 3–35, which is equivalent to CIC BMS 

3–23. 

(x) Exception to Service Information 

Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, 

specifies to contact Boeing for repair 

instructions, before further flight, repair 

using a method approved in accordance with 

paragraph (y) of this AD. 

(y) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 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. 

(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. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 61559 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2004–18–06, 

Amendment 39–13784 (69 FR 54206, 

September 8, 2004), are approved as AMOCs 

for the corresponding provisions of this AD. 

(5) Inspections and corrective actions 

required by paragraph (g) of AD 2009–21–01, 

Amendment 39–16038 (74 FR 52395, October 

13, 2009), are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions of paragraph (s) of 

this AD; but only for the areas of the lower 

lobe skin identified in AD 2009–21–01. 

(z) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6447; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: wayne.lockett@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. 

(3) 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 28, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24805 Filed 10–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2008–0020 and FEMA– 

2010–0003; Internal Agency Docket Nos. 

FEMA–B–1069 and B–1122] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations for Fairbanks North 

Star Borough, Alaska, and 

Incorporated Areas 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is 

withdrawing its proposed rule 

concerning proposed flood elevation 

determinations for Fairbanks North Star 

Borough, Alaska, and Incorporated 

Areas. 

DATES: This withdrawal is effective on 

October 10, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket Nos. FEMA–B– 

1069 and B–1122, to Luis Rodriguez, 

Chief, Engineering Management Branch, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, 

or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 15, 2009 and May 25, 2010, 

FEMA published a proposed rulemaking 

at 74 FR 47169 and 75 FR 29296, 

proposing flood elevation 

determinations along one or more 

flooding sources in Fairbanks North Star 

Borough, Alaska. FEMA is withdrawing 

the proposed rulemaking and intends to 

publish a Notice of Proposed Flood 

Hazard Determinations in the Federal 

Register and a notice in the affected 

community’s local newspaper following 

issuance of a revised preliminary Flood 

Insurance Rate Map and Flood 

Insurance Study report. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4. 

Dated: September 14, 2012. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24855 Filed 10–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 1206013326–2490–01] 

RIN 0648–XA984 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

Nassau Grouper as Threatened or 

Endangered Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding, request for information. 

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90- 

day finding on a petition to list Nassau 

grouper (Epinephelus striatus) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find 

that the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. Accordingly, we will 

conduct a review of the status of this 

species to determine if the petitioned 

action is warranted. To ensure that the 

status review is comprehensive, we 

solicit information pertaining to this 

species from any interested party. 

DATES: Information and comments on 

the subject action must be received by 

December 10, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information, identified by the code 

0648–XA984, addressed to: Jason 

Rueter, Fisheries Biologist, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic information via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal http://www.

regulations.gov. 

• Facsimile (fax): 727–824–5309. 

• Mail: NMFS, Southeast Regional 

Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. 

Petersburg, FL 33701. 

• Hand delivery: You may hand 

deliver written information to our office 

during normal business hours at the 

street address given above. 

Instructions: All information received 

is a part of the public record and may 

be posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personally 

identifiable information (for example, 

name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. We will accept anonymous 

submissions. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Rueter, NMFS Southeast Region, 

727–824–5350; or Lisa Manning, NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources, 301–427– 

8466. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 3, 2010, we received a 

petition from the WildEarth Guardians 

to list goliath grouper (Epinephelus 

itajara), Nassau grouper (Epinephelus 

striatus), and speckled hind 

(Epinephelus drummondhayi) as 

threatened or endangered under the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS