Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52225 

Parts Installation 

(k) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

replacement or spare transcowl assembly 

having P/N CN624–2001–XXX or KCN624– 

2001–X (XXX and X mean various dash 

numbers), with S/N SB0964 or lower, may be 

installed on any airplane, except for a 

transcowl assembly on which any repair 

listed in paragraph 1.D. of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 670BA–78–008, Revision B, 

dated December 22, 2010, or paragraph 1.A. 

of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH–78– 

029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010, 

has been done; and except for a transcowl 

that has been inspected as specified in 

paragraph (i) of this AD and all applicable 

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

of this AD, as applicable, have been done. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(l) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, ANE–170, 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 NYACO, send it to ATTN: Program 

Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 

New York 11590; telephone 516–228–7300; 

fax 516–794–5531. 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. The AMOC approval letter 

must specifically reference this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

Related Information 

(m) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness 

Directive CF–2009–33, dated July 28, 2009; 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–78–008, 

Revision B, dated December 22, 2010; and 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029, 

Revision C, dated November 10, 2010; for 

related information. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(n) You must use Bombardier Service 

Bulletin 670BA–78–008, Revision B, dated 

December 22, 2010; and Bombardier Service 

Bulletin 670SH–78–029, Revision C, dated 

November 10, 2010; as applicable; to do the 

actions required by this AD, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 CoˆteVertu Road West, Dorval, Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, 

Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514– 

855–7401; e-mail 

thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; Internet http:// 

www.bombardier.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the 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. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

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/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

8, 2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20673 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1213; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–097–AD; Amendment 

39–16775; AD 2011–17–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), 

DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), 

DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD requires 

repetitive inspections for cracking of the 

lower rear spar caps of the wings, and 

related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. This AD also 

requires repetitive inspections of certain 

repaired areas. This AD was prompted 

by reports of cracking of the wing rear 

spar lower cap at the outboard flap and 

inboard drive hinge at station 

Xrs=164.000; the cracking is due to 

material fatigue from normal flap 

operating loads. We are issuing this AD 

to detect and correct such fatigue 

cracking, which could result in fuel 

leaks, damage to the wing skin or other 

structure, and consequent reduced 

structural integrity of the wing. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 

26, 2011. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of September 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, California 90846–0001; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; 

fax 206–766–5683; e-mail 

dse.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 AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, 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: 

Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; phone: (562) 

627–5233; fax: (562) 627–5210; e-mail: 

roger.durbin@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an airworthiness 

directive (AD) that would apply to the 

specified products. That NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 8, 2010 (75 FR 6162). That 

NPRM proposed to require repetitive 

inspections for cracking of the lower 

rear spar caps of the wings, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. That NPRM also proposed to 

require repetitive inspections of certain 

repaired areas. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

52226 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Actions Since Issuance of NPRM 

The NPRM referred to Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated 

May 8, 2009, as the appropriate source 

of service information for accomplishing 

the actions. Since issuance of the 

NPRM, Boeing has issued Alert Service 

Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, 

dated January 7, 2011. No more work is 

necessary for airplanes on which the 

original issue was used to accomplish 

the actions. Certain procedures 

specified in Revision 1 of this service 

bulletin have been clarified to provide 

additional instructions. Revision 1 of 

this service bulletin also added 

procedures for splice repair options and 

removed the instruction to contact 

Boeing for that repair. In addition, the 

term ‘‘temporary repair,’’ as specified in 

the original issue of this service 

bulletin, was changed to ‘‘doubler 

repair’’ in Revision 1 of this service 

bulletin. In addition, instead of 

contacting Boeing for repair instructions 

for Condition 3, Revision 1 of this 

service bulletin specifies three subconditions and provides corresponding 

doubler or splice repairs. 

We have revised this AD to refer to 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80– 

57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 

2011, as the appropriate source of 

service information for accomplishing 

the actions, and added a new paragraph 

(h) to this AD (and reidentified 

subsequent paragraphs) to give credit for 

using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD80–57A242, dated May 8, 2009, for 

accomplishing the actions. We also have 

replaced the word ‘‘temporary’’ in 

paragraphs (g)(2) and (j) of this AD with 

the word ‘‘doubler.’’ In addition, we 

have removed paragraph (i) of the 

NPRM, which specified contacting the 

FAA for the splice repair. Further, we 

have specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

AD that operators may still accomplish 

the required action in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph 

(k) of this AD. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Include Inspections 

Required by Previous ADs 

The Air Transport Association (ATA), 

on behalf of its member American 

Airlines (AAL), asked that applicable 

inspection requirements in AD 96–23– 

07 R1, Amendment 39–10110 (62 FR 

44208, August 20, 1997); and AD 2004– 

11–07, Amendment 39–13653 (69 FR 

13514, June 4, 2004); be included in the 

NPRM. ATA and AAL reiterated certain 

inspection/compliance requirements in 

those previous ADs, and stated that 

some of those requirements conflict 

with the requirements in this NPRM. 

ATA and AAL recommend 

incorporating those ADs into this NPRM 

to clarify, consolidate, and update the 

compliance requirements. 

We do not agree to include the 

inspection requirements from previous 

ADs in this AD. Although the 

inspections in the previous ADs are 

similar, the root cause of the unsafe 

condition in this AD (i.e., high-cycle 

fatigue in this AD versus manufacturing 

quality in the previous ADs) is different, 

which means the inspections and 

terminating actions are different as well, 

and do not conflict with the 

requirements specified in the existing 

ADs referenced by the commenter. 

Therefore, we have determined that the 

actions should be addressed in this 

‘‘stand-alone’’ AD. We have not changed 

the AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Repetitive 

Inspection Requirement 

ATA and AAL stated that the 

Relevant Service Information section of 

the NPRM specifies that no action is 

necessary for Group 1, Configuration 1 

airplanes. The commenters added that 

this statement conflicts with paragraph 

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

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, 

Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011 

(which also is related to AD 96–23–07 

R1). That service bulletin also specifies 

the following in a note: ‘‘Repeat 

inspections in accordance with Service 

Bulletin MD80–57–184, Paragraph 

1.D.(5), ‘‘Compliance,’’ are still 

required.’’ 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. The NPRM clearly specifies 

that no action is necessary for Group 1, 

Configuration 1 airplanes. That 

statement is correct as it applies to this 

new AD. However, the note which 

appears in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated 

January 7, 2011, serves as a reminder 

that repetitive inspections are still 

required in accordance with AD 96–23– 

07 R1 for Group 1, Configuration 1 

airplanes. For clarification purposes, we 

have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to 

exclude Group 1, Configuration 1 

airplanes from the requirements of that 

paragraph. 

Request To Clarify Certain Procedures 

in Differences Section 

ATA and AAL also stated that the 

Differences section of the NPRM 

specifies FAA- or Boeing Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA)- 

approved repairs for any crack found 

(less than or equal to 2.0 inches) in a 

temporary repair done during the 

repetitive inspections. The commenters 

noted that paragraph (j) of the NPRM 

specifies, ‘‘[i]f any crack is found during 

any inspection of a temporary repair, 

before further flight, repair using a 

method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph 

(k) of this AD.’’ The commenters added 

that these requirements do not clearly 

detail the crack requirements and 

limitations; since the temporary repair 

is reinforcing an existing crack, a crack 

will always be found during subsequent 

inspections. The commenters also stated 

that the ‘‘any crack’’ statement conflicts 

with the requirements of paragraph 

(c)(3)(i) of AD 96–23–07 R1, which 

states, ‘‘[i]f any crack progression is 

found during any repetitive eddy 

current inspection following 

accomplishment of the temporary 

repair, contact the ACO.’’ Additionally, 

the commenters noted that the ‘‘any 

crack’’ statement conflicts with Boeing 

Drawing 3668B, Disposition A through 

D. 

We disagree with the commenters. 

The requirement in this AD is to do 

repetitive eddy current inspections 

around the perimeter of the repair 

doublers; therefore, indications of the 

initially stop-drilled and repaired 

cracking would not be found during 

accomplishment of the repetitive 

inspections. We have not changed the 

AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Certain Procedures 

in Referenced Service Information 

In addition, ATA and AAL stated that 

the NPRM should further clarify the 

new requirements associated with 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80– 

57A242, dated May 8, 2009, and 

identified in two sections of the 

NPRM—the differences section in the 

preamble and the exceptions in 

paragraphs (h) and (i) of the NPRM. 

Where the NPRM specifies that ‘‘crack 

length is longer than 2.0 inches or is 

located in the rear spar cap forward 

horizontal leg radius,’’ the commenters 

stated this could be further clarified by 

stating that this is Condition 3 in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, 

dated May 8, 2009, or by adding a table 

to the AD. 

The commenters also stated that 

where paragraph (i) of the NPRM 

specifies that ‘‘If any crack is found 

during any inspection required by this 

AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD80–57A242, dated May 8, 2009, 

specifies contacting Boeing for repair 

* * *,’’ the phrase could be further 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52227 

clarified by adding a table to the AD that 

identifies the three conditions specified 

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80– 

57A242, dated May 8, 2009, the three 

sub-conditions under Condition 2, the 

temporary repair condition, and the 

associated AD requirements. 

We find that some clarification is 

necessary. Condition 3 in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, 

Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, 

provides clarification with regard to the 

cracking, as follows: ’’ * * * lower spar 

cap has a crack longer than 2.0 inches 

in length or crack in the rear spar cap 

forward horizontal leg radius.’’ No 

change to this AD is necessary in this 

regard because the differences section of 

the preamble of the NPRM is not 

restated in the final rule. 

In addition, as explained previously 

we removed paragraph (i) of the NPRM 

from this final rule because Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, 

Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, now 

provides splice repair instructions. 

Therefore, it is no longer necessary to 

include an exception to this service 

bulletin. We have not changed the AD 

in this regard. 

Request To Call Out Specific Service 

Bulletin Sections 

Additionally, ATA and AAL noted 

concerns that the proposed 

requirements of the NPRM specify 

accomplishing what AAL interpreted to 

be all the requirements in the service 

information. The commenters stated 

that the proposed AD should be 

clarified and further highlighted to 

indicate that only specific sections of 

the service bulletin are required by the 

proposed AD. AAL reiterated certain 

open and close procedures and noted 

that accomplishing those procedures 

should not affect compliance with the 

proposed AD. AAL asked that we 

include the following in the AD: ‘‘Only 

the SB procedures specified by the AD 

are affected by the FAA–AD. Other 

procedures such as preparation, open/ 

close, and access procedures described 

by the SB are not affected by FAA–AD 

compliance requirements.’’ AAL also 

asked that we consider including the 

procedures that are or are not affected 

by the proposed AD in its content. 

We acknowledge the commenters’ 

concerns, but disagree with the request 

to change this AD. In Section 3.A., 

‘‘General Information,’’ paragraphs 8 

through 10 of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, 

dated January 7, 2011, additional 

procedures are defined that can be used 

for accomplishing certain actions. In 

addition, paragraph 13 of that section 

specifies, in part, that when the words 

‘‘refer to’’ are used, and the operator has 

an accepted alternative procedure, the 

accepted alternative procedure can be 

used. Therefore, we have not changed 

the AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Crack Limitations in 

Referenced Service Information 

ATA and AAL noted that the criteria 

for crack findings specified in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, 

dated May 9, 2009, do not provide clear 

guidance regarding crack limitations. 

The commenters added that the 

procedures in this service bulletin do 

not describe criteria for a crack with the 

stop-drill configuration. The 

commenters asked that the criteria for 

crack findings be further clarified. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. The measurement of the 

crack length is intended to be the total 

curvilinear crack length, which is 

consistent with standard maintenance 

practice; therefore, no additional 

measurement criteria are necessary. The 

effect of stop drills on crack length is 

not relevant because Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, 

Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, 

specifies actions based on the length of 

the unrepaired cracks, and not on 

repaired or stop-drilled cracks. We have 

not changed the AD in this regard. 

ATA and AAL also noted that the 

procedures in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated May 9, 

2009, are inconsistent regarding 

acceptable crack configurations for the 

forward horizontal leg radius for the 

lower and upper spar caps. The 

commenters stated that the procedures 

specify that a crack cannot be in the 

forward horizontal leg radius for the 

lower cap, and those procedures refer to 

Drawing J060271, Note 29. The 

commenter stated that this drawing does 

have this limitation for the lower cap as 

well as the upper cap. However, that 

service bulletin does not refer to Note 29 

for the upper cap procedures. The 

commenter requested that clarification 

of the crack criteria for doubler repairs 

on the upper spar cap be provided. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated 

January 7, 2011, clarifies the crack 

criteria for the upper cap using Drawing 

J060271, Note 29, for the crack criteria 

when determining whether doubler 

repair of the upper spar cap is allowed. 

We have included Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, 

dated January 7, 2011, as an appropriate 

source of service information for 

accomplishing the actions required by 

this AD. 

Request for Validation of the Service 

Bulletin 

ATA and AAL expressed concern that 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80– 

57A242, dated May 8, 2009, did not 

have a validation program performed to 

ensure that data, instructions, and 

processes specified in that service 

bulletin are correct, clear, appropriate, 

and understood by maintenance 

personnel performing the work. 

From this statement, we infer the 

commenters are requesting that the 

procedures specified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated 

May 8, 2009, be validated by the 

airplane manufacturer. We agree that 

certain procedures in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated 

May 8, 2009, need clarification. 

However, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated 

January 7, 2011, provides clarification 

for certain instructions provided in the 

original issue of that service bulletin so 

the procedures are clear and concise 

and to ensure they are understood by 

maintenance personnel performing the 

work. 

In addition, it should be noted that 

the inspections and repairs in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, 

Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, are 

identical to those in AD 96–23–07 R1, 

although the compliance times and 

applicability are different. (AD 96–23– 

07 R1 referred to McDonnell Douglas 

MD–80 Service Bulletin 57–184, 

Revision 1, dated December 22, 1994, as 

the appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

actions.) In light of this information, a 

formal evaluation of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242 was not 

deemed necessary. We have not 

changed the AD in this regard. 

Explanation of Changes Made to This 

AD 

We have revised this AD to identify 

the name of the manufacturer as 

published in the most recent type 

certificate data sheet for the affected 

airplane models. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We have determined that these changes 

will neither increase the economic 

burden on any operator nor increase the 

scope of the AD. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

52228 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the NPRM, we have 

increased the labor rate used in the 

Costs of Compliance from $80 per workhour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of 

Compliance information, below, reflects 

this increase in the specified labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 670 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it will take about 4 workhours per product to comply with this 

AD. The average labor rate is $85 per 

work-hour. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. 

operators to be $227,800, or $340 per 

product, per inspection cycle. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

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): 

2011–17–11 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–16775; Docket No. 

FAA–2009–1213; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–097–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD is effective September 26, 

2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to The Boeing 

Company Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9– 

82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 

(MD–87), and MD–88 airplanes, certificated 

in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, 

dated January 7, 2011. 

Subject 

(d) Joint Aircraft System Component 

(JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57: Wings. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracking of the wing rear spar lower cap at 

the outboard flap and inboard drive hinge at 

station Xrs=164.000; the cracking is due to 

material fatigue from normal flap operating 

loads. We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct fatigue cracking, which could result 

in fuel leaks, damage to the wing skin or 

other structure, and consequent reduced 

structural integrity of the wing. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Repetitive Inspections and Related 

Investigative and Corrective Actions 

(g) At the applicable times specified in 

paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated 

January 7, 2011, do the actions required by 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, except 

as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. The 

actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2) of this AD are not required for Group 

1, Configuration 1 airplanes, as identified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, 

Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011. 

(1) Do initial and repetitive eddy current 

testing high frequency (ETHF) inspections for 

cracking of the lower rear spar caps of the 

wings, and do all applicable related 

investigative and corrective actions, by doing 

all the applicable actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, 

dated January 7, 2011; or in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of 

this AD. 

(2) Do initial and repetitive ETHF 

inspections for cracking of any doubler 

repairs, and do all applicable related 

investigative and corrective actions, by doing 

all the applicable actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, 

dated January 7, 2011; except as required by 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

(h) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated May 

8, 2009, are acceptable for compliance with 

the corresponding requirements of this AD. 

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications 

(i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 

2011, specifies a compliance time after the 

date of that service bulletin, this AD requires 

compliance within the specified compliance 

time after the effective date of this AD. 

(j) If any crack is found during any 

inspection of a doubler repair, before further 

flight, repair using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (k) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(k)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52229 

Related Information 

(l) For more information about this AD, 

contact Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 

90712–4137; phone: (562) 627–5233; fax: 

(562) 627–5210; e-mail: 

roger.durbin@faa.gov. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(m) You must use Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated 

January 7, 2011; to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the service information contained in this AD 

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, Long 

Beach, California 90846–0001; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 206–766– 

5683; e-mail dse.boecom@boeing.com; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the 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. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at an NARA facility, call 202–741– 

6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

8, 2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20672 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0867; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–ASW–16] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Establishment of Area Navigation 

Route Q–37; Texas 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action establishes a high 

altitude area navigation (RNAV) route, 

designated Q–37, extending between the 

Pueblo, Colorado, VHF omnidirectional 

range/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) 

navigation aid and the Fort Stockton, 

Texas, VORTAC. The new route 

provides pilots and air traffic controllers 

with an efficient alternate route around 

potentially constrained airspace during 

convective weather events in west 

Texas. 

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October 

20, 2011. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order 7400.9 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations and 

ATC Procedures Group, Office of 

Airspace Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On Monday, October 26, 2009, the 

FAA published in the Federal Register 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) to establish area navigation 

route Q–37 (74 FR 54943). Interested 

parties were invited to participate in 

this rulemaking effort by submitting 

written comments on the proposal. No 

comments were received. 

The Rule 

This action amends Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by 

establishing high altitude area 

navigation route Q–37 between the 

Pueblo, CO, VORTAC, and the Fort 

Stockton, TX, VORTAC. The new route 

provides pilots and air traffic controllers 

with an efficient alternate route around 

potentially constrained airspace during 

convective weather events in west 

Texas. Additionally, the new route is 

being integrated into the existing severe 

weather national playbook routes to 

Houston, TX, terminal airports through 

Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control 

Center’s airspace, in lieu of the current 

process of coordinating tactical 

modifications to routings with the FAA 

Air Traffic Control Services Command 

Center. 

In the NPRM, the points CAVRN and 

IMMAS were erroneously identified as 

a ‘‘WP’’ (waypoint). These points are 

being established and charted as 

navigation fixes; therefore, an editorial 

change is being made in this rule to 

replace ‘‘WP’’ with ‘‘Fix’’ in the 

description for CAVRN and IMMAS. 

With the exception of these changes, 

this amendment is the same as that 

proposed in the NPRM. 

High altitude RNAV routes are 

published in paragraph 2006 of FAA 

Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, 

and effective September 15, 2010, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The RNAV route listed in this 

document will be published 

subsequently in the Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

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. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 

40103. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations to 

assign the use of the airspace necessary 

to ensure the safety of aircraft and the 

efficient use of airspace. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority as 

it establishes an RNAV route to enhance 

the safe and efficient flow of traffic in 

the central United States. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraphs 311a. This airspace action is 

not expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exist 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES