Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 16211 

Parts Installation 

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

person may install, on any airplane, an aft 

attach fitting assembly of the spoiler link 

having part number AMI3954558–1 or 

AMI3954558–501, and having a lot number 

identified in the ‘‘Lot Number’’ column of the 

table in Section 1.A.1. of Aerotech 

Manufacturing Service Bulletin DC9–27–01- 

AMI5139, Revision ‘‘A,’’ dated June 19, 2003. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

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

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

the appropriate principal inspector in the 

FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding 

District Office. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(j) You must use Aerotech Manufacturing 

Service Bulletin DC9–27–01–AMI5139, 

Revision ‘‘A,’’ dated June 19, 2003; to 

perform the actions that are required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The 

Director of the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of this document 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. Contact Aerotech Engineering, Inc., 

19655 Descartes, Foothill Ranch, California 

92610; for a copy of this service information. 

You may review copies at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

room PL–401, Nassif Building, Washington, 

DC; on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at the 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 March 

17, 2006. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–3064 Filed 3–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20918; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–269–AD; Amendment 

39–14539; AD 2006–07–12] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, 

–400, and –500 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Boeing Model 737–100, –200, –200C, 

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

This AD requires a one-time inspection 

for scribe lines and cracks in the 

fuselage skin at certain lap joints, butt 

joints, external repair doublers, and 

other areas; and related investigative/ 

corrective actions if necessary. This AD 

results from reports of fuselage skin 

cracks adjacent to the skin lap joints on 

airplanes that had scribe lines. Scribe 

line damage can also occur at many 

other locations, including butt joints, 

external doublers, door scuff plates, the 

wing-to-body fairing, and areas of the 

fuselage where decals have been applied 

or removed. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent rapid decompression of the 

airplane due to fatigue cracks resulting 

from scribe lines on pressurized 

fuselage structure. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 

5, 2006. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of May 5, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Nassif Building, room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, PO Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207, for service 

information identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue 

Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 917–6438; 

fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the airworthiness 

directive (AD) docket on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility office 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The Docket Management Facility office 

(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building at 

the street address stated in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to all Boeing Model 737–100, 

–200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 

series airplanes. That NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 29, 2005 (70 FR 22272). That 

NPRM proposed to require a one-time 

inspection for scribe lines and cracks in 

the fuselage skin at certain lap joints, 

butt joints, external repair doublers, and 

other areas; and related investigative/ 

corrective actions if necessary. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Support for Proposed AD 

One commenter (AWAS Aviation 

Services) agrees that fatigue cracks on 

the fuselage should be addressed in a 

suitable time period. The commenter 

considers the proposed compliance time 

acceptable. 

Request To Consider Similar 

Rulemaking for Other Airplanes 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) believes that the 

proposed AD will address scribe-type 

damage on the affected airplanes in a 

timely manner. However, the NTSB is 

concerned that this type of damage is 

not limited to those airplanes, but could 

be present on virtually every 

pressurized airplane currently in 

service. The NTSB urges the FAA to 

examine similar rulemaking for other 

makes and models of pressurized 

airplanes. 

We acknowledge the NTSB’s 

concerns. This is a long-term durability 

issue that is not limited to any 

particular aircraft model. The effect on 

each aircraft model will vary with each 

model’s design characteristics and the 

conditions to which they may be 

operated. In support of this, we have 

been in contact with other governing 

regulatory agencies and other 

manufacturers, and we may consider 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
16212 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

further rulemaking applicable to other 

airplanes as a result of these efforts. 

Request To Allow SRM for Repairs 

For repairing ‘‘typical’’ scribed areas, 

this proposed AD would require 

operators to contact the FAA for 

approval of repairs. One commenter 

(USAir) asserts that the Boeing 737 

Structural Repair Manual (SRM) 

provides several repair schemes for 

localized damage at typical scribed 

areas, and that omitting the SRM as a 

repair option could result in many 

requests for alternative methods of 

compliance (AMOCs). Another 

commenter (Japan Transocean Air) 

requests approval of the SRM for 

instructions for permanent rework of 

tactile marks, if the SRM revises the 

allowable damage limits for fuselage 

skin. 

We disagree with the requests. Merely 

repairing the detected scribe lines may 

be inadequate to address the identified 

unsafe condition. Scribe damage has 

been found to exceed well beyond the 

region where it was originally 

discovered by visual inspection. Current 

SRM repairs may not be adequate 

because of the nature of damage caused 

by scribes. Scribe damage is 

widespread, frequently concealed by the 

upper skin of a lap splice, and thus 

difficult or impossible to detect. At this 

time, the SRM repairs for the scribed 

areas do not address the widespread 

nature of this type of damage and the 

follow-up inspections that may be 

required and therefore cannot be used. 

We are currently working with Boeing 

to develop repair schemes that may 

address this issue. These efforts may 

result in additional FAA methods of 

compliance that provide clarification 

and relief in future but are not available 

at this time. We have not changed the 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Allow Other Service 

Information for Repairs 

One commenter (USAir) suggests that 

incorporation of Boeing Service Bulletin 

737–53A1177, 737–53–1168, or 737–53–

1187, which would remove scribe lines 

from the entire skin panel, would 

terminate the repetitive inspections of 

the area. Further, since these service 

bulletins are FAA approved and 

available, the commenter requests that 

we revise the proposed AD to require 

operators to repair all discrepancies 

found during the scribe line inspections 

in accordance with an approved FAA 

method; or, alternatively, in accordance 

with Service Bulletin 737–53A1177, 

737–53–1168, or 737–53–1187, which 

would terminate the repetitive 

inspections of the repaired areas. 

We partially agree with the requests. 

Service Bulletins 737–53A1177, 737–

53–1168, and 737–53–1187, which were 

developed to address a specific unsafe 

condition, involve a significant level of 

complexity. The actions specified in the 

service bulletins might be adequate to 

terminate the repetitive inspections in 

certain areas; we may consider a 

fleetwide AMOC presented by the 

manufacturer as acceptable for 

terminating action. In the meantime, we 

may approve individual operator 

requests for alternative repair methods 

under the provisions of paragraph (p) in 

this final rule, if the requests include 

data that prove that the alternative 

method would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. 

Request To Revise Cost Estimates 

Several commenters (USAir, Alaska 

Airlines, America West, and KLM) 

allege that the figures provided in the 

Costs of Compliance section of the 

proposed AD do not accurately reflect 

the actual cost to the airline industry. 

The commenters assert that most 

airplanes will need the exterior paint 

stripped, and the surface prepared for 

inspection and repainted. These 

additional actions will add considerable 

downtime to the inspection required by 

this proposed AD. One commenter 

suggests that either the Limited Return 

to Service (LRTS) should be made less 

complex or the work hours necessary for 

planning and engineering should be 

considered in the cost estimates. The 

commenters add that the cost estimates 

do not include the cost to repeat the 

inspection or do any repairs if scribe 

lines are found, which would result in 

additional downtime for the airplanes 

and a substantial impact on operations. 

Therefore, the commenters request that 

we revise the Costs of Compliance 

section to reflect the whole effect of the 

proposed AD on operators. 

We acknowledge the commenters’

concerns and recognize the additional 

preparatory work that could be involved 

on some airplanes, but disagree with the 

requests. While the LRTS is indeed 

complex, it is not required. This option 

was intended to provide operators 

flexibility in deciding the best 

compliance method for their fleet. 

Moreover, the cost information included 

in an AD describes only the direct costs 

of the specific actions required by the 

AD. Based on the best data available, the 

manufacturer provided the number of 

work hours necessary to do the required 

actions. We recognize that, in doing the 

actions required by the AD, operators 

may incur incidental costs in addition 

to the direct costs. The cost analysis in 

AD rulemaking actions, however, 

typically does not include incidental 

costs such as the time for planning or 

handling other administrative actions, 

or gaining access and closing up. These 

costs are almost impossible to calculate. 

Also, the economic analysis of an AD 

does not consider the costs of 

conditional actions, such as repairing a 

crack detected during a required 

inspection. Such conditional repairs or 

follow-on actions would be required—

regardless of AD direction—to correct 

an unsafe condition identified in an 

airplane and to ensure that the airplane 

is operated in an airworthy condition, as 

required by the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. 

Request To Refine Definition of ‘‘Scribe 

Line’’

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

53A1262, dated December 9, 2004 (cited 

as the appropriate source of service 

information for the actions of the 

proposed AD), describes a scribe line as 

damage up to 0.006 inch deep. Two 

commenters (AWAS and Japan 

Transocean Air) assert that the use of 

this definition has led to many findings 

of damage that had no appreciable 

depth and therefore contributed to no 

appreciable decrease in fatigue life, yet 

resources were expended to repair or 

repetitively inspect this damage to 

accomplish the actions specified in this 

service bulletin. Including a minimum 

depth would eliminate many of these 

positive findings and allow better use of 

Boeing and FAA engineering resources 

and decrease operators’ costs. Therefore, 

the commenters request that a ‘‘typical 

scribe’’ be further defined by including 

a minimum measurement limit. 

We acknowledge and share these 

commenters’ concerns, but cannot 

include the definitive criteria that these 

commenters desire in this final rule 

because of the complicated nature of the 

definition of scribe lines. We do agree 

that a better definition may enhance the 

inspection process. To this end, we are 

working with Boeing to develop and 

present the criteria in a usable format. 

These efforts may result in additional 

FAA methods of compliance that 

provide clarification and relief in the 

future but are not available at this time. 

We have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Delay AD Pending Issuance 

of Repair Service Bulletin 

The proposed AD does not provide for 

repairs for scribe marks that are outside 

the limits of Alert Service Bulletin 737–

53A1262. One commenter (Alaska 

Airlines) notes that Boeing is in the 

process of developing a new service 

bulletin that will address many 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 16213 

conditions that might be found during 

the inspection. Therefore, the 

commenter requests that we delay 

issuing the final rule until repair 

procedures are published in a new 

service bulletin that addresses scribe 

lines outside the limits addressed in 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262. 

The commenter recommends that the 

final rule refer to this new, as yet 

unpublished service bulletin as well as 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262 for 

repair procedures. 

We disagree with the request. Boeing 

has not yet developed a repair service 

bulletin. To address the unsafe 

condition in a timely manner, we must 

proceed with inspection of the fleet for 

this safety-related damage. When a 

repair service bulletin becomes 

available we anticipate it will be 

approved through the AMOC process. 

We have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise Inspection 

Requirements for Certain Locations 

One operator (Alaska Airlines) 

requests that we revise the proposed AD 

to exempt the inspection of the area 

around the wing-to-body fairing if the 

sealant has been removed in accordance 

with the procedures in Appendix A of 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262. 

The commenter provides no further 

explanation or technical justification for 

the request. 

We disagree with the request. The 

wing-to-body fairings are removed more 

often than the airplane is stripped and 

repainted and are therefore subject to 

many more scribe opportunities. The 

sealant removal procedures documented 

in Appendix A were not available before 

the service bulletin was issued; the 

subject area therefore will probably have 

scribe lines. Considering the age of the 

fleet and the frequency of fairing 

removal for standard maintenance, this 

exemption would not apply. We have 

not changed the final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Request To Clarify Figure References 

One commenter (Alaska Airlines) 

notes an error in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1262. The figure cited in Part 8, 

step 3, should be Figure 39, not Figure 

38. The figure cited in Part 9, step 3 

[sic], should be Figure 38, not Figure 39. 

We acknowledge these errors in the 

service bulletin; however, the error in 

Part 9 is in step 4. In this final rule, we 

have clarified this requirement in new 

paragraph (j) and renumbered 

subsequent paragraphs accordingly. 

Request To Clarify Certain Compliance 

Times 

One commenter (United Airlines) 

identifies conflicting compliance times 

in Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262 

for the Figure 44 inspections as part of 

the LRTS plan. The commenter observes 

that Part 12, item 10.a.(4), recommends 

doing the Figure 44 inspections between 

40,000 and 45,000 flight cycles; 

however, for airplanes with 40,000 

flight cycles, Figure 40 specifies doing 

a nondestructive test (NDT) inspection 

before further flight. The commenter 

requests that we clarify these 

compliance thresholds. 

The compliance times do not conflict 

with each other but merely refer to 

different stages of the overall program. 

Figure 40 is part of the Special Lap Joint 

inspections, which are required before 

certain airplane-level scribe inspections; 

these inspections take place for highercycle unmodified airplanes and allow 

service to extend into the approved 

4,500-flight-cycle grace period (as stated 

in Figure 1 of the service bulletin). The 

inspections specified in Part 12 of the 

service bulletin occur after an airplanelevel inspection has identified scribe 

damage. The inspection program in Part 

12 allows continued operation with 

ongoing inspections. Figure 44 

identifies additional lap joint 

inspections affiliated with this program. 

We have not changed the AD regarding 

this issue. 

Request To Revise Inspection 

Requirements for Decals 

The proposed AD would require 

inspection of areas where any decal, 

regardless of size, has been removed. 

One commenter (United Airlines) 

requests that we address decals the 

same way we address external repair 

doublers for scribe inspections, i.e., that 

we require inspections only for decal 

edges with a dimension of 18 inches or 

longer. The commenter considers that 

decal damage would be equivalent to a 

damaged external doubler of the same 

size. 

We disagree with the request. 

Although the damage from decals may 

be equivalent, unlike major repairs, 

decals are easily removable without 

leaving any indication of their size or 

location. Additionally, operators may 

not have detailed records regarding 

decal application and removal so the 

extent of possible damage would not be 

known. However, according to the 

provisions of paragraph (p) of the final 

rule, we may approve requests for relief 

from certain associated requirements, if 

the operator’s records can conclusively 

determine the decal dimensions and if 

supporting data are provided that would 

ensure an acceptable level of safety. We 

have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Requests To Remove Certain Inspection 

Requirements Under Certain 

Conditions 

The proposed AD would require 

inspection of the area under the dorsal 

fin fairing. One commenter (United 

Airlines) requests that this area be 

treated the same as the wing-to-body 

fairing; i.e., if the area under the dorsal 

fin fairing has never been stripped or 

repainted since delivery, then the scribe 

inspection should not be required in 

that area. 

We agree. The area under the dorsal 

fin fairing is similar to the area under 

the wing-to-body fairing. We have 

added new paragraph (k) in this final 

rule to remove the requirement to 

inspect that area, under the conditions 

specified by the commenter. We have 

reidentified subsequent paragraphs 

accordingly. 

The proposed AD specifies that no 

inspections would be required where an 

existing repair covers a potential scribe 

line, provided the repair spans a 

minimum of three rows of fasteners 

beyond each side of the potential scribe 

line location. One commenter (United 

Airlines) requests that this provision be 

revised to allow for a ten-inch extension 

of the repair beyond the scribe damage, 

instead of a three-row overlap. The 

commenter contends that some existing 

FAA-approved repairs do not meet the 

three-row criteria. The commenter refers 

to section 53–00–01, Figure 217, of the 

Boeing 737 SRM. The commenter states 

that the proposed AD criteria would add 

a burden by requiring operators to 

remove and replace existing FAAapproved repairs. 

We disagree with the request to 

change the inspection requirements for 

those conditions. Repairs that span less 

than three rows above and below 

potential scribed areas will not provide 

an adequate alternative load path for a 

lap joint with a scribe. For repairs of 

locations that do not meet the three-row 

criteria, this AD requires operators to 

contact the FAA for options to removing 

the repair (i.e., through inspections), for 

which operators may request AMOCs in 

accordance with paragraph (p) of this 

AD. 

Request To Clarify Provisions for 

Continued Operation with Scribe Lines 

One commenter (America West) 

requests that we revise the proposed AD 

to clarify that Part 14 of the service 

bulletin, while not mandatory, is an 

FAA-approved method for continued 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
16214 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

operation if scribe lines are found before 

the compliance times. 

We agree. We have explained this 

provision in paragraph (g) in this final 

rule. 

Request To Extend Certain Compliance 

Times 

One commenter, an operator (Delta 

Air Lines), reports that a number of its 

airplanes have been inspected using 

procedures developed before Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262 was 

issued. The operator plans to request 

AMOC approval for these procedures. 

The commenter raises several questions 

regarding compliance times for 

submitting AMOCs and reports (of 

cracks) for these airplanes, and requests 

that we revise the proposed AD to 

require a report within 30 days after the 

AMOC is approved for those airplanes. 

We disagree. Individual operator 

deviations to the required inspection 

and reporting procedures may be 

handled as AMOCs, which operators 

may request in accordance with 

paragraph (p) of this AD. We have not 

changed the final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Request To Clarify Service Bulletin 

Instructions 

Boeing requests that we revise the 

proposed AD to address some 

inadvertent omissions in Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262. 

1. Figure 37 is intended to identify 

‘‘Restricted Zones’’ at door cutouts as 

both the affected structure and Zone 1B. 

However, Figure 37 does not identify 

Zone 1B. This information is necessary 

compliance information for Figure 1, 

‘‘Compliance Threshold Calculation for 

Zone 1.’’

2. Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, contain 

two errors for Areas B, C, and E. Where 

the service bulletin refers only to ‘‘areas 

where the cutout modification shown in 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1177 was 

accomplished,’’ this text should be 

followed by ‘‘or Zone 1B.’’ And the 

phrase ‘‘[i]n areas where the cutout 

modification shown in Service Bulletin 

737–53A1177 was not accomplished’’

should be preceded by ‘‘For Zone 1A.’’

The commenter states that a 4,500- 

flight-cycle grace period is incorporated 

into the threshold calculation for 

locations without potential multisite 

damage (MSD), and a 1,200-cycle grace 

period is incorporated into the 

threshold calculations for locations with 

potential MSD. Not subject to MSD, 

Zone 1B locations are subject to the 

4,500 cycles grace period only. 

We agree with the requested changes. 

We have clarified these omissions in 

new paragraphs (l), (m), and (n) in this 

final rule. These additional paragraphs 

do not require additional work by any 

operator; therefore, we do not need to 

revise the proposed AD to reopen the 

period for public comment on this issue. 

Request To Emphasize Importance of 

Crack Reports 

Boeing requests that we revise the 

proposed AD to describe the fleet 

experience of numerous ‘‘false positive’’

indications, i.e., discrepancies that were 

initially identified as cracks but were 

upon further analysis determined not to 

be cracks. Boeing also requests that we 

recommend that operators submit 

cracked parts to Boeing for analysis. In 

support of these requests, Boeing asserts 

that further analysis of crack findings 

could change the compliance 

specifications in Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1262. Correctly identifying 

cracks is imperative to reflect actual 

fleet findings in any future changes to 

the service bulletin. One operator 

provided Boeing with nine cut-out 

samples, which contained positive crack 

indications based on ultrasonic 

nondestructive inspections. However, 

metallurgical analysis revealed no 

cracks. Boeing emphasizes that potential 

future changes to the compliance 

requirements of the service bulletin 

should be based on confirmed crack 

findings—not positive crack indications, 

which may be false positive findings. 

We acknowledge Boeing’s concerns. 

But we disagree with the request to 

require operators to submit cracked 

parts to Boeing. Although operators may 

benefit from coordinated efforts to 

minimize the number of false positive 

results, requiring operators to send 

cracked parts to Boeing will add to the 

costs associated with this AD without 

further enhancing safety. We have not 

changed the final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Request To Extend Compliance Time 

for Reporting 

If the inspection reveals any cracks, 

the proposed AD would require 

operators to submit a report within 30 

days after the inspection. Two operators 

(Southwest Airlines and America West) 

speculate that most airplanes will be 

inspected at a heavy check maintenance 

facility, and that obtaining the 

information for the report could take 

longer than 30 days. The commenters 

request that we revise the proposed AD 

to require reports within 30 days after 

the airplane is returned to service, 

rather than 30 days after the inspection. 

In light of the issue described above, 

we do not find it appropriate to change 

this compliance time. The purpose of 

the report is to gather timely 

information on crack findings. Heavy 

checks can take a long time, and 

delaying the report until the end of the 

heavy check could defeat the purpose of 

the report. Further, this AD requires a 

report only when cracks are found, so a 

report will likely not be necessary for all 

airplanes. 

Requests To More Accurately Describe 

Corrective Actions 

As written, paragraph (h) of the 

proposed AD would require operators to 

repair scribe lines and cracks. Two 

commenters note that appropriate 

corrective actions for scribe lines may 

also include further inspections. Boeing 

requests that we distinguish the 

corrective actions in paragraph (h) to 

identify both inspections and repairs, as 

applicable. Another commenter (Delta 

Air Lines) requests that we replace 

‘‘repair’’ with ‘‘inspection/repair’’ in 

paragraph (k)(2) of the proposed AD. 

We partially agree that clarification 

may be necessary. We have revised 

paragraph (h) accordingly in this final 

rule. But we cannot revise paragraph 

(p)(3) (paragraph (k)(2) in the proposed 

AD) because Boeing authorized 

representatives for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation 

Option Authorization Organization are 

not delegated to approve changes to 

inspection programs. 

Request To Allow Previous FAAApproved Repairs 

One commenter (Alaska Airlines) 

requests that we revise the proposed AD 

to address scribed areas repaired before 

the effective date of the AD in 

accordance with a method approved by 

the FAA. The commenter states that the 

proposed AD would not allow 

previously approved repairs for scribe 

lines as AMOCs. 

We agree. New paragraph (p)(4) in 

this AD provides AMOC credit for 

repairs approved by the Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO) or a Boeing 

Company designated engineering 

representative or authorized 

representative, via FAA Form 8110–3 or 

8100–9 issued before the effective date 

of this AD, provided the repair plan 

specifically addressed scribe line 

damage as stated in the title of the form. 

Request To Clarify Requirements for 

Demonstrating Compliance 

One commenter (KLM) notes that the 

initial inspection thresholds and the 

LRTS inspection intervals are based on 

the first scribing opportunity, which the 

commenter contends is basically the 

first repainting. The commenter adds 

that maintenance records may show the 

dates an airplane has been repainted, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 16215 

but not the order of the repainting (first 

repainting, second, etc.). The 

commenter surmises that, if the date of 

the first repainting cannot be 

determined, the airplane must be 

inspected before the airplane 

accumulates 5,000 total flight cycles. To 

avoid defaulting to this threshold, the 

commenter asks how an operator can 

prove that a certain repainting was the 

first for a specific airplane. The 

commenter requests that we revise the 

proposed AD to include this 

consideration in the definition of the 

‘‘first scribing opportunity.’’

We disagree with the request. Each 

operator’s system of records will vary in 

detail, scope, and retrievability; 

developing a standard protocol would 

most likely burden rather than help 

operators. An operator’s showing of 

compliance regarding maintenance 

records will vary based on whether the 

operator has owned the airplane since it 

was delivered from Boeing or purchased 

it from another source. Any operator 

who owned the airplane since delivery 

from Boeing may be able to determine 

the date of the first repainting and the 

extent of work performed such as a 

complete stripping or a scuff-and-paint 

operation. If the airplane has a 

maintenance history from a previous 

owner/operator, then assembling 

complete repainting records might be 

more difficult. The level of detail for 

recording maintenance such as painting 

varies from operator to operator 

depending on acceptability by local 

airworthiness authorities; a standard 

protocol would be impossible to 

develop. Individual operators should 

contact their airworthiness authorities 

for a showing of compliance. We have 

not changed the final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Request To Revise Inspection 

Requirement 

One commenter (Air North) requests 

that the present level of inspection be 

permitted to monitor the condition of 

the pressure skin per Boeing SB 737–

53A1177 until the lap splice terminating 

action, at 1200 flight cycles (LFEC), with 

250-flight-hour visual inspections. 

We have worked extensively with 

Boeing to align this AD’s inspection and 

LRTS program with existing inspection 

and modification programs on the 737 

Classic fuselage skin. We do not find it 

necessary to further revise the proposed 

inspection program. However, under the 

provisions of paragraph (p) in this final 

rule, we may approve requests for 

AMOCs that include data substantiating 

that the alternative method would 

provide an acceptable level of safety. 

We have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Advise of Related ADs 

One commenter (Delta Air Lines) 

notes that Part 1, Step 2 (Zone 1 

Threshold Determination and PreThreshold Special Lap Joint 

Inspections), of the Work Instructions of 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262 refers to 

‘‘Special Lap Joint Inspections in 

Paragraph 1.E., Compliance.’’ The 

inspections that appear as Special Lap 

Joint Inspection (1) are related to AD 

2002–07–08, amendment 39–12702 (67 

FR 17917, April 12, 2002). The 

inspections that appear as Special Lap 

Joint Inspection (2) are related to AD 

2003–08–15, amendment 39–13128 (68 

FR 20341, April 25, 2003). 

We infer that the commenter requests 

that we revise paragraph (b) (‘‘Affected 

ADs’’) of the proposed AD to give credit 

for actions accomplished as part of other 

related airworthiness directives. We 

disagree. Although the actions in all 

three ADs are the same, the compliance 

times and in some cases the affected 

airplanes are different. For some 

airplanes, the inspections of this AD 

may be required before the compliance 

times required by the other cited ADs. 

If an operator finds that actions 

accomplished for one AD should be 

credited to another AD, we will evaluate 

and approve requests for credit on a 

case-by-case basis, based on a showing 

of an acceptable level of safety. 

Additional Changes to Proposed AD 

We have simplified paragraph (h) in 

this final rule by referring to the 

‘‘Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs)’’ paragraph of this AD for 

repair methods. 

We have revised this action to clarify 

the appropriate procedure for notifying 

the principal inspector before using any 

approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including 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. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 3,132 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Zone Action Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Cost per 

airplane 

Number of 

U.S.- 

registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

1 ....... Sealant removal ........................................................................ 66 $65 $4,290 1,384 $5,937,360 

Inspection .................................................................................. 4 65 260 1,384 359,840 

2 ....... Sealant removal ........................................................................ 38 65 2,470 1,384 3,418,480 

Inspection .................................................................................. 29 65 1,885 1,384 2,608,840 

3 ....... Sealant removal ........................................................................ 88 65 5,720 1,384 7,916,480 

Inspection .................................................................................. 38 65 2,470 1,384 3,418,480 

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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
16216 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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); and 

(3) 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. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

See the ADDRESSES section for a location 

to examine the regulatory evaluation. 

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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

2006–07–12 Boeing: Amendment 39–14539. 

Docket No. FAA–2005–20918; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–269–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective May 5, 2006. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 

737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 

series airplanes, certificated in any category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from reports of fuselage 

skin cracks adjacent to the skin lap joints on 

airplanes that had scribe lines. Scribe line 

damage can also occur at many other 

locations, including butt joints, external 

doublers, door scuff plates, the wing-to-body 

fairing, and areas of the fuselage where 

decals have been applied or removed. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent rapid 

decompression of the airplane due to fatigue 

cracks resulting from scribe lines on 

pressurized fuselage structure. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspection 

(f) Do a detailed inspection for scribe lines 

and cracks in the fuselage skin at certain lap 

joints, butt joints, external repair doublers, 

and other areas, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated 

December 9, 2004, except as provided by 

paragraphs (g), (j), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of this 

AD. Do the actions at the time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of the service 

bulletin, except as required by paragraph (i) 

of this AD. Acceptable inspection 

exemptions are described in paragraph 1.E.1. 

of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

53A1262. 

(1) If no scribe line is found, no further 

work is required by this AD. 

(2) If any scribe line is found: Do all 

applicable investigative and corrective 

actions at the time specified by doing all 

applicable actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin, except as required by paragraph (h) 

of this AD. 

Note 1: A detailed inspection is defined in 

Note 10 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

53A1262 under 3.A., ‘‘General Information.’’

Specific magnification requirements may be 

specified in the steps of the Work 

Instructions. 

Exceptions to and Clarification of Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262 Procedures 

(g) This AD requires accomplishment of 

Parts 1 through 11 of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated December 9, 

2004. Parts 12 and 13 of the service bulletin 

may be accomplished, if applicable, to allow 

temporary return to service. This AD does 

not require accomplishment of Part 14 of the 

service bulletin, although the FAA-approved 

procedures described in Part 14 are 

acceptable for continued operation with 

scribe lines found before the applicable 

compliance time. 

(h) If any scribe line or crack is found 

during any inspection required by this AD, 

and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

53A1262, dated December 9, 2004, specifies 

to contact Boeing for appropriate action: 

Before further flight, inspect or repair scribe 

lines and repair cracks using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. 

(i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1262, dated December 9, 2004, 

specifies a compliance time after the issuance 

of the service bulletin, this AD requires 

compliance within the specified compliance 

time after the effective date of this AD. 

(j) Certain figures are incorrectly identified 

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

53A1262, dated December 9, 2004. The figure 

cited in Part 8, step 3, should be Figure 39, 

not Figure 38. The figure cited in Part 9, step 

4, should be Figure 38, not Figure 39. 

(k) If the operator’s records show that the 

airplane has never been stripped and 

repainted under the dorsal fin fairing since 

delivery from Boeing, then this AD does not 

require inspections of the butt joint, lap joint, 

and repair, as specified in paragraph (f) of 

this AD, in the areas under the dorsal fin 

fairing. 

(l) Figure 37 of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated December 9, 

2004, defines ‘‘Restricted Zones’’ at door 

cutouts as the only affected structure. This 

AD considers this area to also include Zone 

1B. 

(m) In Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated 

December 9, 2004, the first condition for the 

initial compliance threshold for Areas B, C, 

and E is for areas where the cutout 

modification shown in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1177 was accomplished. 

This AD considers this condition to also 

include Zone 1B. 

(n) In Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated 

December 9, 2004, the second condition for 

the initial compliance threshold for Areas B, 

C, and E is for areas where the cutout 

modification shown in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1177 was not 

accomplished. This AD considers this 

condition to apply only to Zone 1A. 

Reporting Requirement 

(o) At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this AD, submit 

a report of positive findings of cracks found 

during the inspection required by paragraph 

(f) of this AD to the Boeing Commercial 

Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207. Alternatively, 

operators may submit reports to their Boeing 

field service representatives. The report shall 

contain, as a minimum, the following 

information: airplane serial number, flight 

cycles at time of discovery, location(s) and 

extent of positive crack findings. Under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements contained in this AD and has 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056. 

(1) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Send the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(2) If the inspection was done after the 

effective date of this AD: Send the report 

within 30 days after the inspection is done. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(p)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 16217 

1 49 U.S.C. 40103(a). 

2 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1). 

3Operating Limitations at Chicago International 

Airport. Docket No. FAA–2004–16944. 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

the appropriate principal inspector in the 

FAA Flight Standards 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 an 

Authorized Representative (AR) for the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation 

Option Authorization Organization who has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) A repair plan approved by a Boeing 

Company AR or Designated Engineering 

Representative before the effective date of 

this AD is acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of paragraphs (f)(2) and (h) of 

this AD, provided the approval was 

documented via FAA Form 8110–3 or 8100–

9, and identified scribe line damage in the 

title of the form. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(q) You must use Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated December 9, 

2004, to perform the actions that are required 

by this AD, unless the AD specifies 

otherwise. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of this document in accordance 

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

Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. 

Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207, 

for a copy of this service information. You 

may review copies at the Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL–401, 

Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the 

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at the 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 March 

20, 2006. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–3066 Filed 3–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 93 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–19411; SFAR No. 

105] 

RIN 2120–AI47 

Reservation System for Unscheduled 

Arrivals at Chicago’s O’Hare 

International Airport 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; extension of 

expiration date. 

SUMMARY: This action extends the 

expiration date of Special Federal 

Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 105 

through October 28, 2006. This action is 

necessary to maintain the reservation 

system established for unscheduled 

arrivals at O’Hare International Airport 

while the FAA completes rulemaking 

associated with scheduled arrivals at the 

airport. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 27, 2006, and SFAR No. 105 

published at 70 FR 39610 (July 8, 2005), 

as amended in this rule, shall remain in 

effect until October 28, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gerry Shakley, System Operations 

Services, Air Traffic Organization; 

Telephone: (202) 267–9424; E-mail: 

gerry.shakley@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(1) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

(2) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

Therefore, any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact their local FAA official, or the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 

more about SBREFA on the Internet at 

our site, http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The U.S. Government has exclusive 

sovereignty over the airspace of the 

United States.1 Under this broad 

authority, Congress has delegated to the 

Administrator extensive and plenary 

authority to ensure the safety of aircraft 

and the efficient use of the Nation’s 

navigable airspace. In this regard, the 

Administrator is required to assign by 

regulation or order use of the airspace 

to ensure its efficient use.2

The FAA’s broad statutory authority 

to manage the efficient use of airspace 

encompasses management of the 

nationwide system of air commerce and 

air traffic control. To ensure the efficient 

use of the airspace, the FAA must take 

steps to prevent congestion at an airport 

from disrupting or adversely affecting 

the air traffic system for which the FAA 

is responsible. Inordinate delays of the 

sort experienced at O’Hare in late 2003 

and much of 2004 can have a crippling 

effect on other parts of the system, 

causing significant losses in time and 

money for individuals and businesses, 

as well as the air carriers and other 

operators at O’Hare and beyond. This 

rule facilitates the Agency’s exercise of 

its authority to manage the safe and 

efficient use of the navigable airspace. 

Background 

Since November 2003, O’Hare has 

suffered an inordinate and unacceptable 

number of delays as the result of overscheduling at the airport, which was 

also having a crippling effect on the 

entire National Airspace System. In 

August 2004, the FAA intervened by 

ordering a limit on the number of 

scheduled arrivals at the airport during 

the peak operating hours of 7:00 a.m. 

through 8:59 p.m., Central Time, 

effective November 1, 2004, so that the 

system could return to a reasonably 

balanced level of operations and delay.3

On October 20, 2004, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

seeking public comments on a proposed 

reservation system for unscheduled 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES