23836 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Fredrick A. Guerin,

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712;

telephone: (562) 627–5232; facsimile: (562)

627–5210.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) Are any service bulletins incorporated

into this AD by reference? Actions required

by this AD must be done in accordance with

Eagle Service Bulletin No. 1059, dated

January 21, 1999, and Eagle Service Bulletin

No. 1076, Rev. 2, dated December 14, 1999.

The Director of the Federal Register approved

this incorporation by reference under 5

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You can get

copies from Eagle Aircraft Pty. Ltd., Lot 700

Cockburn Road, Henderson WA 6166

Australia. You can look at copies at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(i) When does this amendment become

effective? This amendment becomes effective

on June 29, 2001.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Australian AD Number X–TS/2, effective

December 24, 2000.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 1,

2001.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11457 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–85–AD; Amendment

39–12222; AD 2001–09–15]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–200 and –300 Series

Airplanes Equipped with Cargo Doors

Installed in Accordance With

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)

SA2969SO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 737–

200 and –300 series airplanes, that

currently requires repetitive inspections

to detect cracking in the radii on the

support angles on the lower jamb (latch

lug fittings) of the main deck cargo door,

and replacement of cracked parts. This

amendment adds a requirement for

installation of redesigned lower jamb

latch support angles in the main cargo

door surround structure, which would

terminate the repetitive inspections.

This amendment is prompted by the

development of a modification that will

provide better protection of the subject

area against effects of structural fatigue.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent in-flight separation

of the main deck cargo door from the

airplane due to fatigue cracking on the

support angles on the lower door jamb.

DATES: Effective June 14, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

Pemco Service Bulletin 737–53–0003,

Revision 4, dated February 22, 1995;

and Pemco Service Bulletin 737–53–

0003, Revision 5, dated March 25, 1999;

as listed in the regulations, is approved

by the Director of the Federal Register

as of June 14, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

Pemco Alert Service Letter 737–53–

0003, Revision 3, dated December 22,

1994, as listed in the regulations, was

approved previously by the Director of

the Federal Register as of January 24,

1995 (60 FR 2323, January 9, 1995).

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., P.O. Box

2287, Birmingham, Alabama 35201–

2287. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown

Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite

450, Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Culler, Airframe and

Propulsion Branch, ACE–117A, FAA,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,

One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia

30337–2748; telephone (770) 703–6084;

fax (770) 703–6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 95–01–06 R1,

amendment 39–9449 (60 FR 62192,

December 5, 1995), which is applicable

to certain Boeing Model 737–200 and

–300 series airplanes, was published in

the Federal Register on November 22,

1999 (64 FR 63757). The action

proposed to continue to require

repetitive inspections to detect cracking

in the radii on the support angles on the

lower jamb (latch lug fittings) of the

main deck cargo door, and replacement

of cracked parts. That action also adds

a requirement for installation of

redesigned lower jamb latch support

angles in the main cargo door surround

structure, which would terminate the

repetitive inspections.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received. Two commenters

state that the airplanes they operate

would not be affected by the proposed

rule.

Include Additional Service Information

One commenter asks that Pemco

Service Bulletin 737–53–0005, dated

November 18, 1997, which specifies

alignment of the door latch base and

frames, be included as an alternative

method of compliance in paragraph

(c)(1) of the proposed rule. The

commenter also asks that the actions

specified in that service bulletin be

added to the proposed rule as

terminating action for the requirements

of AD 95–01–06 R1 (above). The

commenter states that its fleet was

modified per the service bulletin

referenced in the proposed rule, but one

airplane was misaligned between the

door latch base and fuselage framing at

FS 490.8. The commenter accomplished

the alignment specified in service

bulletin 737–53–0005.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s requests. The FAA does

not find it necessary to revise this AD

to include special instructions for

airplanes modified with another service

bulletin. Operators should note that

most AD actions address modifications

affecting the subject area of the AD

using the note that appears as Note 1 of

this AD, which states, ‘‘For airplanes

that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval

for an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC) in accordance with paragraph

(c)(1) of this AD.’’ The AMOC letter

would be issued to the operator by the

appropriate office, as stated in

paragraph (c)(1).

Additionally, the service bulletin

referenced in the final rule specifies

installation of redesigned lower jamb

latch support angles in the main cargo

door surround structure, which would

terminate the repetitive inspections.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23837

Modification of the door latch base for

better alignment is a separate issue that

was not addressed in the proposed rule,

and would not meet the requirements

for the terminating action. No change to

the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 32 airplanes

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 2

airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected

by this AD.

The inspection that is currently

required by AD 95–01–06 R1, and

retained in this AD, takes approximately

8 work hours per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the currently

required actions on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $480 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

The new installation that is required

by this AD takes approximately 500

work hours per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Required parts will cost

approximately $9,700 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the requirements of this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $79,400, or

$39,700 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted. The cost impact

figures discussed in AD rulemaking

actions represent only the time

necessary to perform the specific actions

actually required by the AD. These

figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–9449 (60 FR

62192, December 5, 1995), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), amendment 39–12222, to read as

follows:

2001–09–15 Boeing: Amendment 39–12222.

Docket 99-NM–85-AD. Supersedes AD

95–01–06 R1, Amendment 39–9449.

Applicability: Model 737–200 and -300

series airplanes equipped with main deck

cargo doors installed in accordance with

supplemental type certificate (STC)

SA2969SO, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent in-flight separation of the main

deck cargo door from the airplane,

accomplish the following:

Note 2: This AD references Pemco Alert

Service Letter 737–53–0003, Revision 3,

dated December 22, 1994; Pemco Service

Bulletin 737–53–0003, Revision 4, dated

February 22, 1995; and Pemco Service

Bulletin 737–53–0003, Revision 5, dated

March 25, 1999; for information concerning

inspection and replacement procedures. In

addition, this AD specifies replacement

requirements different from those included

in the service letter or service bulletin. Where

there are differences between the AD and the

service letter or service bulletin, the AD

prevails.

Restatement of Requirements AD 95–01–06

R1

Repetitive Inspections

(a) Within 50 flight cycles after January 24,

1995 (the effective date of AD 95–01–06,

amendment 39–9117), or within 50 flight

cycles after installation of STC SA2969SO,

whichever occurs later, perform a detailed

visual inspection to detect cracking in the

radii on the support angles on the lower jamb

of the main deck cargo door, in accordance

with Pemco Alert Service Letter 737–53–

0003, Revision 3, dated December 22, 1994.

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

detailed visual inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 450 flight cycles.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, replace the cracked part with

a new part in accordance with the alert

service letter. Repeat the detailed visual

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 450 flight cycles.

Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

New Requirements of This AD

Terminating Action

(b) Within 1,500 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD, install redesigned

lower jamb latch lug support angles in the

main cargo door surround structure in

accordance with Pemco Service Bulletin

737–53–0003, Revision 4, dated February 22,

1995, or Revision 5, dated March 25, 1999.

This action constitutes terminating action for

the requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c)(1) An alternative method of compliance

or adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

23838 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

95–01–06 R1, amendment 39–9449, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of

this AD.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(e) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Pemco Alert Service Letter 737–53–

0003, Revision 3, dated December 22, 1994;

Pemco Service Bulletin 737–53–0003,

Revision 4, dated February 22, 1995, or

Pemco Service Bulletin 737–53–0003,

Revision 5, dated March 25, 1999; as

applicable.

(1) The incorporation by reference of

Pemco Service Bulletin 737–53–0003,

Revision 4, dated February 22, 1995; and

Pemco Service Bulletin 737–53–0003,

Revision 5, dated March 25, 1999; is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) The incorporation by reference of

Pemco Alert Service Letter 737–53–0003,

Revision 3, dated December 22, 1994, was

approved previously by the Director of the

Federal Register as of January 24, 1995 (60 FR

2323, January 9, 1995).

(3) Copies may be obtained from Pemco

Aeroplex, Inc., P.O. Box 2287, Birmingham,

Alabama 35201–2287. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta ACO,

One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard,

suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office

of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

June 14, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 1,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11455 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–389–AD; Amendment

39–12221; AD 2001–09–14]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A330–243, –341, –342, and –343 Series

Airplanes Equipped With Rolls Royce

Trent 700 Series Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to Airbus Model A330–243,

–341, –342, and –343 series airplanes

equipped with Rolls Royce Trent 700

series engines. This action requires

repetitive inspections of certain

components, and corrective action, if

necessary. This action is necessary to

detect and correct fatigue cracking of the

hinge assemblies and the 12 o’clock

beam structure of the thrust reverser Cduct, which could cause failure of the

thrust reverser hinge, resulting in

separation of the thrust reverser from

the airplane. This action is intended to

address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective May 25, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 25,

2001.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

June 11, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

389–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Comments may be submitted

via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments

may also be sent via the Internet using

the following address: 9-anmiarcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent

via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–389–AD’’ in the

subject line and need not be submitted

in triplicate. Comments sent via the

Internet as attached electronic files must

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for

Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Airbus

Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Backman, Aerospace Engineer,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2797;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC), which is the airworthiness

authority for France, notified the FAA

that an unsafe condition may exist on

Airbus Model A330–243, –341, –342,

and –343 series airplanes equipped with

Rolls Royce Trent 700 series engines.

The DGAC advises that, during flight

tests, unexpectedly high fatigue loads

were measured on the hinges integrated

on the 12 o’clock beam which forms the

upper edge of the thrust reverser C-duct.

The hinges are unable to withstand

these high fatigue loads for the design

life of the airplane. Resulting fatigue

cracks, if not detected and corrected,

could cause failure of the thrust reverser

hinge, which could result in separation

of the thrust reverser from the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A330–78–3006, Revision 05, dated

March 6, 2001, which describes

procedures for a general visual

inspection of the hinge assemblies and

the beam structure of the upper extreme

edge of the thrust reverser unit C-duct

for cracks, and corrective action, if

necessary; a detailed visual inspection,

if applicable, of hinges 2, 3, 4, and 5 in

the same area for cracks, and corrective

action, if necessary; and repetitions of

these inspections, as applicable, at

applicable intervals. Accomplishment of

the actions specified in the service

bulletin is intended to adequately

address the identified unsafe condition.

The DGAC classified this service

bulletin as mandatory and issued

French airworthiness directive 1997–

118–047(B) R2, dated September 20,

2000, in order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

Airbus Service Bulletin A330–78–

3006, Revision 05, dated March 6, 2001,

references Rolls Royce Service Bulletin

RB.211–78–B115, Revision 2, dated

October 29, 1999, as an additional

source of service information for