51450 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

10, 2015. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20585 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0772; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–090–AD; Amendment 

39–18233; AD 2015–16–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011–08– 

51 for certain The Boeing Company 

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. AD 2011–08–51 required 

repetitive inspections of the lap joint at 

certain stringers along the entire length 

from certain body stations. This new AD 

expands the inspection area, requires 

additional inspections for cracks and 

open pockets, requires corrective 

actions if necessary, and revises the 

compliance times. This AD was 

prompted by an evaluation by the 

design approval holder (DAH) that has 

determined that the lower fastener holes 

in the lower skin of the fuselage lap 

splice are subject to widespread fatigue 

damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD 

to detect and correct fatigue cracking of 

the lower fastener holes in the lower 

skin of the fuselage lap splice, which 

could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 

29, 2015. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of September 29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: 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, 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 2014– 

0772. 

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–2014– 

0772; 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 

Docket 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: 

Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, 

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; 

phone: 562–627–5264; fax: 562–627– 

5210; email: jennifer.tsakoumakis@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2011–08–51, 

Amendment 39–16701 (76 FR 28632, 

May 18, 2011). AD 2011–08–51 applied 

to certain The Boeing Company Model 

737–300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. The NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on November 17, 2014 

(79 FR 68381). The NPRM was 

prompted by an evaluation by the DAH 

that has determined that the lower 

fastener holes in the lower skin of the 

fuselage lap splice are subject to WFD. 

The NPRM proposed to continue to 

require repetitive inspections of the lap 

joint at certain stringers along the entire 

length from certain body stations. The 

NPRM also proposed to expand the 

inspection area, require additional 

inspections for cracks and open pockets, 

require corrective actions if necessary, 

and revise the compliance times. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct 

fatigue cracking of the lower fastener 

holes in the lower skin of the fuselage 

lap splice, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM (79 FR 68381, 

November 17, 2014) and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Revise Wording 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

last sentence in paragraph (k) of the 

proposed AD (79 FR 68381, November 

17, 2014) to clarify that the on-condition 

actions may be ‘‘inspection or repair’’ 

rather than ‘‘inspection and repair.’’ 

Boeing stated that condition 10 in table 

6 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 

2014, describes obtaining inspection or 

repair instructions. Boeing explained 

that, depending on the configuration 

details identified, repetitive inspections 

alone may be an appropriate action, or 

a repair may be the appropriate action. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request. Varying detail configurations 

and the total flight cycles at the time of 

the finding are used to determine if an 

inspection program is adequate to 

address the unsafe condition or if 

installation of a repair is required. We 

have revised the wording in paragraph 

(k) of this AD to require inspection or 

repair. 

Request To Clarify Paragraph Heading 

Southwest Airlines (SWA) stated that 

the heading ‘‘Repetitive Inspections for 

Crack Indications at Stringers S–4R and 

S–4L, Body Station (BS) 360 to BS 908,’’ 

of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 

FR 68381, November 17, 2014) is 

misleading. SWA explained that the 

heading is confusing since the 

paragraph contains both an initial 

inspection and repetitive inspections. 

We agree to clarify the terminology 

used in the heading. When the term 

‘‘repetitive’’ is used, it does not 

necessarily exclude the initial action. 

Many existing ADs use the term 

‘‘repetitive’’ in the headers for 

paragraphs that contain both the initial 

action and repetitive actions. We find 

that no change to this AD is necessary 

regarding this issue. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 51451 

Request To Add Clarifying Note 

SWA requested that we add a note in 

paragraph (g) and paragraph (h) of the 

proposed AD (79 FR 68381, November 

17, 2014) specifying that Group 3 

airplanes do not require inspection 

between BS 540 and BS 727E. SWA 

stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 

2014, specifies no inspections to be 

accomplished from BS 540 to BS 727E 

on Group 3 airplanes. SWA stated that, 

since paragraphs (g) and (h) of the 

proposed AD and tables 1, 2, and 3 of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 

2014, define the inspection area as 

stringers 4L and 4R from BS 360 to BS 

908 for all airplanes, it could be 

interpreted that the proposed AD would 

require an increased inspection area for 

Group 3 airplanes. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter’s request. We disagree to 

add a note in paragraph (g) and 

paragraph (h) of this AD. The 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, are 

clear regarding which areas must be 

inspected. The SUMMARY section of this 

final rule does specify that the 

inspection area is increased. However, 

we have added ‘‘as applicable’’ to 

paragraphs (g) and paragraph (h) of this 

AD to provide clarification regarding the 

inspection area. 

Request To Clarify Compliance Times 

SWA requested that we revise 

paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 

68381, November 17, 2014) to clarify the 

compliance times. SWA recommended 

splitting the paragraph requirements 

into three separate paragraphs to 

address three different airplane groups. 

SWA stated that table 1 of paragraph 

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

Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 

2, dated April 4, 2014, does not account 

for airplanes that were inspected 

previously using either Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, dated 

April 4, 2011, or Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 1, 

dated April 8, 2011. SWA stated that it 

is unclear how to apply the compliance 

times in table 1 for these airplanes, and 

as a result, airplanes with more than 

30,000 total flight cycles that were not 

inspected previously using Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 

2, dated April 4, 2014, will have 

exceeded the compliance times in table 

1 upon the effective date of the AD. 

SWA stated that since paragraph (n) 

of the proposed AD (79 FR 68381, 

November 17, 2014) provides credit for 

actions required by paragraph (g) of the 

proposed AD that were performed prior 

to the effective date of the AD using 

either Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1319, dated April 4, 2011, or 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 1, dated April 8, 

2011, SWA assumes that the intent of 

paragraph (g) of the proposed AD is for 

the operator to accomplish the first 

inspection in accordance with Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, within 

500 cycles from the last inspection 

accomplished previously in accordance 

with either the Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin, dated April 4, 2011, or 

Revision 1, dated April 8, 2011. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request to revise paragraph (g) of this 

AD. However, we do agree to clarify the 

compliance times. For airplanes that 

were inspected previously using either 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, dated April 4, 2011, or Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 1, dated April 8, 2011, the next 

inspection must be done within 500 

cycles from the last inspection 

accomplished previously in accordance 

with either the Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin, dated April 4, 2011, or 

Revision 1, dated April 8, 2011, except 

as provided by table 2 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 2, 

dated April 4, 2014. Table 2 of 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, 

provides optional inspections that may 

be used after inspections in table 1 of 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, have 

been accomplished. 

For airplanes that were not inspected 

previously using either Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, dated 

April 4, 2011, or Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 1, 

dated April 8, 2011, the initial 

inspection must be done within the 

applicable compliance times specified 

in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 2, 

dated April 4, 2014. We have not 

changed this AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Inspection 

Requirements 

SWA requested that we provide 

clarification regarding the applicability 

of table 2 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 2, 

dated April 4, 2014, for accomplishing 

the repetitive inspections required by 

paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 

68381, November 17, 2014). SWA stated 

that the inspection intervals defined in 

table 2 are dependent on the total flight 

cycles of airplanes that meet condition 

1 (no crack found), and that operators of 

airplanes that meet condition 2 (any 

crack found) should contact Boeing for 

repair instructions prior to further flight. 

SWA stated that the alternative 

repetitive inspection intervals apply 

only to aircraft that meet condition 1 

each time the aircraft is inspected. SWA 

explained that it is unclear whether or 

not the operator is able to continue 

utilizing the table 2 inspection intervals 

if condition 2 is found during any 

repetitive inspection on an airplane, or 

if the operator must revert back to the 

table 1 repetitive inspection interval 

from that point forward for that 

airplane. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. Paragraph (l) of this AD 

requires a repair if any crack is found. 

Accomplishment of the repair 

terminates the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraphs (g) and (j) of this 

AD in the repaired area only. Repetitive 

inspections must be done on all 

unrepaired areas at the times specified 

in table 1 or table 2, as applicable. We 

find that no change to this AD is 

necessary regarding this issue. 

Requests for Credit and Exception to 

Inspection Requirements 

SWA requested that we include a 

provision in paragraph (n) of the 

proposed AD (79 FR 68381, November 

17, 2014) to provide credit for the 

general visual inspection required by 

paragraph (k) of the proposed AD for 

skin panels that were replaced using the 

procedures specified in Figure 35 of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1306, 

provided that the corrective action for 

Condition 9 is followed. 

SWA also requested that we add an 

exception in paragraph (m) of the 

proposed AD (79 FR 68381, November 

17, 2014) that allows the operator to 

omit the inspection required by 

paragraph (k) of the proposed AD if the 

corrective action for Condition 9 is 

followed and the operator’s records 

show the part number of the skin 

assembly installed on the airplane. 

To justify its requests, SWA stated 

that its airplanes, defined as Group 1 in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 

2014, on which the crown skin panel 

replacement was accomplished as 

described previously in Figure 35 of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1306, 

were inspected previously to determine 

if the existing skin assembly was an 

‘‘MPN 65C35798–1 (open pockets 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
51452 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

adjacent to the STR 4R lap joint)’’ or an 

‘‘MPN 65C35798–8 (closed pockets 

adjacent to the STR 4R lap joint).’’ SWA 

stated that the existing skin panel was 

then replaced with a new skin panel of 

the same configuration as the removed 

production panel. SWA explained that 

if an operator’s records show the part 

number of the skin panel assembly 

installed, the operator will be able to 

determine if the panel is configured 

with Condition 9 or Condition 10 and, 

therefore, SWA does not need to do the 

inspection required by paragraph (k) of 

the proposed AD. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

requests. The fuselage crown skin 

replacements described in Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–53–1306 are a part 

of a SWA-specific modification 

program. We do not consider it 

appropriate to include various 

provisions in an AD that are applicable 

only to a single operator’s unique use of 

an affected airplane. However, an 

operator may request approval of an 

alternative method of compliance under 

the provisions of paragraph (o) of this 

AD if sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that the fuselage crown skin 

replacements would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We have not 

changed this AD in this regard. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

with the changes described previously 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 

68381, November 17, 2014) for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 68381, 

November 17, 2014). 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of this AD. 

Interim Action 

We consider this AD interim action. 

An investigation is ongoing, and no 

terminating action has been developed. 

Once terminating action is developed, 

approved, and available, we might 

consider additional rulemaking. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 2, 

dated April 4, 2014. The service 

information describes procedures for 

inspections for crack indications at 

certain stringers, an inspection for open 

pockets of the lower skin panel at 

stringer S–4R, and repairs. This service 

information is reasonably available 

because the interested parties have 

access to it through their normal course 

of business or by the means identified 

in the ADDRESSES section of this AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 130 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

operators 

Repetitive inspections [actions retained 

from AD 2011–08–51, Amendment 

39–16701 (76 FR 28632, May 18, 

2011)].

6 or 4,270 work-hours (depending on inspection method) × $85 per work-hour 

= $510 or $362,950 per inspection 

cycle.

None ........... $510 or $362,950 

per inspection 

cycle.

$66,300 or 

$47,183,500 per 

inspection cycle. 

Repetitive inspections [new action] ........ 4 or 550 work-hours (depending on inspection method) × $85 per hour = 

$340 or $46,750 per inspection cycle.

None ........... $340 or $46,750 per 

inspection cycle.

$44,200 or 

$6,077,500 per 

inspection cycle. 

One-time inspections [new action] .......... 5,370 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$456,450.

None ........... $456,450 ................ $59,338,500. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the on-condition actions 

specified in this 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 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: 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 51453 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2011–08–51, Amendment 39–16701 (76 

FR 28632, May 18, 2011), and adding 

the following new AD: 

2015–16–08 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–18233; Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0772; Directorate Identifier 

2014–NM–090–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective September 29, 2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 2011–08–51, 

Amendment 39–16701 (76 FR 28632, May 18, 

2011). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes, certificated in any category, as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 

2014. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53: Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder (DAH) that has 

determined that the lower fastener holes in 

the lower skin of the fuselage lap splice are 

subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

fatigue cracking of the lower fastener holes in 

the lower skin of the fuselage lap splice, 

which could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Inspections for Crack 

Indications at Stringers S–4R and S–4L, 

Body Station (BS) 360 to BS 908 

At the applicable time specified in table 1 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014: Do an 

external eddy current inspection, or internal 

eddy current and detailed inspections, for 

crack indications at stringers S–4R and S–4L, 

from BS 360 to BS 908, as applicable, except 

as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, in 

accordance with Part 1 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 2, 

dated April 4, 2014. Repeat the inspection(s) 

thereafter at the applicable intervals specified 

in table 1 or table 2, as applicable, of 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014. Either 

inspection option may be used at any 

repetitive inspection cycle. 

(h) One-Time Inspections for Cracks at 

Stringers S–4L and S–4R, BS 360 to BS 908 

At the applicable time specified in table 3 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, except as 

required by paragraph (m) of this AD: Do 

one-time internal detailed and eddy current 

inspections for cracks at stringers S–4R and 

S–4L, from BS 360 to BS 908, as applicable, 

in accordance with Part 2 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 2, 

dated April 4, 2014. Accomplishment of the 

inspections required by this paragraph does 

not terminate the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(i) One-Time Inspections for Cracks at 

Stringer S–4R, BS 908 to BS 1016 

For airplanes identified as Group 2, 3, 5, 

and 7 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014: At 

the applicable time specified in table 4 of 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, except as 

required by paragraph (m) of this AD, do onetime internal detailed and eddy current 

inspections for cracks at stringer S–4R, from 

BS 908 to BS 1016, in accordance with Part 

3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014. 

(j) Repetitive Inspections for Cracks at 

Stringer S–4R, BS 908 to BS 1016 

For airplanes identified as Group 2, 3, 5, 

and 7 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014: At 

the applicable time specified in table 5 of 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, except as 

required by paragraph (m) of this AD, do 

external eddy current inspections, or internal 

eddy current and detailed inspections, for 

cracks at stringer S–4R, from BS 908 to BS 

1016, in accordance with Part 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, Revision 2, 

dated April 4, 2014. Repeat the inspection(s) 

thereafter at the applicable intervals specified 

in table 5 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ 

of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014. 

Either inspection option may be used at any 

repetitive inspection cycle. 

(k) General Visual Inspection for Open 

Pockets at Stringer S–4R, BS 908 to BS 1016 

For airplanes identified as Group 1, 4, and 

6 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014: At 

the applicable time specified in table 6 of 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, except as 

required by paragraph (m) of this AD, do a 

general visual inspection for open pockets of 

the lower skin panel at stringer S–4R, from 

BS 908 to BS 1016, in accordance with Part 

5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014. If any open 

pocket is found, before further flight, inspect 

or repair using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (o) of this AD. 

(l) Corrective Action 

If any crack is found during any inspection 

required by this AD: Before further flight, 

repair using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (o) of this AD. Accomplishment of 

repairs approved in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this 

AD terminates the repetitive inspections 

specified in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD 

in the repaired areas only. 

(m) Service Information Exception 

Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, 

specifies a compliance time ‘‘after the 

Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,’’ this 

AD requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(n) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for actions 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those 

actions were performed before the effective 

date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1319, dated April 4, 2011; 

or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 1, dated April 8, 2011. 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

dated April 4, 2011, was incorporated by 

reference in AD 2011–08–51, Amendment 

39–16701 (76 FR 28632, May 18, 2011). 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1319, 

Revision 1, dated April 8, is not incorporated 

by reference in this AD. 

(o) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(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 

paragraph (p)(1) 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, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2011–08–51, 

Amendment 39–16701 (76 FR 28632, May 18, 

2011), are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) 

and (l) of this AD. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
51454 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(p) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, 

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627– 

5264; fax: 562–627–5210; email: 

jennifer.tsakoumakis@faa.gov. 

(2) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference is 

available at the addresses specified in 

paragraphs (q)(4) and (q)(5) of this AD. 

(q) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

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

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(3) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on September 29, 2015. 

(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(4) For Boeing 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. 

(5) 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. 

(6) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

7, 2015. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20372 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–0673; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–SW–034–AD; Amendment 

39–18244; AD 2015–17–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus 

Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, 

AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, 

AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, 

AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, 

EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters. 

This AD requires inspecting the 

swashplate assembly rotating star to 

determine whether a ferrule was 

installed. If a ferrule exists, this AD 

requires inspecting the rotating star for 

a crack and removing any cracked 

rotating star. This AD was prompted by 

a report that reconditioning the rotating 

swashplate per a certain repair 

procedure could result in the rotating 

star cracking. The actions of this AD are 

intended to detect a crack in the rotating 

star and prevent failure of the rotating 

star and subsequent loss of control of 

the helicopter. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 

29, 2015. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain documents listed in this AD 

as of September 29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Airbus 

Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, 

Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 

(972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax 

(972) 641–3775; or at http://

www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. 

You may review the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N–321, 

Fort Worth, Texas 76177. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

Docket Operations Office between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any 

incorporated-by-reference service 

information, the economic evaluation, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations Office (phone: 800– 

647–5527) is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations 

Office, M–30, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, Texas 

76177; telephone (817) 222–5110; email: 

robert.grant@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

On March 27, 2015, at 80 FR 16325, 

the Federal Register published our 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 by adding an AD that would apply 

to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, 

AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, 

AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, 

AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, 

AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and 

EC130T2 helicopters with a swashplate 

assembly with rotating star, part number 

(P/N) 350A371003–04, 350A371003–05, 

350A371003–06, 350A371003–07, or 

350A371003–08. The NPRM proposed 

to require inspecting the swashplate 

assembly rotating star to determine 

whether a ferrule was installed. If a 

ferrule exists, this proposed AD would 

require inspecting the rotating star for a 

crack and removing any cracked rotating 

star. The proposed requirements were 

intended to detect a crack in the rotating 

star and prevent failure of the rotating 

star and subsequent loss of control of 

the helicopter. 

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 

2014–0132R1, dated June 2, 2014, 

issued by EASA, which is the Technical 

Agent for the Member States of the 

European Union. EASA AD No. 2014– 

0132R1 corrects an unsafe condition for 

Airbus Helicopters (previously 

Eurocopter France) Model AS 350 B, 

BA, BB, B1, B2, B3, D, AS 355 E, F, F1, 

F2, N, NP, EC 130 B4, and T2 

helicopters if equipped with a 

swashplate assembly with a rotating 

star, P/N 350A371003–04, P/N 

350A371003–05, P/N 350A371003–06, 

P/N 350A371003–07, or P/N 

350A371003–08. EASA advises that 

during a repair of a helicopter, it was 

discovered that rotating swashplates 

reconditioned in accordance with a 

certain repair procedure could 

experience a high stress level. This 

condition, if not corrected, could affect 

the service life of the part. To address 

this unsafe condition, EASA AD No. 

2014–0132R1 requires repetitive 

inspections and replacement of the 

rotating star. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD, but 

we received no comments on the NPRM 

(80 FR 16325, March 27, 2015). 

FAA’s Determination 

These helicopters have been approved 

by the aviation authority of France and 

are approved for operation in the United 

States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with France, EASA, its 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES