Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50407 

23See N.J. Retail Merchants Ass’n v. SidamonEristoff, 669 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2012), reh’g denied 

(3d Cir. Feb. 24, 2012). 

24 Id. 

25 Id. 

only be able to redeem his or her 

property by submitting an unclaimed 

property claim form to the State. At a 

minimum, a consumer first would need 

to determine that the card should still 

have been usable, and then would need 

to determine which State to contact to 

reclaim funds corresponding to the 

unclaimed gift card. As discussed 

above, when an issuer has no record of 

the gift card owner’s name, unused 

funds for the card will transfer to the 

State of incorporation of the gift card 

issuer. Thus, for example, a consumer 

who purchases and uses in New York a 

gift card that was issued by a company 

incorporated in Maine or Tennessee 

may be required to contact Maine or 

Tennessee, rather than New York, to 

attempt to claim funds that have 

transferred to the State. It is not clear, 

however, how the consumer would 

know to do this. In addition, the 

consumer would be required to spend 

time and perhaps money completing 

and submitting any required claim 

form(s), as well as to wait perhaps 

several weeks or months to receive his 

or her property. Finally, the Bureau 

understands that Maine’s and 

Tennessee’s existing processes for 

claiming unclaimed property generally 

rely on property owners’ names and 

addresses. It may be difficult for gift 

card owners to locate and successfully 

claim their property under those 

processes, particularly if gift card 

issuers do not know, and thus do not 

report to the State, the names of the 

consumers who own the unclaimed 

cards (i.e., the gift card recipients). 

The Bureau notes that at least one 

judicial decision has weighed the 

relative benefits to consumers of the 

EFTA and Regulation E and States’ 

unclaimed property laws as applied to 

gift cards. In January 2012, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 

upheld a decision by the U.S. District 

Court for the District of New Jersey that 

declined to preliminarily enjoin the 

application to gift cards of New Jersey’s 

unclaimed property law, which at the 

time presumed gift cards abandoned 

after two years of non-use.23 The District 

Court concluded, and the Third Circuit 

agreed, that the plaintiffs were unlikely 

to prove that Federal law preempted 

New Jersey’s unclaimed gift card law. 

The Third Circuit identified certain 

benefits of New Jersey’s law that, in the 

court’s view, weighed in favor of a 

conclusion that New Jersey’s law was 

more protective of consumers than the 

EFTA and Regulation E.24 Specifically, 

once New Jersey received unclaimed gift 

card funds, it would have held them for 

consumers indefinitely (i.e., not merely 

for the minimum five years required 

under Federal law). In addition, a 

consumer who submitted a successful 

claim for his or her funds would have 

received cash back from the State, as 

opposed to a card solely redeemable for 

goods or services.25 The Bureau notes 

that the court reached its conclusion in 

the absence of any specific guidance or 

determination from the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System or from the Bureau. 

As noted, the Bureau invites public 

comment on all or any aspects of this 

notice, including on the application of 

Maine’s and Tennessee’s unclaimed 

property laws to gift cards, on the nature 

of any inconsistency between those laws 

and the expiration date provisions of the 

EFTA and Regulation E, and on whether 

Maine’s and Tennessee’s laws afford 

consumers greater protection than 

Federal law. After the close of the 

comment period, the Bureau will 

analyze any comments received, 

conduct any further analysis that may 

be required, and will publish a notice of 

final action in the Federal Register. 

Dated: August 16, 2012. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20531 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0855; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–136–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to all The Boeing Company 

Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, 

–400, and –500 series airplanes. The 

existing AD currently requires repetitive 

inspections to detect cracking of the 

lower corners of the door frame and 

cross beam of the forward cargo door, 

and corrective actions if necessary. The 

existing AD also requires eventual 

modification of the outboard radius of 

the lower corners of the door frame and 

reinforcement of the cross beam of the 

forward cargo door, which would 

constitute terminating action for the 

existing repetitive inspections. Since we 

issued that AD, we have received 

additional reports of fatigue cracking in 

the radius of the lower frames and in the 

lower number 5 cross beam of the 

forward cargo door. This proposed AD 

would revise the compliance times for 

the preventive modification; add certain 

inspections for cracks in the number 5 

cross beam of the forward cargo door; 

and add inspections of the number 4 

cross beam if cracks are found in the 

number 5 cross beam, and corrective 

actions if necessary. For certain 

airplanes, this proposed AD would also 

add a one-time inspection for airplanes 

previously modified or repaired, and a 

one-time inspection of the 

reinforcement angle for excessive 

shimming or fastener pull-up, and 

corrective actions if necessary. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent fatigue 

cracking of the lower corners of the door 

frame and number 5 cross beam of the 

forward cargo door, which could result 

in rapid depressurization of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

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


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
50408 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 

917–6450; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: 

alan.pohl@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2012–0855; Directorate Identifier 

2011–NM–136–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On March 31, 2000, we issued AD 

2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 

FR 19302, April 11, 2000), for Model 

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

–500 series airplanes. That AD requires 

repetitive inspections to detect cracking 

of the lower corners of the door frame 

and cross beam of the forward cargo 

door, and corrective actions, if 

necessary. That AD also requires 

eventual modification of the outboard 

radius of the lower corners of the door 

frame and reinforcement of the cross 

beam of the forward cargo door, which 

would constitute terminating action for 

the repetitive inspections. That AD 

resulted from reports indicating that 

fatigue cracks were detected in the 

lower corners of the door frame and 

cross beam of the forward cargo door. 

We issued that AD to prevent fatigue 

cracking of the lower corners of the door 

frame and cross beam of the forward 

cargo door, which could result in rapid 

depressurization of the airplane. 

Actions Since AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, 

April 11, 2000) Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, 

April 11, 2000), we have received 

additional reports of fatigue cracking in 

the radius of the lower frames and in the 

Web of the number 5 lower cross beam 

of the forward cargo door. One report 

was of a rapid loss of cabin pressure 

during descent, as a result of a door 

crack. Other reports indicated improper 

nesting when installing the aft 

reinforcement angle during 

accomplishment of the modification 

specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 

737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 

31, 1994; and Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 3, 

dated July 20, 2000. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, 

dated February 14, 2011; and Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737– 

52–1149, dated December 11, 2003. For 

information on the procedures and 

compliance times, see this service 

information at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of these same 

type designs. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would retain all of 

the requirements of AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, 

April 11, 2000). This proposed AD 

would also require accomplishing the 

actions specified in the service 

information described previously, 

except as discussed under ‘‘Differences 

Between the Proposed AD and the 

Service Information.’’ Related 

investigative actions include inspecting 

the number 4 cross beam on the forward 

cargo door for cracking if cracking is 

found on the number 5 cross beam, a 

one-time high frequency eddy current 

inspection for cracking of the lower 

corner frame, and a one-time inspection 

of the reinforcement angle. Corrective 

actions include the following: Installing 

a preventive modification, replacing the 

frame and repairing any cracking, 

repairing or replacing the number 5 

cross beam, and replacing the 

reinforcement angle. 

Explanation of Changes Made to 

Existing Requirements 

The compliance times required by AD 

2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 

FR 19302, April 11, 2000), are specified 

in flight cycles on the airplane. 

However, the compliance times in the 

new actions specified in the revised 

service information are specified in door 

flight cycles, which are flight cycles 

accumulated on the forward cargo 

doors. These doors are interchangeable 

between airplanes and they are often 

interchanged. Since the unsafe 

condition stems from the total flight 

cycles accumulated on the door and not 

on the airplane itself, this proposed AD 

will specify door flight cycles for the 

new compliance times. 

We have changed all references to a 

‘‘detailed visual inspection’’ in the 

retained requirements of the existing AD 

to a ‘‘detailed inspection’’ in this 

proposed AD. 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes has 

received an ODA. We have revised the 

retained requirements of the existing AD 

to delegate the authority to approve an 

alternative method of compliance for 

any repair required by this proposed AD 

to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

ODA rather than a Designated 

Engineering Representative (DER). 

We have included Note 2 of the 

restated requirements of AD 2000–07– 

06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 

19302, April 11, 2000), in paragraph (h) 

of this proposed AD. Note 3 of the 

restated requirements of AD 2000–07– 

06 is no longer applicable and has been 

removed from this proposed AD. These 

changes do not add any additional 

burden on the public with regard to the 

restated requirements of the existing 

AD. 

We have added Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, 

dated February 14, 2011, to paragraph 

(i)(2) of this AD as the source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

preventive modification and the 

reinforcement modification. 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 

2011, specifies to contact the 

manufacturer for instructions on how to 

repair certain conditions, but this 

proposed AD would require repairing 

those conditions in one of the following 

ways: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50409 

• In accordance with a method that 

we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) whom 

we have authorized to make those 

findings. 

Changes to Existing AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, 

April 11, 2000) Format 

This proposed AD would retain all 

requirements of AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, 

April 11, 2000). Since AD 2000–07–06 

was issued, the AD format has been 

revised, and certain paragraphs have 

been rearranged. As a result, the 

corresponding paragraph identifiers 

have changed in this proposed AD, as 

listed in the following table: 

REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in AD 2000– 

07–06, Amendment 

39-11660 (65 FR 19302, 

April 11, 2000) 

Corresponding 

requirement in 

this proposed 

AD 

paragraph (a) paragraph (g) 

paragraph (b) paragraph (h) 

paragraph (c) paragraph (i) 

paragraph (d) paragraph (j) 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, 

April 11, 2000), we have increased the 

labor rate used in the Costs of 

Compliance from $80 per work-hour to 

$85 per work-hour. The Costs of 

Compliance information, below, reflects 

this increase in the specified labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 581 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

Inspections retained from AD 

2000–07–06, Amendment 

39-11660 (65 FR 19302, April 

11, 2000).

1 work-hour × $85 per hour = 

$85 per inspection cycle.

$0 $85 per inspection 

cycle.

$49,385 per inspection cycle. 

Modification retained from AD 

2000–07–06.

18 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$1,530.

$1,865 $3,395 ....................... $1,972,495. 

Inspections, new proposed action 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$765.

$0 $765 .......................... $444,465. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary modifications that would 

be required based on the results of the 

proposed inspections. We have no way 

of determining the number of aircraft 

that might need these modifications: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Modification ...................................... 84 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,140 ................................................... $12,395 $19,535 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition repairs/ 

replacements specified in this proposed 

AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

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

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
50410 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 

FR 19302, April 11, 2000), and adding 

the following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2012–0855; Directorate Identifier 2011– 

NM–136–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

AD action by October 5, 2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 

11, 2000). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, 

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

certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 52, Doors. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by additional 

reports of fatigue cracking in the radius of the 

lower frames and in the lower number 5 

cross beam of the forward cargo door. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of 

the lower corners of the door frame and 

number 5 cross beam of the forward cargo 

door, which could result in rapid 

depressurization of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained High Frequency Eddy Current 

(HFEC) Initial/Repetitive Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 

11, 2000), with revised service information. 

Within 1 year or 4,500 flight cycles after May 

16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–07– 

06), whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC 

inspection to detect cracking of the lower 

corners (forward and aft) of the door frame 

of the forward cargo door, in accordance with 

Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test (NDT) 

Manual, D6–37239, Part 6, Section 51–00–00, 

Figure 4, dated August 5, 1997, or April 5, 

2007, or Figure 23, dated August 5, 1997 or 

April 5, 2004, as applicable. 

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the 

HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 4,500 flight cycles, until the 

requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD have 

been accomplished. 

(2) If any cracking is detected during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the 

requirements of paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and 

(g)(2)(ii) of this AD, which constitute 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of 

this AD. 

(i) Accomplish the requirements of 

paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) or (g)(2)(i)(B) of this 

AD, and install a cross beam repair and 

reinforcement modification of the cross 

beam, in accordance with Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated 

March 31, 1994. 

(A) Repair the door frame of the forward 

cargo door in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate; or in accordance with 

data meeting the type certification basis of 

the airplane approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make such findings. For a repair or 

modification method to be approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this 

paragraph, and paragraphs (g)(2)(ii), (h)(2), 

(h)(3)(ii), and (i)(2) of this AD, the Manager’s 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(B) Replace the door frame of the forward 

cargo door with a new door frame, in 

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 

737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31, 

1994. 

(ii) Modify the repaired or replaced door 

frame of the forward cargo door, in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with 

data meeting the type certification basis of 

the airplane approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. 

Note 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of 

this AD: Accomplishment of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated 

March 31, 1994, does not supersede the 

requirements of AD 90–06–02, Amendment 

39–6489 (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990). 

(h) Retained Initial Detailed Inspection and 

Repetitive Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (b) of AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 

11, 2000). Within 1 year or 4,500 flight cycles 

after May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 

2000–07–06), whichever occurs later, 

perform a detailed inspection to detect 

cracking of the cross beam (i.e., upper and 

lower chord and Web sections) of the forward 

cargo door, in accordance with Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, 

dated March 31, 1994. For the purposes of 

this AD, a detailed inspection is: ‘‘An 

intensive examination of a specific item, 

installation, or assembly to detect damage, 

failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is 

normally supplemented with a direct source 

of good lighting at an intensity deemed 

appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, 

magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. 

Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures 

may be required.’’ 

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the 

inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 4,500 flight cycles until the 

requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD have 

been accomplished. 

(2) If any cracking is detected on the lower 

chord section of the cross beam during any 

inspection required by paragraph (h) of this 

AD, prior to further flight, repair in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with 

data meeting the type certification basis of 

the airplane approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. 

(3) If any cracking is detected on any area 

excluding the lower chord section of the 

cross beam (i.e., upper chord and Web 

section) during any inspection required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to further 

flight, accomplish the requirements of 

paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (h)(3)(ii) of this AD, as 

applicable, which constitutes terminating 

action for the repetitive inspections required 

by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. 

(i) For airplanes with line numbers 1 

through 1231: Install a cross beam repair and 

preventative modification of the outboard 

radius of the lower corners (forward and aft) 

of the door frame, in accordance with Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, 

dated March 31, 1994. 

(ii) For airplanes with line numbers 1232 

and subsequent: Install a cross beam repair 

and preventative modification of the 

outboard radius of the lower corners (forward 

and aft) of the door frame, in accordance with 

a method approved by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, or in accordance with data meeting the 

type certification basis of the airplane 

approved by the Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by 

the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those 

findings. 

(i) Retained Terminating Action 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (c) of AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 

11, 2000), with revised service information. 

Within 4 years or 12,000 flight cycles after 

May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000– 

07–06), whichever occurs later: Install the 

preventative modification of the outboard 

radius of the lower corners (forward and aft) 

of the door frame and the reinforcement 

modification of the cross beam of the forward 

cargo door, in accordance with paragraph 

(i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable. 

Accomplishment of paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) 

of this AD, as applicable, constitutes 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(h)(1) of this AD. 

(1) For airplanes with line numbers 1 

through 1231: Accomplish the preventative 

modification and the reinforcement 

modification, in accordance with Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, 

dated March 31, 1994. 

(2) For airplanes with line numbers 1232 

and subsequent: Accomplish the preventative 

modification and the reinforcement 

modification, in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or in 

accordance with data meeting the type 

certification basis of the airplane approved 

by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA 

that has been authorized by the Manager, 

Seattle ACO, to make those findings; or in 

accordance with Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated 

February 14, 2011. As of the effective date of 

this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50411 

February 14, 2011, to accomplish the 

modifications required by this paragraph. 

(j) Retained Action for Airplanes on Which 

Modifications Were Accomplished 

Previously 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (d) of AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 

11, 2000). For all airplanes on which 

modifications of the forward lower corner of 

the door frame and the cross beam of the 

forward cargo door were accomplished in 

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 

737–52–1100, dated August 25, 1988, or 

Revision 1, dated July 20, 1989; or in 

accordance with the requirements of AD 90– 

06–02, Amendment 39–6489 (55 FR 8372, 

March 7, 1990): Within 4 years or 12,000 

flight cycles after May 16, 2000 (the effective 

date of AD 2000–07–06), whichever occurs 

later, install the reinforcement modification 

of the aft corner of the door frame of the 

forward cargo door, in accordance with 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, 

Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994. 

Accomplishment of such modification 

constitutes terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections required by paragraphs 

(g)(1) and (h)(1) of this AD. 

(k) New Inspections and Corrective Actions 

Except as provided by paragraphs (m)(1) 

and (m)(2) of this AD: At the applicable time 

specified in paragraph 1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, 

Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, do the 

inspections required by paragraphs (k)(1) and 

(k)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Do all 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions before further flight, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 

2011; except as required by paragraph (m)(3) 

of this AD. Accomplishment of the 

inspections required by paragraph (k) of this 

AD terminates the requirements of the 

repetitive inspections required by paragraphs 

(g)(1) and (h)(1) of this AD. If any cracking 

is found in the number 4 cross beam, before 

further flight, repair in accordance with 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–52–1149, dated December 11, 2003. 

Note 2 to paragraph (k) of this AD: Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, 

Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, refers to 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–52–1149, dated December 11, 2003, as 

an additional source of guidance for the 

inspection for cracks of the number 4 cross 

beam. 

(1) For airplanes identified in Tables 1 and 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, 

Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011: Do a 

one-time HFEC inspection of the applicable 

location for cracks, in accordance with the 

Work Instructions, Part I, of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, 

dated February 14, 2011. 

(2) For airplanes identified in Table 3 of 

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

Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, 

dated February 14, 2011: Do a one-time 

general visual inspection of the 

reinforcement angle for excessive shimming 

or fastener pull-up, in accordance with the 

Work Instructions, Part III, of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, 

dated February 14, 2011. 

(l) No Supplemental Structural Inspections 

Required by This AD 

(1) The supplemental structural 

inspections specified in Table 4 of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ and Part 5 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, 

dated February 14, 2011, are not required by 

this AD. 

(2) The supplemental structural 

inspections specified in Table 4 of paragraph 

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

Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated 

February 14, 2011, may be used in support 

of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 

129.109(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 

129.109(c)(2)). The corresponding actions 

specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 

2011, are not required by this AD. 

(m) Exceptions to Certain Service 

Information 

(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, 

Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, 

specifies a compliance time relative to the 

Revision 5 issue date of the service bulletin, 

this AD requires compliance within the 

specified compliance time after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(2) Where Table 1, ‘‘Condition’’ column of 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, 

Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, 

specifies ‘‘airplanes without either the repair 

or modification accomplished in accordance 

with previous releases of this service 

bulletin,’’ the corresponding condition in this 

AD is for ‘‘airplanes on which either a repair 

or modification was not accomplished before 

the effective date of this AD.’’ 

(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 

2011, specifies to contact Boeing for certain 

actions: Before further flight, do the repair 

using a method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) 

of this AD. 

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

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

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO 

to make those findings. For a repair method 

to be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2000–07–06, 

Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 

11, 2000), are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding requirements of this AD. 

(o) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone (425) 917– 

6450; fax (425) 917–6590; email 

alan.pohl@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

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

5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review 

copies of the referenced service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of this 

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

13, 2012. 

John P. Piccola, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20470 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0856; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–093–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 747–100, 

747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 

747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747– 

400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes; Model 767–200, –300, 

–300F, and –400ER series airplanes; and 

Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and 

–300ER series airplanes. This proposed 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1