Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 67043 

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2015–19–01 

Accomplishment of the actions required by 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD on all 

affected airplanes in an operator’s fleet 

terminates all requirements of AD 2015–19– 

01. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 

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 

certification office, send it to the attention of 

the person identified in paragraph (k) 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, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO 

Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be 

approved, the repair method, modification 

deviation, or alteration deviation must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) For service information that contains 

steps that are labeled as Required for 

Compliance (RC), the provisions of 

paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD 

apply. 

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including 

substeps under an RC step and any figures 

identified in an RC step, must be done to 

comply with the AD. An AMOC is required 

for any deviations to RC steps, including 

substeps and identified figures. 

(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be 

deviated from using accepted methods in 

accordance with the operator’s maintenance 

or inspection program without obtaining 

approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, 

including substeps and identified figures, can 

still be done as specified, and the airplane 

can be put back in an airworthy condition. 

(k) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO 

Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, 

WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3555; 

email: Kevin.Nguyen@faa.gov. 

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 777–28A0034, 

Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015. 

(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 777–31–0218, 

dated September 8, 2016. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data 

Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., 

MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; 

telephone 562–797–1717; internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 

2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on 

December 18, 2018. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–28075 Filed 12–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0393; Product 

Identifier 2018–NM–010–AD; Amendment 

39–19536; AD 2018–26–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, 

–700C, –800, –900, and –900ER series 

airplanes. This AD was prompted by 

reports of loose, worn, or missing 

attachment bolts for the main landing 

gear (MLG) center door assemblies. This 

AD requires repetitive detailed 

inspections of the forward and aft MLG 

center door assembly attachments for 

loose, missing, damaged, or bottomedout attachment bolts, and any wear to 

the retention clip assemblies as 

applicable; and applicable on-condition 

actions. This AD also provides an 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER28DE18.009</GPH>
67044 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

optional terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections. We are issuing 

this AD to address the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective February 1, 

2019. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of February 1, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Contractual & Data Services 

(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 

110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; 

telephone 562–797–1717; internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may view this service information at the 

FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

It is also available on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

for and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0393. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0393; or in person at Docket Operations 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this final rule, 

the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for Docket 

Operations (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO 

Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206– 

231–3527; email: alan.pohl@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to all The Boeing Company Model 

737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and 

–900ER series airplanes. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 11, 2018 (83 FR 21948). The NPRM 

was prompted by reports of loose, worn, 

or missing attachment bolts for the MLG 

center door assemblies. The NPRM 

proposed to require repetitive detailed 

inspections of the forward and aft MLG 

center door assembly attachments for 

loose, missing, damaged, or bottomedout attachment bolts, and any wear to 

the retention clip assemblies as 

applicable; and applicable on-condition 

actions. The NPRM also provided an 

optional terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections. 

We are issuing this AD to address 

loose, missing, damaged, or bottomedout attachment bolts, and any wear to 

the retention clip assemblies, which 

could result in departure of the center 

and inboard MLG door assemblies, 

subsequent damage to the main flap and 

horizontal stabilizer, and loss of control 

of the airplane. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this final rule. 

The following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Support for the NPRM 

Boeing and The Air Line Pilots 

Association, International, each stated 

that it concurred with the intent of the 

NPRM. 

Request for Changes to Service 

Information 

Alaska Airlines (Alaska) requested 

that changes be made to Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–52– 

1170, Revision 1, dated December 19, 

2017 (‘‘BSASB 737–52–1170, R1’’). 

Alaska noted that operators cannot 

comply with the requirements specified 

in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD in 

cases where BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

directs the operator to inspect a Group 

3 airplane using Figure 3 or Figure 4 of 

BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, because those 

figures are not applicable to Group 3 

airplanes. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

observations concerning Figure 3 and 

Figure 4 of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. 

We contacted Boeing and have 

determined that the actions for Group 2 

airplanes are appropriate for all 

airplanes to comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this 

AD. We have revised paragraph (h) of 

this AD, ‘‘Exceptions to Service 

Information Specifications,’’ by adding 

paragraph (h)(2), which states that 

‘‘Where BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, limits 

use of Figures 3 and 4 to Group 2 

airplanes, for the purposes of this AD, 

those figures apply to all airplane 

groups.’’ 

Request for Clarification of the 

Requirements of Paragraph (j) of the 

Proposed AD 

Alaska requested clarification of the 

requirements specified in paragraph (j) 

of the proposed AD and clarification of 

which airplane groups would be 

affected by these requirements. Alaska 

asked if ‘‘all actions for Group 3’’ means 

that this paragraph is for Group 3 

airplanes only or for all airplane groups. 

Alaska also noted that an inspection of 

the ‘‘door assembly’’ implies an 

inspection of the door, but BSASB 737– 

52–1170, R1, describes procedures for 

inspection of the ‘‘door installation.’’ 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request and have revised paragraph (j) of 

this AD as follows: 

As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install an MLG assembly or MLG 

center door assembly on any airplane 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) 

of this AD unless all actions for Group 3 

airplanes pertaining to that MLG center door 

attachment, and identified as RC in, and in 

accordance with, the Accomplishment 

Instructions of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

have been accomplished on that MLG 

assembly or MLG center door assembly 

within the compliance times specified in 

Tables 4, 5, and 6, as applicable, of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, 

R1. The actions for Group 3 airplanes apply 

to all airplanes for the requirement of this 

paragraph. 

Request To Include Identification 

Method for Post-Modification Door 

American Airlines (American) 

requested that BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

be revised to include an identifying 

stencil or placard that could be placed 

on an affected MLG center door 

assembly once it has been modified. The 

commenter stated that the MLG center 

door assembly is a rotable part. 

However, neither the NPRM nor BSASB 

737–52–1170, R1, addresses the issue of 

a post-modification MLG center door 

assembly being removed from an 

airplane and replaced with a premodification MLG center door 

assembly. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

concern that BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

does not address the rotability of an 

MLG center door assembly. We 

addressed the issue of rotability in this 

AD in two ways. First, the applicability 

in paragraph (c) of this AD includes all 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

–900, and –900ER series airplanes, not 

just the airplanes specified in the 

effectivity of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. 

Second, we added paragraph (j) of this 

AD, ‘‘Parts Installation Limitation’’. 

While marking or part marking might 

provide some benefit for operator 

awareness and recordkeeping, the issue 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 67045 

of rotability is approached in different 

ways by different operators. When there 

have been similar issues regarding 

rotable parts, operators expressed a 

preference to not have a requirement to 

mark and/or part mark, although 

operators may do this at their own 

discretion. We also note that this AD 

addresses not only the MLG center door 

assembly but also the attachments to the 

MLG strut assemblies. We have not 

changed this AD in regard to this issue. 

Request To Extend the Compliance 

Time 

Delta Air Lines (DAL) and SunExpress 

(SXS) requested that the compliance 

time specified in paragraph (g) of the 

proposed AD be extended. SXS 

requested that the compliance time for 

the initial inspection be extended from 

12,000 total flight cycles to 20,000 total 

flight cycles, or from 800 flight cycles 

after the effective date of the proposed 

AD to 1,500 flight cycles after the 

effective date of the proposed AD, and 

that the interval for the repetitive 

inspection be extended from 5,500 flight 

cycles to 6,600 flight cycles. SXS stated 

that 41 airplanes in its fleet have 

exceeded 12,000 total flight cycles, and 

it would have a short period of time to 

perform the required inspection as 

described in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

and it would have to operate some 

airplanes a long time without the MLG 

shock strut doors. SXS noted that 

performing operations without a MLG 

shock strut door incurs a fuel burn 

penalty, which is approximately 0.77% 

more fuel burned per flight. 

DAL stated that the compliance time 

for the initial inspection would require 

them to inspect approximately 80 

airplanes in a 200-day period, requiring 

them to accomplish the work for most 

of its airplanes in the line environment, 

which increases the risk for an ‘‘airplane 

on ground’’ situation if there is a finding 

on the MLG structure. DAL noted that 

BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, does not 

provide relief for operators when a crack 

or corrosion is found in the MLG lug 

after removal of the bushing. For an 

MLG that requires re-work, DAL 

typically removes the MLG, replaces it 

with another MLG, and sends the 

discrepant MLG to a shop for repair. We 

infer that DAL is requesting that the 

compliance time for the initial 

inspection be extended. 

In addition, DAL pointed out that the 

procedures in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

would restrict an operator from 

dispatching an affected airplane until 

corrective is taken to repair the MLG. 

DAL requested that this situation be 

considered in the final rule by providing 

a limited return to service. DAL stated 

that if several MLG lugs are found with 

discrepancies, there is the potential of 

the operator grounding airplanes 

outside of a heavy maintenance check to 

either replace the MLG gear or go 

through its spare parts inventory. 

We do not agree with the commenters’ 

requests. We appreciate the impact that 

the required actions and the associated 

compliance times will have on 

operators. However, both the FAA and 

Boeing have identified this issue as an 

unsafe condition, and the commenters 

have not provided substantiating data 

for their proposals. In addition, a 

limited return to service would not be 

appropriate for dispatching airplanes 

with known cracking or corrosion. As 

SXS has noted, airplanes may be 

operated with the MLG shock strut 

center and inner doors removed until 

repairs can be made. 

We have reviewed the related service 

information and note that while repair 

of the MLG lug parts is required for 

compliance (‘‘RC’’), certain steps are 

either labeled as ‘‘RC Exempt,’’ or 

contain technical instructions that are 

prefaced by ‘‘Refer to.’’ Paragraph (l)(4) 

of this AD and paragraph 3A., ‘‘General 

Information,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, 

R1 specify the actions labeled as ‘‘RC 

Exempt’’ are not required in order to 

show compliance to this AD. When the 

words ‘‘refer to’’ are used within an RC 

step and the operator has an accepted 

alternative procedure, the accepted 

alternative procedure can be used. 

When the words ‘‘in accordance with’’ 

are included in an RC step, the 

procedure in the Boeing document must 

be used. In addition, for proposals that 

provide an acceptable level of safety and 

have substantiating data, operators may 

apply for an AMOC using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (l) of 

this AD. We have not changed this AD 

in regard to this issue. 

Request To Allow Installation of New, 

Overhauled, or Serviceable MLG 

DAL requested that operators be 

allowed to install a new, overhauled, or 

serviceable MLG instead of repairing a 

damaged lug and installing a new 

bushing if excessive wear, galling, or 

cracking is found during a detailed 

inspection/measurement of the MLG 

shock strut bushing. DAL stated that it 

would have to remove the damaged 

MLG and send it to the shop for repair, 

and it would be easier to install a new, 

overhauled, or serviceable MLG than to 

wait for the damaged MLG to be 

repaired. DAL explained that installing 

a new, overhauled, or serviceable MLG 

provides an equivalent level of safety 

because the intent of the proposed AD 

is to repair and install new bushings. 

DAL observed that the damaged MLG 

would be repaired and then be ready for 

use on another airplane. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request for the reasons provided by the 

commenter. We have revised paragraph 

(g) of this AD to clarify that replacement 

of an entire MLG assembly within the 

required compliance time satisfies the 

requirements of paragraph (g), provided 

that the requirements of paragraph (j) of 

this AD, ‘‘Parts Installation Limitation,’’ 

are satisfied for that MLG assembly. 

Since the unsafe condition is also 

affected by rotability, we have revised 

paragraph (j) of this AD to clarify that 

an MLG assembly cannot be installed on 

any airplane identified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD unless all 

actions for Group 3 airplanes have been 

accomplished on the MLG assembly. 

Paragraph (j) of this AD states that: 

As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install an MLG assembly or MLG 

center door assembly on any airplane 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) 

of this AD unless all actions for Group 3 

airplanes pertaining to that MLG center door 

attachment, and identified as RC in, and in 

accordance with, the Accomplishment 

Instructions of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

have been accomplished on that MLG 

assembly or MLG center door assembly 

within the compliance times specified in 

Tables 4, 5, and 6, as applicable, of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, 

R1. The actions for Group 3 airplanes apply 

to all airplanes for the requirement of this 

paragraph. 

In the proposed AD, paragraph (j) 

specified only an MLG center door 

assembly. 

Request for Clarification of Intent of 

Parts Installation Paragraph (j) 

DAL stated that paragraph (j), ‘‘Parts 

Installation Paragraph,’’ of the proposed 

AD was confusing because it stated that 

an operator may not install an MLG 

center door assembly on an airplane 

unless all actions identified as RC in 

BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, are 

accomplished within the compliance 

times specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6, as 

applicable, of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, 

R1. DAL observed that if an operator 

receives a spare door with an FAA Form 

8130, ‘‘Authorized Release Certificate— 

Airworthiness Approval Tag,’’ attached, 

the tag might include the AD number 

but the number of flight cycles at the 

last inspection or total flight cycles of 

the door would not be provided. DAL 

suggested that operators ensure that the 

inspection and corrective actions are 

accomplished before the spare part is 

installed on the airplane. Therefore, if 

the flight cycles on the door are 

unknown, the operator would still be in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
67046 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance with the intent of the NPRM 

by inspecting the door before 

installation, and that it would be an 

equivalent level of safety that meets the 

intent of the NPRM. 

We appreciate the commenter’s 

concern and the opportunity to clarify 

the intent of the ‘‘Parts Installation 

Limitation’’ paragraph. The compliance 

times specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6, as 

applicable, of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, 

R1, are in airplane flight cycles. There 

is no requirement in this AD or any 

statement in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

that it is necessary to determine the 

flight cycles accumulated on the MLG 

door assembly. The compliance times in 

this AD are based on flight cycles of the 

airplane instead of the MLG door 

assembly. Our strategy in addressing the 

unsafe condition is to first inspect all 

affected airplanes, and then to address 

future possible unsafe conditions with 

the requirements in the ‘‘Parts 

Installation Limitation’’ paragraph. 

We have not made any changes to this 

AD in regard to this issue. 

Request To Delay Issuance of Final 

Rule Until Service Information is 

Corrected 

American, subsequent to its earlier 

comments, requested that the final rule 

not be issued until discrepancies in 

BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, are rectified 

and the instructions made clearer. The 

commenter stated that operators cannot 

comply with the requirements specified 

in the NPRM because of discrepancies 

in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. The 

commenter identified the following 

discrepancies. 

1. BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, has quantities 

listed in Figures 1 and 2 that are double what 

is actually on the aircraft. Although there is 

a note that says ‘‘The QTY numbers shown 

below are the number or parts necessary for 

each airplane,’’ there is a Figure 1 for the left 

and a Figure 2 for the right. Each side has 

only one of each bolt, not two. Note that all 

of the other figures list the quantity of parts 

that is needed for only the left side or the 

right side, as applicable. Figures 1 and 2 are 

different than the other figures in this regard. 

2. In Figure 5 (and Figures 6, 7, and 8), step 

6 says to remove three laminated shims. The 

airplane only has two laminated shims. 

3. In Figure 13 (and Figure 14) step #4 has 

you install and torque the bolt. However, the 

bolt in #4 has to go through the kept bracket 

and if you install the bolt first, you have to 

take it back out to install the bracket. Steps 

#4 and #5 should be reversed. 

4. In Figure 13 (and Figure 14), step #6 

states to install 3 each shims, but only 2 were 

removed, so do we install 3 each in the new 

configuration or just put 2 back? 

5. In Figure 13 (and Figure 14), once we 

installed the forward bolt in step 4, with the 

correct washers installed, the bolt bottomed 

out in the barrel nut housing, since the bolt 

is too long. New bolts are slightly longer than 

old. The bolt needs another thick washer to 

fix the issue. The kits that are being delivered 

do not have an adequate amount of the 

necessary washers. 

Alaska also noted that Figure 13 and 

Figure 14 of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

depict view C with a pre-modification 

installation in lieu of a postmodification installation. 

We acknowledge the commenters’ 

concerns regarding the information in 

the service information that requires 

clarification. The amount of clarification 

needed would be overly complex for 

inclusion in this AD. We expect to work 

with Boeing to issue a global AMOC 

addressing any known errors as soon as 

possible. In addition, we have revised 

paragraph (h) of this AD, ‘‘Exceptions to 

Service Information Specifications,’’ by 

adding paragraph (h)(3) to provide 

operators with information regarding 

how to address any other issues, if 

needed. 

In light of the critical nature of the 

identified unsafe condition, we do not 

consider it warranted to delay the 

issuance of this final rule. When Boeing 

provides a revision to BSASB 737–52– 

1170, R1, we will review it in 

consideration of an AMOC to this AD or 

may consider future rulemaking action. 

Request To Revise Compliance Time 

Specifications 

DAL noted that paragraph (h) of the 

proposed AD states that ‘‘For purposes 

of determining compliance with the 

requirements of this AD: Where BSASB 

737–52–1170, Revision 1, uses the 

phrase ‘the original issue date of this 

service bulletin’, this AD requires using 

‘the effective date of this AD’.’’ DAL 

pointed out that in Table 4 of BSASB 

737–52–1170, R1, the compliance times 

for the Group 3 airplanes, states that the 

actions should be completed ‘‘Within 

800 flight cycles after the Revision 1 

date of this service bulletin.’’ DAL asked 

if the AD effective date should also 

replace the Revision 1 date of the 

service information. We infer that DAL 

is requesting a revision to paragraph (h) 

of the proposed AD to clarify that for 

purposes of determining compliance 

with the requirements of the final rule 

that the effective date of the AD should 

be used instead of the original issue date 

or the Revision 1 date of the service 

information. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request for the reasons provided by the 

commenter. We have re-designated 

paragraph (h) of the proposed AD as 

paragraph (h)(1) in this AD, and revised 

the text to state that for purposes of 

determining compliance with the 

requirement of this AD, where BSASB 

737–52–1170, Revision 1, uses the 

phrase ‘‘the original issue date of this 

service bulletin’’ or ‘‘the Revision 1 date 

of this service bulletin’’ this AD requires 

using ‘‘the effective date of this AD.’’ 

Observations Regarding Service 

Information 

American stated that BSASB 737–52– 

1170, R1, is confusing and 

unnecessarily complex. American 

observed that BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

provides for 14 possible conditions, 

multiple options for corrective actions, 

3 multi-page logic diagrams, and 10 

different parts of instructions. American 

stated that the complexity could be 

simplified if the service information 

pointed the operator straight to the 

modification of the MLG center door 

assembly retention clip assemblies and, 

if needed, repair to the lugs and 

replacement of the bushings. American 

declared that the unnecessary 

complexity of the service bulletin 

invites non-compliance issues. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

concerns regarding BSASB 737–52– 

1170, R1. The reason BSASB 737–52– 

1170, R1, includes 14 possible 

conditions, multiple options for 

corrective actions, 3 multi-page logic 

diagrams, and 10 different parts of 

instructions is to provide a 

comprehensive set of procedures to 

address the unsafe condition that exists 

in the affected fleet of airplanes. We 

suggest that the commenter provide its 

comments regarding improvements to 

this document directly to Boeing. We 

have not changed this AD in regard to 

this issue. 

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment 

of the Proposed Actions 

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that 

accomplishing the Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not 

affect the ability to accomplish the 

actions specified in the NPRM. 

We concur with the commenter. We 

have added paragraph (c)(5) to this AD 

to state that installation of STC 

ST00830SE does not affect the ability to 

accomplish the actions required by this 

final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on 

which STC ST00830SE is installed, a 

‘‘change in product’’ alternative method 

of compliance (AMOC) approval request 

is not necessary to comply with the 

requirements of 14 CFR 39.17. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this 

final rule with the changes described 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 67047 

previously and minor editorial changes. 

We have determined that these minor 

changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM for 

addressing the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM. 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of this final rule. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–52– 

1170, Revision 1, dated December 19, 

2017. The service information describes 

procedures for repetitive detailed 

inspections of the forward and aft MLG 

center door assembly attachments for 

loose, missing, damaged, or bottomedout attachment bolts, and any wear to 

the retention clip assemblies as 

applicable; and applicable on-condition 

actions. The service information also 

describes procedures for modification of 

the MLG center door assembly retention 

clip assemblies as an optional 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections. This service information is 

reasonably available because the 

interested parties have access to it 

through their normal course of business 

or by the means identified in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 1,814 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate 

the following costs to comply with this 

AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators 

Inspection ............... 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 per inspection cycle.$0 $170 per inspection 

cycle.

$308,380 per inspection 

cycle. 

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR OPTIONAL TERMINATING ACTION

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Modification ............ Up to 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 ............................................................ $2,900 Up to $3,410. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this AD. 

According to the manufacturer some 

of the costs of this AD may be covered 

under warranty, thereby reducing the 

cost impact on affected individuals. We 

do not control warranty coverage for 

affected individuals. As a result, we 

have included all known costs in our 

cost estimate. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

This AD is issued in accordance with 

authority delegated by the Executive 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service, 

as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. 

In accordance with that order, issuance 

of ADs is normally a function of the 

Compliance and Airworthiness 

Division, but during this transition 

period, the Executive Director has 

delegated the authority to issue ADs 

applicable to transport category 

airplanes and associated appliances to 

the Director of the System Oversight 

Division. 

Regulatory Findings 

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), 

(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. 

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): 

2018–26–06 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–19536; Docket No. 

FAA–2018–0393; Product Identifier 

2018–NM–010–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective February 1, 2019. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 

–800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes, 

certificated in any category, as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
67048 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Airplanes in Group 1, and in Group 2, 

Configuration 1, as identified in Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–52– 

1170, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2017 

(‘‘BSASB 737–52–1170, R1’’). 

(2) Airplanes in Group 2, Configuration 2, 

as identified in BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. 

(3) Airplanes in Group 3, as identified in 

BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, except where this 

service bulletin specifies the groups as line 

numbers 4275 through 6724 inclusive, and 

6736, this AD specifies those groups as line 

number 4275 through any line number of an 

airplane with an original Certificate of 

Airworthiness or an original Export 

Certificate of Airworthiness dated on or 

before the effective date of this AD. 

(4) All Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

–900, and –900ER series airplanes with an 

original Certificate of Airworthiness or an 

original Export Certificate of Airworthiness 

dated after the effective date of this AD. 

(5) Installation of Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect 

the ability to accomplish the actions required 

by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which 

STC ST00830SE is installed, a ‘‘change in 

product’’ alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to 

comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 

39.17. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 52, Doors. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of loose, 

worn, or missing attachment bolts for the 

main landing gear (MLG) center door 

assemblies. We are issuing this AD to address 

loose, missing, damaged, or bottomed-out 

attachment bolts, and any wear to the 

retention clip assemblies, which could result 

in departure of the center and inboard MLG 

door assemblies, subsequent damage to the 

main flap and horizontal stabilizer, and loss 

of control of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Required Actions 

For airplanes identified in paragraphs 

(c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD: Except as 

required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the 

applicable time specified in Tables 1 through 

6, as applicable, of paragraph 1E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

do all applicable actions identified as ‘‘RC’’ 

(required for compliance) in, and in 

accordance with, the Accomplishment 

Instructions of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1. 

Replacement of an entire MLG assembly 

within the required compliance time satisfies 

the requirements of this paragraph, provided 

that the requirements of paragraph (j) of this 

AD are satisfied for that MLG assembly. 

(h) Exceptions to Service Information 

Specifications 

(1) For purposes of determining 

compliance with the requirements of this AD: 

Where BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, uses the 

phrase ‘‘the original issue date of this service 

bulletin’’ or ‘‘the Revision 1 date of this 

service bulletin’’ this AD requires using ‘‘the 

effective date of this AD.’’ 

(2) Where BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, limits 

use of Figures 3 and 4 to Group 2 airplanes, 

for the purposes of this AD, those figures 

apply to all airplane groups. 

(3) If any action(s) identified as RC in 

BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, cannot be 

accomplished as specified therein, those 

action(s) must be accomplished using a 

method approved in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this 

AD. 

(i) Optional Terminating Action for 

Repetitive Inspections 

Accomplishment of the modification of the 

MLG center door retention clip assemblies 

specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

terminates the repetitive inspections required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD for that MLG 

center door retention clip only. The 

requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD 

continue to apply. 

(j) Parts Installation Limitation 

As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install an MLG assembly or MLG 

center door assembly on any airplane 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) 

of this AD unless all actions for Group 3 

airplanes pertaining to that MLG center door 

attachment, and identified as RC in, and in 

accordance with, the Accomplishment 

Instructions of BSASB 737–52–1170, R1, 

have been accomplished on that MLG 

assembly or MLG center door assembly 

within the compliance times specified in 

Tables 4, 5, and 6, as applicable, of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of BSASB 737–52–1170, 

R1. The actions for Group 3 airplanes apply 

to all airplanes for the requirement of this 

paragraph. 

(k) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–52–1170, 

dated July 29, 2014. 

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 

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 

certification office, send it to the attention of 

the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of 

this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9- 

ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO 

Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be 

approved, the repair method, modification 

deviation, or alteration deviation must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of 

this AD: For service information that 

contains steps that are labeled as RC, the 

provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) 

of this AD apply. 

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including 

substeps under an RC step and any figures 

identified in an RC step, must be done to 

comply with the AD. If a step or substep is 

labeled ‘‘RC Exempt,’’ then the RC 

requirement is removed from that step or 

substep. An AMOC is required for any 

deviations to RC steps, including substeps 

and identified figures. 

(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be 

deviated from using accepted methods in 

accordance with the operator’s maintenance 

or inspection program without obtaining 

approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, 

including substeps and identified figures, can 

still be done as specified, and the airplane 

can be put back in an airworthy condition. 

(m) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 

2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 

98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3527; email: 

alan.pohl@faa.gov. 

(2) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference is 

available at the addresses specified in 

paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD. 

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–52–1170, Revision 1, dated 

December 19, 2017. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data 

Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., 

MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; 

telephone 562–797–1717; internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 

2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 67049 

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on 

December 18, 2018. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–28077 Filed 12–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0641; Product 

Identifier 2018–NM–032–AD; Amendment 

39–19519; AD 2018–25–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017–22– 

07, which applied to certain Airbus SAS 

Model A319 series airplanes; Model 

A320–211,–212, –214, –231, –232, and 

–233 airplanes; and Model A321–111, 

–112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and 

–232 airplanes. AD 2017–22–07 

required repetitive inspections of the 

frame forks, and corrective actions if 

necessary. AD 2017–22–07 also 

included optional modifications that 

constituted terminating action. This AD 

requires modifying certain forward and 

aft cargo compartment doors, and 

related investigative and corrective 

actions. This AD was prompted by an 

evaluation done by the design approval 

holder indicating that certain areas of 

certain cargo compartment doors are 

subject to widespread fatigue damage, 

and a determination was made that a 

modification of the frame forks must be 

done. We are issuing this AD to address 

the unsafe condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective February 1, 

2019. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of February 1, 2019. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain other publications listed in 

this AD as of January 2, 2018 (82 FR 

56158, November 28, 2017). 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 2 

Rond Point Emile Dewoitine, 31700 

Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 

61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; 

email: account.airworth-eas@

airbus.com; internet: http://

www.airbus.com. You may view this 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

It is also available on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

for and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0641. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0641; or in person at Docket Operations 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this final rule, 

the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for Docket 

Operations (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; 

telephone and fax 206–231–3223. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2017–22–07, 

Amendment 39–19087 (82 FR 56158, 

November 28, 2017) (‘‘AD 2017–22– 

07’’). AD 2017–22–07 applied to certain 

Airbus SAS Model A319 series 

airplanes; Model A320–211, –212, –214, 

–231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and 

Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, 

–212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. 

The NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on August 3, 2018 (83 FR 

38091). The NPRM was prompted by an 

evaluation done by the design approval 

holder (DAH) indicating that the frame 

forks and outer skin on the forward and 

aft cargo compartment doors are subject 

to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), 

and a determination was made that a 

modification of the frame forks must be 

accomplished. The NPRM proposed to 

continue to require repetitive 

inspections of the frame forks, and 

corrective actions if necessary, and to 

include optional modifications that 

constitute terminating action. The 

NPRM also proposed to require 

modifying certain forward and aft cargo 

compartment doors, and related 

investigative and corrective actions. We 

are issuing this AD to address cracks on 

the frame forks and outer skin on the 

forward and aft cargo compartment 

doors, which could lead to reduced 

structural integrity and failure of the 

cargo compartment door, possible 

decompression of the airplane, and 

injury to occupants. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2018–0024, dated January 29, 

2018 (referred to after this as the 

Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness 

Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct 

an unsafe condition for certain Airbus 

SAS Model A319 series airplanes; 

Model A320–211, –212, –214, –216, 

–231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and 

Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, 

–212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. 

The MCAI states: 

During full scale fatigue test, cracks were 

found on frame forks and outer skin on 

forward and aft cargo doors. To improve the 

fatigue behaviour of the frame forks, Airbus 

introduced modification (mod) 22948 in 

production, and issued inspection Service 

Bulletin (SB) A320–52–1032 and mod SB 

A320–52–1042, both recommended. Since 

those actions were taken, further improved 

cargo compartment doors were introduced in 

production through Airbus mod 26213, on 

aeroplanes having [manufacturer serial 

number] MSN 0759 and up. 

In the frame of the Widespread Fatigue 

Damage (WFD) study, it was determined that 

repetitive inspection are necessary for aft and 

forward cargo compartment doors on 

aeroplanes that are in pre-mod 26213 

configuration. Failure to detect cracks would 

reduce the cargo door structural integrity. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to cargo door failure, 

possibly resulting in decompression of the 

aeroplane and injury to occupants. 

To address this unsafe condition, Airbus 

issued SB A320–52–1171 to provide 

instructions for repetitive special detailed 

inspections (SDI). This SB was later revised 

to correct the list of affected cargo doors. 

Airbus also issued SB A320–52–1170, 

introducing a door modification which 

would allow terminating the repetitive 

SDI[s]. 

Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016–0187 

[which corresponds to FAA AD 2017–22–07] 

to require repetitive SDI[s] of the affected 

cargo doors and, depending on findings, the 

accomplishment of applicable repairs. That 

[EASA] AD also included reference to SB 

A320–52–1170 as optional terminating 

action. 

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, further 

investigations linked to the WFD analysis 

highlighted that, to meet the WFD 

requirements, it is necessary to require 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES