24164 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 86 / Friday, May 2, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

next 90 days after June 6, 2008 (the effective 

date of this AD). 

(ii) For airplanes equipped with or that 

have ever been equipped with floats or snow 

skis: Within the next 30 days after June 6, 

2008 (the effective date of this AD). 

(2) If the airplane is equipped with floats 

or snow skis at the time of the initial 

inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of 

this AD or at any time after the initial 

inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of 

this AD, you must repeat the inspection 

required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD as 

follows: 

If the following exists: Then: 

(i) The airplane is equipped with floats or snow skis at the time of the 

initial inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

Inspect no later than 48 months following the initial inspection and repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 48 months. 

Continue these repetitive inspections until removal of floats or snow 

skis, at which time you must follow paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(ii) You remove floats or snow skis at any time following the initial inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.Inspect no later than 48 months following the last inspection. After the 

inspection following removal of floats or snow skis, no further inspections are required unless floats or snow skis are re-installed at a 

later date, at which time you must follow paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this 

AD. 

(iii) You install floats or snow skis at any time since the initial inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.Inspect no later than 48 months following the last inspection or before 

further flight after installation of floats or snow skis, whichever occurs 

later, and repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 48 

months. Continue these repetitive inspections until removal of floats 

or snow skis, at which time you must follow paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of 

this AD. 

(3) If you find cracking or material loss due 

to corrosion during any of the inspections 

required in paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this 

AD, before further flight, do the following: 

(i) Contact Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC at 

2124 North Central Avenue, Brownsville, 

Texas 78521; telephone: 956–986–0700 to 

obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme or 

replacement procedure; or refer to FAA 

Advisory Circular AC 43.13–1B CHG 1, dated 

September 27, 2001; and 

(ii) Repair or replace the left and/or right 

wing lift strut attach fitting(s), P/N A–A11. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(f) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Andy McAnaul, 

Aerospace Engineer, SAT–MIDO–43, 10100 

Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, 

Texas 78216; telephone: (210) 308–3365; fax: 

(210) 308–3370. Before using any approved 

AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC 

applies, notify your appropriate principal 

inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your 

local FSDO. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(g) You must use Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC 

Service Bulletin No. 2007–002, dated 

November 8, 2007, 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 Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC, 

2124 North Central Avenue, Brownsville, 

Texas 78521; telephone: 956–986–0700. 

(3) You may review copies at the FAA, 

Central Region, Office of the Regional 

Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 

64106; or 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on April 

23, 2008. 

David R. Showers, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–9397 Filed 5–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–29043; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–177–AD; Amendment 

39–15494; AD 2008–09–13] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Boeing Model 737–300, –400, and –500 

series airplanes. This AD requires 

revising the FAA-approved maintenance 

inspection program to include 

inspections that will give no less than 

the required damage tolerance rating for 

each structural significant item (SSI), 

doing repetitive inspections to detect 

cracks of all SSIs, and repairing cracked 

structure. This AD results from a report 

of incidents involving fatigue cracking 

in transport category airplanes that are 

approaching or have exceeded their 

design service objective. We are issuing 

this AD to maintain the continued 

structural integrity of the entire fleet of 

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. 

DATES: This AD is effective June 6, 2008. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of June 6, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

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 (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the 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: 

Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind, Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6440; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an airworthiness 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 86 / Friday, May 2, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 24165 

directive (AD) that would apply to all 

Boeing Model 737–300, –400, and –500 

series airplanes. That NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 24, 2007 (72 FR 48597). That 

NPRM proposed to require revising the 

FAA-approved maintenance inspection 

program to include inspections that will 

give no less than the required damage 

tolerance rating for each structural 

significant item (SSI), doing repetitive 

inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, 

and repairing cracked structure. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received from 

the four commenters. 

Requests To Allow Alternative 

Inspections for Previously Repaired/ 

Altered Structure 

Boeing, Southwest Airlines, and 

United Airlines request that the NPRM 

be revised to include a provision for 

alternative inspections when a repair 

area prohibits operators from doing the 

inspections specified in paragraph (h) of 

the NPRM. The commenters request that 

the initial alternative inspection be done 

within 12 months after the repair is 

discovered during the initial inspection 

required by paragraph (h). Two of the 

commenters point out that there is a 

similar provision in paragraph (e) of AD 

98–11–04 R1, amendment 39–10984 (64 

FR 987, January 7, 1999). The 

commenters state that including such a 

provision will assist operators. 

We agree. We have added a new 

paragraph (i) to this AD (and 

reidentified subsequent paragraphs) that 

provides alternative inspections to those 

in paragraph (h) of this AD. 

Request To Allow Compliance With the 

Repair Assessment Program (RAP) 

Southwest and United request that the 

RAP be considered an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC) for the 

supplemental structural inspection 

document (SSID) inspections of any 

repaired or modified SSI specified in 

paragraph (h) of the NPRM. United 

States that the FAA approved the RAP 

as an AMOC for those areas of the 

fuselage covered by repairs for Models 

737–100, –200, and –200C series 

airplanes. Southwest states that 

multiple requirements for an individual 

repaired or modified area will create 

confusion, and that eventually the 

alternate inspection procedures will 

either be duplicated or only approved 

for one program. 

We partially agree. We agree with the 

commenters that some of the inspection 

areas subject to the requirements of this 

AD also may be included in the RAP. 

The owner/operator of an affected 

airplane or Boeing, on behalf of the 

owner/operator, will need to perform an 

evaluation of each of these areas of the 

airplane to determine if the actions 

performed in accordance with the RAP 

meet the requirements of the SSID 

inspection program. Our understanding 

is that Boeing is looking into this 

evaluation; however, we have not 

received any data supporting a request 

for an AMOC. Once the evaluation has 

been completed, the owner/operator or 

Boeing may submit the data to 

substantiate that those actions 

performed in accordance with the RAP 

would provide an acceptable level of 

safety, under the provisions of 

paragraph (l) of this AD. We have made 

no change to the AD in this regard. 

Request To Delegate Approval of 

Structure Affected by Winglet 

Modifications 

Southwest requests that the NPRM be 

revised to allow an Authorized 

Representative (AR) for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation 

Option Authorization Organization to 

approve AMOCs for modified or altered 

structure such as winglets. Without 

such a provision, Southwest states that 

operators of airplanes on which 

winglets have been installed in 

accordance with a supplemental type 

certificate (STC) will need to seek 

AMOCs directly from the FAA. 

Southwest believes that such a 

provision would reduce the workload 

for operators and the FAA. 

We do not agree. At this time, we 

cannot authorize Boeing ARs to approve 

repair data or AMOCs for non-Boeing 

type design products such as STCs for 

which Boeing does not have access to 

the design data. We have made no 

change to the AD in this regard. 

Request To Approve NPRM as a 

Method of Compliance With Aging 

Airplane Safety Final Rule (AASFR) 

Southwest and United request that the 

NPRM be approved as a method of 

compliance for the AASFR for the 

relevant SSIs. 

We partially agree. We agree with the 

commenters that compliance with this 

AD would be an acceptable means of 

compliance with the AASFR for the 

baseline structure of Model 737–300, 

–400, and –500 series airplanes. The 

Costs of Compliance section of the 

NPRM included such a statement, 

which is restated in this final rule. In 

addition, the Supplemental Inspections 

section of the AASFR states, ‘‘The FAA 

will accept a SSID program for the 

baseline structure of an airplane 

developed by the OEM and approved by 

the FAA. If a SSID does not consider 

repairs, alterations, and modifications 

(RAMs), as required by this rule, the 

FAA would not accept it as a means to 

comply with this portion of the rule.’’

Therefore, we find that no change to the 

final rule is necessary. 

Request To Allow Zonal and 

Surveillance Inspections 

British Airways requests that zonal 

and surveillance inspections be 

considered acceptable for the general 

visual inspection specified in Boeing 

Document D6–82669, ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document Models 

737–300/400/500 Airplanes,’’ Original 

Release, dated May 2007 (hereafter ‘‘the 

SSID’’) (referred to in the NPRM as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for the proposed actions). 

We do not agree. Each operator’s 

maintenance inspection program 

defines inspection terminology. That 

maintenance inspection program might 

be defined by different revisions of the 

Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) 

procedures or other procedures 

accepted by the operator’s Certificate 

Management Office. Because inspection 

definitions have changed over time, 

each operator must confirm that the 

maintenance inspections procedures 

(e.g., surveillance or general visual 

inspections) it performs are equivalent 

to those specified in section 5.0 of the 

SSID to take damage tolerance rating 

(DTR) credit for the SSID program. In 

addition, while zonal inspection 

programs include general visual 

inspections of an area, including the 

structure in that area, the zonal program 

might not include the same general 

visual inspection required by the SSID 

such as the specific structural detail, the 

frequency to do the inspection, and the 

requirement to do the inspection in the 

direction specified. Therefore, we have 

made no change to the AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Extend Compliance Time of 

Reporting Requirement 

Southwest and United also request 

that the compliance time for the 

reporting requirement in Section 6.0, 

‘‘SSI Discrepancy Reporting,’’ of the 

SSID be revised from 5 to 30 days. The 

commenters state that 5 days is 

insufficient time for reviewing 

documentation from various 

maintenance bases. 

We do not agree. In developing an 

appropriate compliance time for this 

action, we considered the urgency 

associated with cracks involving an SSI 

or related structure in close vicinity to 

the SSI as well as the recommendations 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
24166 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 86 / Friday, May 2, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

of the manufacturer. In consideration of 

these items, we have determined that a 

5-day compliance time for reporting 

discrepant inspection findings will 

enable the manufacturer to obtain better 

insight into the nature, cause, and 

extent of the cracking, and eventually to 

develop a final action to address the 

unsafe condition. However, according to 

the provisions of paragraph (l) of this 

AD, we might approve requests to adjust 

the compliance time if the request 

includes data that prove that the new 

compliance time would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. 

Request To Identify Differences 

Between the AD and the SSID 

British Airways requests that all 

differences between the AD and the 

SSID be identified. British Airways 

states that such differences were 

identified in other SSID ADs. 

We partially agree. We agree with the 

commenter to identify differences 

between the AD and the SSID and did 

so in the Differences Between the 

Proposed AD and Service Information 

section of the NPRM. However, we find 

that no change to the final rule is 

necessary, since that section of the 

NPRM does not reappear in the final 

rule. 

Request To Clarify a Certain Section of 

the Preamble of the NPRM 

Boeing requests that the Issuance of 

Advisory Circular (AC) section in the 

preamble of the NPRM be clarified. 

Boeing states that AC No. 91–56, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Program for Large Transport Category 

Airplanes,’’ dated May 6, 2001, applies 

to airplanes certified under the fail-safe 

and fatigue requirements of Civil Air 

Regulations (CAR) 4b or part 25 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 25), not damage tolerance structural 

requirements as stated in the Issuance of 

AC section of the NPRM. 

We agree with Boeing that the 

identified section could be clarified. 

However, no change has been made to 

the final rule since the identified 

sections of the NPRM do not reappear 

in the final rule. 

Explanation of Change to Reported 

Incidents 

We have revised the AD to specify 

that this AD results from a report of 

incidents involving fatigue cracking 

only. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

The requirements for the baseline 

structure of Model 737–300, –400, and 

–500 series airplanes are currently 

described in 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 

129.109(b)(1), not in 14 CFR 121.370(a) 

and 129.16 as indicated in the third 

paragraph of the Cost of Compliance 

section of the NPRM. Therefore, we 

have revised the Costs of Compliance 

section of the AD accordingly. 

Explanation of Editorial Changes 

We have revised references to the title 

of Boeing Document D6–82669 from 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document,’’ to ‘‘Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document Models 

737–300/400/500 Airplanes’’ in this AD. 

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 also determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 1,961 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

Action Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Cost 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Revision of maintenance 

inspection program.

1,200 per operator (26 

U.S. operators).

$80 $96,000 per operator ...... 599 $2,496,000. 

Inspections ....................... 600 per airplane ............. 80 $48,000, per airplane, 

per inspection cycle.

599 $28,752,000 per inspection cycle. 

The number of inspection work hours, 

as indicated above, is presented as if the 

accomplishment of the actions in this 

AD are to be conducted as ‘‘stand alone’’

actions. However, in actual practice, 

these actions for the most part will be 

done coincidentally or in combination 

with normally scheduled airplane 

inspections and other maintenance 

program tasks. Therefore, the actual 

number of necessary additional 

inspection work hours will be minimal 

in many instances. Additionally, any 

costs associated with special airplane 

scheduling will be minimal. 

Further, compliance with this AD will 

be a means of compliance with the 

AASFR for the baseline structure of 

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. The AASFR requires certain 

operators to incorporate damage 

tolerance inspections into their 

maintenance inspection programs. 

These requirements are described in 14 

CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 129.109(b)(1). 

Accomplishment of the actions required 

by this AD will meet the requirements 

of these CFR sections for the baseline 

structure. The costs for accomplishing 

the inspection portion of this AD were 

accounted for in the regulatory 

evaluation of the AASFR final rule. 

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 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 86 / Friday, May 2, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 24167 

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. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance in the AD Docket. 

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 AD: 

2008–09–13 Boeing: Amendment 39–15494. 

Docket No. FAA–2007–29043; 

Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–177–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective June 6, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 

737–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a report of 

incidents involving fatigue cracking in 

transport category airplanes that are 

approaching or have exceeded their design 

service objective. We are issuing this AD to 

maintain the continued structural integrity of 

the entire fleet of Model 737–300, –400, and 

–500 series airplanes. 

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. 

Service Information 

(f) The term ‘‘the SSID,’’ as used in this 

AD, means Boeing Document D6–82669, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document Models 737–300/400/500 

Airplanes,’’ Original Release, dated May 

2007. 

Revision of the FAA-Approved Maintenance 

Inspection Program 

(g) Before the accumulation of 66,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 12 months after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later, incorporate a revision into the FAAapproved maintenance inspection program 

that provides no less than the required 

damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each 

structural significant item (SSI) listed in the 

SSID. (The required DTR value for each SSI 

is listed in the SSID.) The revision to the 

maintenance inspection program must 

include and must be implemented in 

accordance with the procedures in Section 

5.0, ‘‘Damage Tolerance Rating (DTR) System 

Application,’’ and Section 6.0, ‘‘SSI 

Discrepancy Reporting’’ of the SSID. 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. 

Initial and Repetitive Inspections 

(h) Except as provided by paragraph (i) of 

this AD: Before the accumulation of 66,000 

total flight cycles, or within 4,000 flight 

cycles measured from 12 months after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later, do the applicable initial inspections to 

detect cracks of all SSIs, in accordance with 

the SSID. Repeat the applicable inspections 

thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 

3.0, ‘‘Implementation’’ of the SSID. 

(i) For any SSI that has been repaired or 

altered before the effective date of this AD 

such that the repair or design change affects 

your ability to accomplish the actions 

required by paragraph (h) of this AD: You 

must request FAA approval of an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC) in 

accordance with section 39.17 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.17), at the 

initial compliance time specified in 

paragraph (h) of the AD; or do the actions 

specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this 

AD, at the times specified in those 

paragraphs, as an approved means of 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraph (h) of this AD. 

(1) At the initial compliance time specified 

in paragraph (h) of the AD, identify each 

repair or design change to that SSI. 

(2) Within 12 months after the 

identification of a repair or design change 

required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, assess 

the damage tolerance characteristics of each 

SSI affected by each repair or design change 

to determine the effectiveness of the 

applicable SSID inspection for that SSI and 

if not effective, incorporate a revision into 

the FAA-approved maintenance inspection 

program to include a damage-tolerance based 

alternative inspection program for each 

affected SSI. Thereafter, inspect the affected 

structure in accordance with the alternative 

inspection program. The inspection method 

and compliance times (i.e., threshold and 

repeat intervals) of the alternative inspection 

program must be approved in accordance 

with the procedures specified in paragraph 

(l) of this AD. 

Repair 

(j) If any cracked structure is found during 

any inspection required by paragraph (h) or 

(i) of this AD, before further flight, repair the 

cracked structure using a method approved 

in accordance with the procedures specified 

in paragraph (l) of this AD. 

Inspection Program for Transferred 

Airplanes 

(k) Before any airplane that is subject to 

this AD and that has exceeded the applicable 

compliance times specified in paragraph (h) 

of this AD can be added to an air carrier’s 

operations specifications, a program for the 

accomplishment of the inspections required 

by this AD must be established in accordance 

with paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, as 

applicable. 

(1) For airplanes that have been inspected 

in accordance with this AD: The inspection 

of each SSI must be done by the new operator 

in accordance with the previous operator’s 

schedule and inspection method, or the new 

operator’s schedule and inspection method, 

at whichever time would result in the earlier 

accomplishment for that SSI inspection. The 

compliance time for accomplishment of this 

inspection must be measured from the last 

inspection accomplished by the previous 

operator. After each inspection has been 

done once, each subsequent inspection must 

be performed in accordance with the new 

operator’s schedule and inspection method. 

(2) For airplanes that have not been 

inspected in accordance with this AD: The 

inspection of each SSI required by this AD 

must be done either before adding the 

airplane to the air carrier’s operations 

specification, or in accordance with a 

schedule and an inspection method approved 

by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA. After each inspection has 

been done once, each subsequent inspection 

must be done in accordance with the new 

operator’s schedule. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(l)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(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 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 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
24168 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 86 / Friday, May 2, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

be approved, the repair approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(m) You must use Boeing Document D6–

82669, ‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document Models 737–300/400/500 

Airplanes,’’ Original Release, dated May 

2007, to do the actions required by this AD, 

unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The document contains the following 

errors: 

(i) Pages 8.0.3 and 8.0.4 of Section 8.0, as 

specified in the List of Effective Pages, do not 

exist. 

(ii) There are two sets of pages (four pages 

total) with the same page numbers in Section 

11.3 (i.e., pages E.30.1 and E.30.2). The first 

set of page numbers (i.e., DTR Check Form 

for Item E–30 and the following blank page) 

is correct. The second set of page numbers 

(i.e., DTR Check Form for Item E–31 and the 

following blank page) is incorrect. Those 

pages should be identified as page numbers 

31.1 and 31.2, as specified in the List of 

Effective Pages. 

(iii) None of the pages are dated. The issue 

date for those pages is May 2007, as specified 

in the Revision Highlights section. 

(2) 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. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207. 

(4) You may review copies of the service 

information incorporated by reference at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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 April 8, 

2008. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–9316 Filed 5–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0471; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–CE–025–AD; Amendment 

39–15508; AD 2008–10–02] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna 

Aircraft Company 172, 175, 180, 182, 

185, 206, 207, 208, 210, and 303 Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 172, 

175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 207, 208, 210, 

and 303 series airplanes. This AD 

requires you to inspect the alternate 

static air source selector valve to assure 

that the part number identification 

placard does not obstruct the alternate 

static air source selector valve port. If 

the part number identification placard 

obstructs the port, this AD requires you 

to remove the placard, assure that the 

port is unobstructed, and report to the 

FAA if obstruction is found. This AD 

results from reports of improper 

installation of the part number 

identification placard on the alternate 

static air source selector valve. The 

actions specified by this AD are 

intended to prevent erroneous 

indications from the altimeter, airspeed, 

and vertical speed indicators, which 

could cause the pilot to react to 

incorrect flight information and possibly 

result in loss of control. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective on 

May 12, 2008. 

We must receive any comments on 

this AD by July 1, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this AD. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

To view the comments to this AD, go 

to http://www.regulations.gov. The 

docket number is FAA–2008–0471; 

Directorate Identifier 2008–CE–025–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Fairback, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification 

Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, 

Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316–

946–4154; fax: 316–946–4107; e-mail 

address: david.fairback@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We recently received reports of 

improper installation of the part number 

identification placard on alternate static 

air source selector valves of certain 

Cessna 172, 175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 

207, 208, 210, and 303 series airplanes. 

The part number identification placard 

refers to alternative air source selector 

valves, part number 2013142–18 that 

were manufactured between November 

20, 2007, and February 18, 2008. The 

part number identification placard was 

installed on the valve body in a location 

that covers the port, which is the inlet 

for static air reference into the valve. 

The problem was discovered during a 

quality control check. 

All parts held in stock at Cessna have 

been corrected. Cessna has no way of 

verifying how many of these assemblies 

were manufactured and sent to the field 

with the part number identification 

placard installed over the alternate 

static air source selector valve port. 

We have no way of determining 

which airplanes have the remaining 

problem alternate static air source 

selector valve assemblies installed 

without having all of the affected 

airplanes and spares stock inspected. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in the altimeter, airspeed, and 

vertical speed indicators displaying 

erroneous indications. This could cause 

the pilot to react to incorrect flight 

information and possibly result in loss 

of control. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This AD 

We are issuing this AD because we 

evaluated all the information and 

determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. This AD requires 

inspecting the alternate static air source 

selector valve to assure that the part 

number identification placard does not 

obstruct the alternate static air source 

selector valve port. If the part number 

identification obstructs the port, this AD 

requires you to remove the placard, 

assure that the port is unobstructed, and 

report to the FAA if obstruction is 

found. 

In preparing this rule, we contacted 

type clubs and aircraft operators to get 

technical information and information 

on operational and economic impacts. 

We have included a discussion of 

information that may have influenced 

this action in the rulemaking docket. 

FAA’s Determination of the Effective 

Date 

An unsafe condition exists that 

requires the immediate adoption of this 

AD. The FAA has found that the risk to 

the flying public justifies waiving notice 

and comment prior to adoption of this 

rule because erroneous indications from 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES