17596 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 66 / Thursday, April 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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, contact 

Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional 

Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, 

Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. 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 

24, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 05–6687 Filed 4–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 66 / Thursday, April 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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

Action Work 

hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Parts Cost per airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Inspection, per inspection 

cycle.

2 $65 None ........... $130, per inspection cycle 876 $113,880, 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, 

17598 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 66 / Thursday, April 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD):

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19989; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–151–AD; Amendment 

39–14037; AD 2005–07–13] 

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 767–300 and –400ER 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 767–300 and –400ER 

series airplanes. This AD requires 

replacing the in-flight entertainment 

cooling card, located in the P50 card file