This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

72853 

Vol. 76, No. 228 

Monday, November 28, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1254; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–178–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to certain Model 737–300, 

–400, and –500 series airplanes. The 

existing AD currently requires repetitive 

external detailed inspections or nondestructive inspections to detect cracks 

in the fuselage skin along the chem-mill 

steps at stringers S–1 and S–2R, 

between station (STA) 400 and STA 

460, and repair if necessary. Since we 

issued that AD, we have received 

reports of additional crack findings of 

the fuselage skin at the chem-mill steps. 

This proposed AD would add 

inspections for cracking in additional 

fuselage skin locations, and repair if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 

also reduce the inspection thresholds 

and repetitive intervals for certain 

airplanes. We are proposing this AD to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking of the 

fuselage skin panels at the chem-mill 

steps, which could result in sudden 

fracture and failure of the fuselage skin 

panels, and consequent rapid 

decompression of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by January 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; 

telephone (206) 544–5000, extension 1; 

fax (206) 766–5680; email 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call (425) 227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 

917–6447; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: 

wayne.lockett@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2011–1254; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–178–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 

On September 11, 2008, we issued AD 

2008–19–03, Amendment 39–15670 (73 

FR 56958, October 1, 2008), for certain 

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. That AD requires repetitive 

external detailed inspections or nondestructive inspections to detect cracks 

in the fuselage skin along the chem-mill 

steps at stringers S–1 and S–2R, 

between STA 400 and STA 460, and 

repair if necessary. That AD resulted 

from reports of cracks in the fuselage 

skin common to stringers S–1 and S–2R, 

between STA 400 and STA 460. We 

issued that AD to detect and correct 

fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin 

panels at the chem-mill steps, which 

could result in sudden fracture and 

failure of the fuselage skin panels, and 

consequent rapid decompression of the 

airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2008–19–03, 

Amendment 39–15670 (73 FR 56958, 

October 1, 2008), we received reports of 

new findings of cracking in the fuselage 

skin at the chem-mill steps adjacent to 

the Air Traffic Control antenna. One 

reported crack was on the inboard side 

of S–2R at STA 451; the crack measured 

one inch long. That airplane had 

accumulated 52,207 total flight cycles. 

Another reported crack was on the lefthand side of stringer S–1 at STA 431. 

That airplane had accumulated 43,565 

total flight cycles. Other cracks were 

located on the left-hand side of stringer 

S–1, between STA 400 and STA 460 on 

certain airplanes. The cause of the 

cracking was fatigue due to high-tension 

stresses and local bending at the edge of 

the chem-mill pockets of the bonded 

skin. It was also determined that the 

detailed inspection alone (one method 

required by the existing AD) is not 

adequate to detect the cracking. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1293, Revision 1, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
72854 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

dated July 7, 2010; and Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1293, Revision 2, 

dated August 10, 2011. (Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1293, dated 

August 13, 2008, was referred to for 

accomplishing the actions in AD 2008– 

19–03, Amendment 39–15670 (73 FR 

56958, October 1, 2008)). 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1293, Revision 1, dated July 7, 2010, 

adds an ultrasonic phased array 

inspection to the options for nondestructive inspections (NDI) specified 

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1293, dated August 13, 2008, and 

combines the detailed inspection and 

the NDI in lieu of doing either Option 

1 (a detailed inspection) or Option 2 (an 

NDI). Boeing Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1293, Revision 2, dated August 10, 

2011, clarifies repair instructions for 

specific findings. 

The initial inspection compliance 

times range between the following, 

depending on configuration: (1) Before 

the accumulation 33,000 total flight 

cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after 

the date on this service bulletin, 

whichever is later; and (2) before the 

accumulation of 35,000 total flight 

cycles, or within 1,800 flight cycles after 

the date on this service bulletin, 

whichever is later. 

The repetitive inspection intervals 

range between 500 and 2,400 flight 

cycles, depending on the inspection 

option and configuration. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of these same 

type designs. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would retain 

certain requirements of AD 2008–19–03, 

Amendment 39–15670 (73 FR 56958, 

October 1, 2008). This proposed AD 

would also require accomplishing the 

actions specified in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1293, Revision 2, 

dated August 10, 2011, except as 

discussed under ‘‘Differences Between 

the AD and the Service Information.’’ 

Differences Between the AD and the 

Service Information 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1293, Revision 2, dated August 10, 

2011, specifies contacting the 

manufacturer for instructions on how to 

repair a certain condition, but this AD 

requires repairing that condition in one 

of the following ways: 

• Using a method that we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Delegation Option Authorization 

Organization whom we have authorized 

to make those findings. 

The post-repair inspection specified 

in Tables 4 and 6 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1293, Revision 2, 

dated August 10, 2011, is not required 

by this proposed AD. 

Interim Action 

We consider this proposed AD 

interim action. If final action is 

identified later, we might consider 

further rulemaking then. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 596 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

operators 

Inspections (required actions in 

AD 2008–19–03, Amendment 39–15670 (73 FR 

56958, October 1, 2008).

5 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$425 per inspection cycle.

N/A $425 per inspection cycle ....... $253,300 per inspection cycle. 

New inspections (proposed action).Between 7 and 15 work-hours, 

depending on airplane configuration = between $595 

and $1,275 per inspection 

cycle.

N/A Between $595 and $1,275 per 

inspection cycle.

Between $354,620 and 

$759,900 per inspection 

cycle. 

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 have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72855 

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) 

2008–19–03, Amendment 39–15670 (73 

FR 56958, October 1, 2008), and adding 

the following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2011–1254; Directorate Identifier 2010– 

NM–178–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by January 12, 2012. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2008–19–03, 

Amendment 39–15670 (73 FR 56958, October 

1, 2008). 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Model 737–300, 

–400, and –500 series airplanes, certificated 

in any category; as identified in Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1293, Revision 2, 

dated August 10, 2011. 

Subject 

(d) Joint Aircraft System Component 

(JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD was prompted by reports of 

additional crack findings of the fuselage skin 

at the chem-mill steps. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of 

the fuselage skin panels at the chem-mill 

steps, which could result in sudden fracture 

and failure of the fuselage skin panels, and 

consequent rapid decompression of the 

airplane. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

Repetitive Inspections 

(g) At the applicable times specified in 

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

Service Bulletin 737–53A1293, Revision 2, 

dated August 10, 2011, except as provided by 

paragraph (j) and (k) of this AD: Do both a 

detailed inspection and a nondestructive 

inspection (NDI) (medium frequency eddy 

current, magneto optical imaging, C-scan, or 

ultrasonic phased array) to detect cracks in 

the fuselage skin along the chem-mill steps 

at stringers S–1 and S–2R, between station 

(STA) 400 and STA 460, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1293, Revision 2, 

dated August 10, 2011. Repeat the applicable 

inspections thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed those specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 

737–53A1293, Revision 2, dated August 10, 

2011. 

Repair 

(h) If any crack is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD, before further flight, repair in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1293, 

Revision 2, dated August 10, 2011; except as 

provided by paragraph (i) of this AD. 

Installation of a repair that meets the 

conditions specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 

737–53A1293, Revision 2, dated August 10, 

2011, terminates the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the 

repaired area only. 

(i) If any crack is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD and Boeing Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1293, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2011, 

specifies to contact Boeing for repair: Before 

further flight, repair using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (n) of this AD. 

Exceptions to Service Bulletin 

(j) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1293, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2011, 

specifies a compliance time relative to the 

date on that service bulletin, this AD requires 

compliance within the specified compliance 

time after the effective date of this AD. 

(k) Where the Condition column of 

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

Service Bulletin 737–53A1293, Revision 2, 

dated August 10, 2011, 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. 

(l) The post-repair inspection specified in 

Tables 4 and 6 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 

737–53A1293, Revision 2, August 10, 2011, 

is not required by this AD. 

Note 1: The damage tolerance inspections 

specified in Tables 4 and 6 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 

737–53A1293, Revision 2, August 10, 2011, 

may be used in support of compliance with 

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

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(c)(2)). 

Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

(m) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1293, Revision 1, 

July 7, 2010, are acceptable for compliance 

with the corresponding actions required by 

this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(n)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO 

to make those findings. For a repair method 

to be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane. 

(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2008–19–03, 

Amendment 39–15670 (73 FR 56958, October 

1, 2008), are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding requirements in this AD. 

Related Information 

(o) For more information about this AD, 

contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

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

6590; email: wayne.lockett@faa.gov. 

(p) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

(206) 544–5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766– 

5680; email me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

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

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

(425) 227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 16, 2011. 

John P. Piccola, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30559 Filed 11–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1251; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–017–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1