Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 79395 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–3984; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–NM–033–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposal to supersede Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) 2008–13–12 R1, for 

certain The Boeing Company Model 

737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and 

–500 series airplanes. AD 2008–13–12 

R1 requires various repetitive 

inspections for cracking of the upperframe-to-side-frame splice of the 

fuselage, and other specified and 

corrective actions if necessary; and also 

provides for an optional preventive 

modification, which would terminate 

the repetitive inspections. This action 

revises the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) by adding postrepair/post-modification inspections. 

We are proposing this SNPRM to detect 

and correct fatigue cracking of the 

upper-frame-to-side-frame splice of the 

fuselage, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the frame and 

adjacent lap joint, causing increased 

loading in the fuselage skin, which will 

accelerate skin crack growth and result 

in decompression of the airplane. Since 

these actions impose an additional 

burden over that proposed in the 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 SNPRM by December 29, 2016. 

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 SNPRM, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view 

this referenced service information at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 425–227–1221. It is also available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

3984. 

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–2015– 

3984; 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, WA 

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–2015–3984; Directorate Identifier 

2015–NM–033–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 supersede AD 2008–13–12 R1, 

Amendment 39–15719 (73 FR 67383, 

November 14, 2008) (‘‘AD 2008–13–12 

R1’’). AD 2008–13–12 R1 applied to 

certain The Boeing Company Model 

737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and 

–500 series airplanes. AD 2008–13–12 

R1 requires various repetitive 

inspections for cracking of the upperframe-to-side-frame splice of the 

fuselage, and other specified and 

corrective actions if necessary. AD 

2008–13–12 R1 also provides for an 

optional preventive modification, which 

terminates the repetitive inspections. 

AD 2008–13–12 R1 resulted from a 

report that the upper frame of the 

fuselage was severed between stringers 

(S) S–13L and S–14L at station (STA) 

747, and the adjacent frame at STA 767 

had a 1.3-inch-long crack at the same 

stringer location. The NPRM published 

in the Federal Register on October 9, 

2015 (80 FR 61133) (‘‘The NPRM’’). The 

NPRM was prompted by reports of 

additional fatigue cracking of the upperframe-to-side-frame splice of the 

fuselage, and one report of a severed 

frame. The NPRM proposed to add, for 

certain airplanes, an inspection to 

determine if the existing frame repair 

meets all specified requirements, and 

for certain other airplanes, a new 

modification of the upper-frame-to-sideframe splice, which would terminate the 

repetitive inspections. The NPRM also 

proposed to reduce certain inspection 

thresholds and repetitive intervals. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, we have 

determined that it is necessary to 

require post-repair/post-modification 

inspections that were not included in 

the NPRM. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 1, 

dated January 30, 2015. The service 

information describes procedures for 

various repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the upper-frame-to-sideframe splice of the fuselage, a 

preventive modification to prevent 

WFD, an inspection to determine if the 

existing frame repair meets all specified 

requirements, and corrective actions. 

This service information is reasonably 

available because the interested parties 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
79396 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

have access to it through their normal 

course of business or by the means 

identified in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the NPRM. The following 

presents the comments received on the 

NPRM and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. One commenter supported 

the actions specified in the NPRM. 

Request To Require Post-Repair/PostModification Inspections 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM) to require the post-repair/postmodification inspections that are not 

required in that paragraph. Boeing 

stated that the WFD evaluation of the 

frame repair/modification specified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015, indicated the need for reduced 

repetitive inspection intervals from 

those provided in Boeing Damage 

Tolerance Inspection Data Service 

Bulletin 737–00–1006, dated March 12, 

2010. Boeing added that since the 

inspections specified in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–00–1006, dated March 12, 

2010, are not to be used for the postrepair/post-modification inspections 

required by 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 

129.109(c)(2), they should be required 

by paragraph (j) of the proposed AD. 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reasons provided. We have changed 

paragraph (j) of this SNPRM to require 

that post-repair/post-modification 

inspections be done in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015. 

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment 

of the Proposed Actions 

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that 

accomplishing the Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not 

affect the actions specified in the 

NPRM. 

We agree with the commenter. We 

have changed paragraph (c) of this 

proposed AD to state that installation of 

STC ST01219SE does not affect the 

ability to accomplish the actions 

required by this final rule. Therefore, for 

airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is 

installed, a ‘‘change in product’’ 

alternative methods of compliance 

(AMOC) approval request is not 

necessary to comply with the 

requirements of 14 CFR 39.17. 

Request To Clarify That the NPRM 

Addresses WFD 

Boeing asked that we update the 

language in ‘‘Actions Since AD 2008– 

13–12 R1, Amendment 39–15719 (73 FR 

67383, November 14, 2008) Was Issued’’ 

section of the NPRM to clarify that this 

action is intended to address WFD by 

supporting the airplane’s limit of 

validity (LOV). Boeing noted that a 

recently issued WFD-related AD action 

used different language regarding WFD. 

Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 1, 

dated January 30, 2015, was released in 

support of the requirements of 14 CFR 

26.21(b) and (c) and provides additional 

service action required to support LOV. 

We agree to provide clarification. The 

NPRM addressed WFD in several 

locations in the preamble. To clarify, 

this action is intended to address WFD 

by supporting the airplane’s LOV, as 

stated by Boeing. However, we have not 

updated the language in that section of 

the NPRM because that section of the 

NPRM is not carried over to this 

SNPRM. Therefore, no change to this 

SNPRM is necessary in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Certain Procedures 

in the Related Service Information 

Section 

Boeing asked that we change the 

‘‘Related Service Information under 1 

CFR part 51’’ section in the NPRM to 

clarify the description of the 

modification procedures in the service 

information. Boeing asked that the 

proposed language ‘‘. . . a new 

preventive modification, which would 

eliminate the need for the repetitive 

inspections’’ be changed to ‘‘. . . a 

preventive modification to prevent the 

WFD.’’ Boeing stated that Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 

1, dated January 30, 2015, retains all 

inspections specified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, dated 

January 19, 2006, and mandates the 

previously optional preventive 

modification to mitigate the WFD 

concern. 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reasons provided. We have clarified the 

‘‘Related Service Information under 1 

CFR part 51’’ section of this SNPRM 

accordingly. 

Request To Clarify Reason for 

Supersedure 

Boeing asked that we clarify in the 

SUMMARY section of the NPRM the 

events that prompted the proposed 

supersedure of AD 2008–13–12 R1. 

Boeing stated that instead of two reports 

of severed frames, as specified in the 

NPRM, there was just one report of a 

severed frame. 

We agree to provide clarification. We 

agree that the commenter’s statement is 

accurate. However, we have removed 

details relating to the NPRM from the 

SUMMARY section of this SNPRM; 

therefore, no change is necessary to this 

SNPRM in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Provisions Related 

to Repetitive Actions 

Boeing asked that we clarify 

paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD 

(in the NPRM) to state that the actions 

are to be repeated until the preventive 

modification in paragraph (k) or the 

terminating action in paragraph (l) of 

the proposed AD has been 

accomplished. Boeing added that this 

change is consistent with the provisions 

of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015, and the requirements of AD 2008– 

13–12 R1. 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reasons provided. We have clarified 

paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this proposed AD 

accordingly. 

Request To Clarify Inspection Locations 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (g)(2)(i) of the proposed AD 

(in the NPRM) to clarify that the 

inspections are for ‘‘existing frame 

repairs,’’ instead of ‘‘frames.’’ Boeing 

requested that we change ‘‘frame’’ to 

‘‘frame repairs,’’ and ‘‘tied frames’’ to 

‘‘existing frame repairs.’’ 

We agree with the commenter. We 

have revised paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this 

proposed AD accordingly. 

Request To Revise Inspection Type 

Boeing asked that we revise 

paragraphs (k) and (l) of the proposed 

AD (in the NPRM) by changing 

‘‘detailed and HFEC inspections’’ to just 

‘‘HFEC inspections.’’ Boeing stated that 

detailed inspections are not specified 

during accomplishment of the 

preventive modification in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 

1, dated January 30, 2015. 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reason provided. We have removed 

‘‘detailed’’ inspections from paragraphs 

(k) and (l) of this proposed AD. 

Request To Change Certain Language in 

Paragraph (l)(2) of the Proposed AD 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (l)(2) of the proposed AD (in 

the NPRM), which stated that the repair 

would terminate the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) 

of this AD. Boeing requested that the 

proposed AD instead state that the 

repair would terminate not only the 

repetitive inspections, but also the 

preventive modification required by 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 79397 

paragraph (k) of the proposed AD. 

Boeing added that Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 1, 

dated January 30, 2015, provides a 

terminating action provision for the 

repetitive inspections and the 

preventive modification under the 

repair. Boeing stated that 

accomplishment of the repair removes 

the WFD, and therefore the preventive 

modification is not required for repaired 

frames. 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reasons provided. We have clarified the 

language in paragraph (l)(2) of this 

proposed AD accordingly. 

Request To Move Terminating Action in 

Paragraph (l)(3) of the Proposed AD to 

the Credit Paragraph 

Boeing asked that we move the 

terminating action specified in 

paragraph (l)(3) of the proposed AD (in 

the NPRM) into the credit for previous 

actions specified in paragraph (m) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM) for 

clarification. Boeing stated that 

accomplishment of the repair or 

preventive modification, as specified in 

Boeing Message M–7200–02–1294, 

dated August 20, 2002, is a ‘‘previous 

action’’ similar to accomplishment of 

the repair or preventive modification 

specified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1261, dated January 

19, 2006. Boeing added that paragraph 

(l)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) 

stated that the repair or preventive 

modification done before the effective 

date of the AD terminates the repetitive 

inspection requirements of paragraph 

(g)(1) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM). Boeing also asked that we 

revise the proposed AD (in the NPRM) 

to state that accomplishment of the 

repair or preventive modification in 

accordance with Boeing Message M– 

7200–02–1294, dated August 20, 2002, 

if performed before the effective date of 

the AD, would also terminate the 

preventive modification required by 

paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in the 

NPRM). 

We agree to revise paragraph (l)(3) of 

this proposed AD to state that a repair 

or preventive modification done in 

accordance with Boeing Message M– 

7200–02–1294, dated August 20, 2002, 

is acceptable for terminating both the 

inspections and the preventive 

modification requirements in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (k) of this 

proposed AD respectively. We have 

changed paragraph (l)(3) of this 

proposed AD accordingly. 

We do not agree to move paragraph 

(l)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) 

into the credit for previous actions 

specified in paragraph (m) of this 

proposed AD. Paragraph (m) of this 

proposed AD is intended to give credit 

for actions accomplished using previous 

revisions of service information for 

accomplishing corresponding actions 

prior to the effective date of the AD; it 

does not terminate any actions and does 

not address future actions. 

Request To Provide Credit for Certain 

Repairs 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (in 

the NPRM) to provide credit for repairs 

that were accomplished before the 

effective date of the AD, in accordance 

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1261, dated January 19, 2006. 

Boeing stated that the repair procedures 

are the same as those in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 

1, dated January 30, 2015 (as specified 

in paragraph (l)(2) of the proposed AD 

(in the NPRM)). 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reason provided. We have added a new 

paragraph (m)(3) to this proposed AD to 

give credit for repairs specified in 

paragraph (l)(2) of the this proposed AD 

that are accomplished before the 

effective date of this proposed AD. 

Request To Remove Repairs as 

Terminating Action Under Certain 

Conditions 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (l)(4) of the proposed AD (in 

the NPRM) to remove repairs as 

acceptable terminating action. Boeing 

stated that paragraph (l)(4) of the 

proposed AD (in the NPRM) would 

provide a terminating action provision 

for the repetitive inspections required 

by paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD 

(in the NPRM) if a repair or preventive 

modification is accomplished that is 

different from the one provided in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015, provided it has been approved by 

the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office. Boeing added that 

there have been repairs performed in the 

past that involve trimming the 

production upper frame web near S–11 

and replacing it with an identical 

replacement frame web without 

additional reinforcement similar to the 

preventive modification or repair. 

Boeing noted that the repair is 

structurally acceptable; however, it does 

not sufficiently reinforce the frame to 

provide terminating action for the 

inspections, and would require further 

service actions, including inspections 

and a preventive modification. Boeing 

added that the additional inspection 

requirements should be specified in the 

AMOC approval, and noted that a 

preventive modification would not 

necessarily be required since prior 

approvals would not have taken the 

WFD requirements into account. 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reasons provided. All previously 

installed repairs or modifications 

installed in accordance with Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

dated January 19, 2006, must be 

reevaluated or replaced to ensure that 

all WFD requirements are met. 

Therefore, we have removed paragraph 

(l)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) 

from this proposed AD. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this SNPRM 

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 

NPRM. 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 SNPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM 

This SNPRM would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Difference Between this AD and the 

Service Information.’’ Refer to this 

service information for information on 

the procedures and compliance times. 

Difference Between This SNPRM and 

the Service Information 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015, specifies to contact the 

manufacturer for certain repair 

instructions, but this proposed AD 

would require repair methods, 

modification deviations, and alteration 

deviations in one of the following ways: 

• In accordance with a method that 

we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) whom 

we have authorized to make those 

findings. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 391 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
79398 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

operators 

Retained inspections from AD 

2008–13–12 R1.

Between 18 and 38 work-hours × $85 per hour, depending on airplane configuration = between $1,530 and $3,230 per inspection 

cycle.

$0 Between $1,530 

and $3,230 per 

inspection cycle.

Between $598,230 

and $1,262,930, 

per inspection 

cycle. 

New proposed inspections.213 work-hours × $85 per hour, $18,105 per inspection cycle ........ $0 $18,105 per inspection cycle.$7,079,055, per inspection cycle. 

New proposed 

modification.

256 work-hours × $85 per hour = $21,760 ....................................... (1) $21,760 ................. $8,508,160 

1We currently have no specific cost estimates associated with the parts necessary for the proposed modification. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the on-condition actions 

specified in this proposed AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We 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 this 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 Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2008–13–12 R1, Amendment 39–15719 

(73 FR 67383, November 14, 2008), and 

adding the following new AD. 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2015–3984; Directorate Identifier 2015– 

NM–033–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by December 

29, 2016. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 2008–13–12 R1, 

Amendment 39–15719 (73 FR 67383, 

November 14, 2008) (‘‘AD 2008–13–12 R1’’). 

(c) Applicability 

(1) This AD applies to The Boeing 

Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, 

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

certificated in any category, as identified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015. 

(2) Installation of Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_

Library/rgstc.nsf/0/BE866B732F6CF31086257

B9700692796?OpenDocument&Highlight=st0

1219se) does not affect the ability to 

accomplish the actions required by this AD. 

Therefore, for airplanes on which STC 

ST01219SE 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 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

additional fatigue cracking of the upperframe-to-side-frame splice of the fuselage, 

and one report of a severed frame due to 

susceptibility to widespread fatigue damage 

(WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct fatigue cracking of the upper-frameto-side-frame splice of the fuselage, which 

could result in reduced structural integrity of 

the frame and adjacent lap joint, causing 

increased loading in the fuselage skin, which 

will accelerate skin crack growth and result 

in decompression of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective 

Actions for Certain Airplanes 

(1) For Groups 1 through 3, Configurations 

1, 3, 4, and 5 airplanes; Group 7, 

Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 5 airplanes; 

Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 1, 3, 4, 

and 6 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 11, 

Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 6 airplanes; as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015: Do the actions specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, and all 

applicable corrective actions, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as 

required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. 

(i) At the applicable time specified in 

Tables 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated 

January 30, 2015, except as required by 

paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do 

medium frequency eddy current inspections 

for cracking of the upper-frame-to-side-frame 

splice of the fuselage. 

(ii) Repeat the inspections specified in 

paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD at the 

applicable time specified in Tables 1, 2, 3, 5, 

6, and 8 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 79399 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, until the 

preventive modification required by 

paragraph (k) of this AD, or a terminating 

action specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, 

has been accomplished. The inspections are 

terminated for the repaired or modified areas 

only. 

(2) For Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 

2 and 5 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 11, 

Configurations 2 and 5 airplanes; as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015: Do the actions specified in paragraphs 

(g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, and all 

applicable corrective actions, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as 

required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. 

(i) At the applicable time specified in 

Tables 4 and 7 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated 

January 30, 2015, except as required by 

paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do a 

detailed inspection to determine if the 

existing frame repair meets all requirements 

specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015, and for any frame repair that does meet 

all requirements, do detailed and high 

frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections 

for cracking of the existing frame repairs. 

(ii) Repeat the inspections for cracking 

specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD at 

the applicable time specified in Tables 4 and 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015. 

(h) Post-Repair and Post-Modification 

Actions for Certain Airplanes 

For Group 1, Configurations 2 and 6 

airplanes; Group 2, Configurations 2 and 6 

airplanes; Group 3, Configurations 2 and 6 

airplanes; and Group 7, Configurations 2 and 

6 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 1, 

dated January 30, 2015: Within 120 days after 

the effective date of this AD, do post-repair 

and post-modification actions using a 

method approved in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this 

AD. 

(i) Exceptions to Service Bulletin 

Specifications 

(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015, specifies a compliance time ‘‘after the 

Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,’’ this 

AD requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(2) Where the ‘‘Condition’’ column of 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, specifies 

a condition based on whether an airplane has 

or has not been inspected, this AD bases the 

condition on whether an airplane has or has 

not been inspected as of the effective date of 

this AD. 

(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair 

instructions: Before further flight, repair 

using a method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of 

this AD. 

(j) Post-Repair/Post-Modification Inspections 

For Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 1, 

3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 airplanes; and Groups 

8 through 11, Configurations 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 

9, and 10 airplanes; as identified in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015: Except as 

provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of 

this AD, at the applicable time specified in 

Tables 12 through 17 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated 

January 30, 2015; do the post-repair/postmodification inspections, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as 

required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. 

(k) Preventive Modification for Certain 

Airplanes 

For Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 1, 

3, 4, and 6 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 

11, Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 6 airplanes; as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015: Except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) 

and (i)(2) of this AD, at the applicable time 

specified in Tables 3, 5, 6, and 8 in paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated 

January 30, 2015, do the preventive 

modification, including HFEC inspections for 

cracking and applicable corrective actions, in 

accordance with Part 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 1, 

dated January 30, 2015, except as required by 

paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable 

corrective actions before further flight. 

Accomplishing the modification required by 

this paragraph terminates the inspections 

required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for 

the modified area only. 

(l) Terminating Action 

(1) For Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 

1, 3, 4, and 6 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 

11, Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 6 airplanes; as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015: Accomplishing the preventive 

modification, including HFEC inspections for 

cracking and applicable corrective actions, in 

accordance with Part 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, Revision 1, 

dated January 30, 2015, except as required by 

paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, terminates the 

inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of 

this AD for the modified area only. 

(2) For Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 

3 and 6 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 11, 

Configurations 3 and 6 airplanes; as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 

2015: Accomplishing the repair, including 

HFEC inspections for cracking and applicable 

corrective actions, in accordance with Part 3 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as 

required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, 

terminates the repetitive inspections required 

by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, and the 

preventive modification required by 

paragraph (k) of this AD, for the repaired area 

only. 

(3) Accomplishment of the repair or the 

preventive modification specified in Boeing 

Message M–7200–02–1294, dated August 20, 

2002, before the effective date of this AD 

terminates the repetitive inspections required 

by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD and the 

preventive modification required by 

paragraph (k) of this AD for the repaired or 

modified area only. 

(m) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for the 

inspections required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD, if those inspections were performed 

before the effective date of this AD using 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, 

dated January 19, 2006, which was 

incorporated by reference in AD 2008–13–12, 

Amendment 39–15575 (73 FR 38905, July 8, 

2008) (‘‘AD 2008–13–12’’). 

(2) This paragraph provides credit for the 

modification specified in paragraphs (k) and 

(l)(1) of this AD, if performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1261, dated January 

19, 2006. 

(3) This paragraph provides credit for 

repairs specified in paragraphs (l)(2) of this 

AD, if performed before the effective date of 

this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1261, dated January 19, 2006. 

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 

paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9-ANM-LAACO-AMOCRequests@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 Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2008–13–12, 

and AD 2008–13–12 R1; are approved as 

AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
79400 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(o) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

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, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may view this 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 12, 2016. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–22699 Filed 11–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Chapter 1 

[Docket No. FDA–2008–N–0622] 

Withdrawal of Two Proposed Rules 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is announcing the 

withdrawal of two proposed rules that 

published in the Federal Register more 

than 5 years ago. These proposed rules 

are no longer considered viable 

candidates for final action. FDA is 

taking this action because these 

proposed rules are out of date. 

DATES: The proposed rules are 

withdrawn on November 14, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

M. Helmanis, Regulations Policy and 

Management Staff, Office of the 

Commissioner, Food and Drug 

Administration, 10903 New Hampshire 

Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3326, Silver Spring, 

MD 20993–0002, 301–796–9135, email: 

Lisa.Helmanis.@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In 1990, FDA began a process of 

periodically conducting comprehensive 

reviews of its regulation process, 

including reviewing the backlog of 

notices of proposed rulemakings that 

were never finalized. As FDA removed 

many proposed rules that had not been 

finalized, the Agency was able to clean 

out the backlog and implement a 

process of reviewing these proposed 

rules every 5 years. In the Federal 

Register of December 12, 2008 (73 FR 

75625), FDA withdrew four proposed 

rules that were more than 5 years old 

that it did not intend to finalize. 

Recently, FDA has conducted a 

review of proposed rules that are more 

than 5 years old, and is announcing the 

withdrawal the following two proposed 

rules: 

Title of proposed rule Publication date and 

Docket No. Reason for withdrawal 

1 ................... Availability for Public Disclosure and Submission 

to FDA for Public Disclosure of Certain Data 

and Information Related to Human Gene Therapy or Xenotransplantation.

1/18/2001, 00N–0989 .... FDA has reconsidered our position on this issue 

and deemed our concerns from 2001 outdated. 

We will continue to assess whether rulemaking 

in this area is necessary, and if so, we will proceed with a new proposed rule. 

2 ................... Crabmeat; Amendment of Common or Usual 

Name Regulation.

4/23/1998, 94P–0043 .... This proposed rule is obsolete because FDA has 

created a new process that allows for routine 

updates to the seafood names without going 

through notice and comment rulemaking. See 

FDA’s Guide to Acceptable Market Names for 

Seafood Sold in Interstate Commerce. 

The withdrawal of these proposals 

identified in this document does not 

preclude the Agency from reinstituting 

rulemaking concerning the issues 

addressed in the proposals listed in the 

chart. Should we decide to undertake 

such rulemakings in the future, we will 

re-propose the actions and provide new 

opportunities for comment. 

Furthermore, this notice is only 

intended to address the specific actions 

identified in this document, and not any 

other pending proposals that the Agency 

has issued or is considering. The 

Agency notes that withdrawal of a 

proposal does not necessarily mean that 

the preamble statement of the proposal 

no longer reflects the current position of 

FDA on the matter addressed. You may 

wish to review the Agency’s Web site 

(http://www.fda.gov) for any current 

guidance on the matter. 

Dated: November 8, 2016. 

Leslie Kux, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2016–27329 Filed 11–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD 

29 CFR Part 1208 

[Docket No. C–7156] 

RIN 3140–AA00 

Access to Information 

AGENCY: National Mediation Board. 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments; notice of hearing. 

SUMMARY: The National Mediation 

Board (NMB or Board) proposes to 

revise its Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) regulations in order to 

implement the FOIA Improvement Act 

of 2016 and to amend its regulations 

regarding responding to subpoenas. The 

NMB also proposes to update these 

regulations where needed in accordance 

with Department of Justice guidance, 

Executive Order 12,600, and changes in 

Agency practice and procedure. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

January 13, 2017. The NMB will hold a 

public hearing on Thursday, December 

8, 2016. Submit requests to speak at the 

hearing until 4 p.m. EST on Thursday, 

December 1, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the methods listed below. 

Please submit requests to speak and 

materials for the public hearing only to 

the NMB’s physical or email address. 

Clearly identify all submissions by 

Docket Number C–7156. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS