Nachrichten für Luftfahrer 2013 Teil II (weicht ggf. von Druckversion ab)
EASA AD No.: 2013-0104R1
EASA AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
AD No.: 2013-0104R1
[Correction: 25 October 2013]
Date: 24 May 2013
Note: This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued by EASA, acting in accordance with
Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 on behalf of the European Community, its Member States and
of the European third countries that participate in the activities of EASA under Article 66 of that
Regulation.
This AD is issued in accordance with EU 748/2012, Part 21A.3B. In accordance with EC 2042/2003 Annex I, Part M.A.301, the
continuing airworthiness of an aircraft shall be ensured by accomplishing any applicable ADs. Consequently, no person may operate
an aircraft to which an AD applies, except in accordance with the requirements of that AD, unless otherwise specified by the Agency
[EC 2042/2003 Annex I, Part M.A.303] or agreed with the Authority of the State of Registry [EC 216/2008, Article 14(4) exemption].
Design Approval Holder’s Name: Type/Model designation(s):
SOCATA TBM 700 aeroplanes
TCDS Number: EASA A.010
Foreign AD: Not applicable
Revision: This AD revises EASA AD 2013-0104 dated 13 May 2013.
ATA 27 Flight Control – Flap Actuator – Inspection / Replacement
Manufacturer(s): SOCATA (formerly EADS SOCATA)
Applicability: SOCATA TBM 700 aeroplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Reason: In 2003, an excessive wear of the inner flap actuator drive nut was detected,
which was increased by grease pollution.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to an improper play
between the actuator threaded rod and the drive nut which could result in loss
of flap control, ultimately reducing control of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, DGAC France issued AD 2004-134,
requiring repetitive inspections and cleaning of the flap actuators.
After that AD was issued, further analyses were performed in the frame of an
improvement of the TBM 700 Aircraft Maintenance Program. The results of
these analyses revealed that the inspection threshold and interval allowing a
timely detection of wears and the accomplishment of an applicable corrective
action can be extended. Prompted by these results, SOCATA issued Revision
01 of Service Bulletin (SB) 70-118-27.
For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of DGAC
France AD 2004-134, which is superseded, but extends the inspection
thresholds and intervals.
This AD has been revised to introduce, for the initial inspection as required by
this AD, a grace period of 300 FH since the last actuator play check
performed in accordance with SOCATA SB 70-118-27.
TE.CAP.00110-003 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. 1/2
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intranet.
EASA AD No.: 2013-0104R1
This AD has been re-published to correct a typo and a paragraph reference in
the required actions, paragraph (4).
Effective Date: 27 May 2013
Required Action(s) Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously:
and Compliance
(1) Before the accumulation of 200 flight hours (FH) or 12 months, whichever
Time(s):
occurs first, since the first installation of left hand (LH) or right hand (RH)
inner flap actuators on an aeroplane and thereafter, at intervals not to
exceed 200 FH or 12 months, whichever occurs first, clean and lubricate
LH or RH inner actuator rods in accordance with the instructions of
SOCATA SB 70-118-27.
(2) Within 1 200 FH since first installation of LH or RH inner flap actuators on
an aeroplane or within 300 FH since the last actuator play check
accomplished in accordance with SOCATA SB 70-118-27, as applicable,
and thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 200 FH or 12 months,
whichever occurs first, for each inner flap actuator check play between
the drive nut and the internal actuator rod in accordance with the
instructions of SOCATA SB 70-118-27.
Note: The non-cumulative tolerance as defined in SOCATA TBM 700
Maintenance Manual may be applied to the actions specified in paragraphs
(1) and (2) of this AD.
(3) If, during any check as required by paragraph (2) of this AD, a
discrepancy is detected, before next flight, accomplish the applicable
corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of SOCATA SB 70-
118-27.
(4) Accomplishment of corrective actions as required by paragraph (3) of this
AD does not constitute terminating action for the check as required by
paragraph (2) of this AD.
Ref. Publications: SOCATA SB 70-118-27 Original issue dated May 2004, or Revision 1 dated
August 2012.
The use of later approved revisions of this document is acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of this AD.
Remarks: 1. If requested and appropriately substantiated, EASA can approve
Alternative Methods of Compliance for this AD.
2. The original issue of this AD was posted on 09 April 2013 as PAD 13-052
for consultation until 07 May 2013. No comments were received during
the consultation period.
3. Enquiries regarding this AD should be referred to the Safety Information
Section, Executive Directorate, EASA. E-mail: ADs@easa.europa.eu.
4. For any question concerning the technical content of the requirements in
this AD, please contact:
SOCATA, Direction des services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France.
Tel.: +33 (0) 5 62 41 73 00, Fax: + 33 (0) 5 62 41 76 54,
or for the U.S.A,
SOCATA NORTH AMERICA, North Perry Airport, 7501 South Airport
Road, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023, The United States of America.
Tel.: +1 (954) 893 1400, Fax: +1 (954) 964 4141.
TE.CAP.00110-003 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. 2/2
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intranet.
Lufttüchtigkeitsanweisung Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
- Sachgebiet T23 -
D-2004-447R1 38144 Braunschweig
FAA AD 2013-18-08 - Amdt. 39-17581 Fax: +49-531-2355-5298
email: ad@LBA.de
BOEING 30.10.2013
Betroffenes Luftfahrtgerät:
Art des Luftfahrtgerätes: Flugzeug
Inhaber der Musterzulassung: The Boeing Company
Hersteller: The Boeing Company
Muster: BOEING 737
Baureihen: 737-200,737-200C, 737-300, 737-400 und 737-500
Werknummern: Gemäß Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1210 Revision 3 vom 16.07.2009
Gerätenummer: 2823, FAA TCDS A16WE
Revisionsstand:
Diese LTA ersetzt D-2004-447 vom 28.10.2004
Airworthiness Directive der ausländischen Behörde:
FAA AD 2013-18-08 - Amdt. 39-17581
Genannte Airworthiness Directives unter dieser Rubrik, die nicht durch die EASA herausgegeben worden
sind, wurden durch die EASA über die Entscheidung Nr. 02/2003 übernommen und sind somit ebenfalls
Airworthiness Directives der EASA.
Die genannte Airworthiness Directive wird im Luftfahrt-Bundesamt unter der Nummer 2004-447R1 ge-
führt.
Betrifft:
(ATA 53) Fuselage - Skin Panels Cracking - Inspection / Repair / Installation
Anmerkungen:
Gemäß M.A.304 des Anhang I (Teil M) der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2042/2003 dürfen Luftfahrzeuge
nach dem in der Lufttüchtigkeitsanweisung angegebenen Termin nur in den Betrieb genommen
werden, wenn die angeordneten Maßnahmen ordnungsgemäß durchgeführt worden sind.
Die Europäische Agentur für Flugsicherheit (EASA) hat die oben referenzierte Lufttüchtigkeitsan-
weisung FAA AD 2013-18-08 - Amdt. 39-17581 herausgegeben oder per Entscheidung Nr. 02/2003
übernommen.
Gemäß § 14 Abs. 2 der Betriebsordnung für Luftfahrtgerät (LuftBO) sind diese Lufttüchtigkeitsan-
weisungen direkt in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland gültig und bedürfen keiner Umsetzung
durch das Luftfahrt-Bundesamt.
Mit Hilfe dieser Übersichtsseite veröffentlicht das Luftfahrt-Bundesamt ebenfalls die über § 14
Abs. 2 direkt gültige Lufttüchtigkeitsanweisungen der EASA in den Nachrichten für Luftfahrer und
im Internet unter www2.LBA.de/LTAs/. Dieser Service dient reinen Informationszwecken und liegt
keinem Verwaltungsverfahren zu Grunde. Rechtsmittel sind damit ausgeschlossen.
D-2004-447R1 Seite 1 von 1 582/2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60660-60667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24034]
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2011-0155; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-141-AD; Amendment 39-17581;
AD 2013-18-08]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2004-18-06 for certain The Boeing
Company Model 737-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2004-18-06 required
repetitive inspections to find fatigue cracking of certain upper and lower skin panels of the fuselage,
and follow-on and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2004-18-06 also included a terminating action
for the repetitive inspections of certain modified or repaired areas only. This new AD adds new
inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin along certain chem-milled lines, and corrective actions if
necessary. This new AD also reduces certain thresholds and intervals required by AD 2004-18-06.
This AD was prompted by new findings of vertical cracks along chem-milled steps adjacent to the
butt joints. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin panels, which
could result in sudden fracture and failure of the skin panels of the fuselage, and consequent rapid
decompression of the airplane.
DATES: This AD is effective November 6, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the AD as of November 6, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other
publication listed in the AD as of October 13, 2004 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004).
ADDRESSES: 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.
1
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 (phone: 800-647-5527) is 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: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6447; fax: 425-917-6590; email: wayne.lockett@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to
supersede AD 2004-18-06, Amendment 39-13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004). AD 2004-18-
06 applied to the specified products. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on October 10,
2012 (77 FR 61550). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2011 (76 FR 12619). The NPRM proposed to continue
to require repetitive inspections to find fatigue cracking of certain upper and lower skin panels of the
fuselage, and follow-on and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also included a terminating
action for the repetitive inspections of certain modified or repaired areas only. The NPRM proposed
to add new inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin along certain chem-milled lines, and
corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to reduce certain thresholds and intervals
required by AD 2004-18-06. The SNPRM proposed to revise the NPRM by reducing the proposed
repetitive inspection intervals.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents
the comments received on the SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012) and the FAA's response to
each comment.
Request To Change Certain Repetitive Inspection Intervals
Boeing asked that the repetitive inspection interval of 1,800 flight cycles or 1,800 flight hours, as
specified in paragraph (r) of the SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012), be changed to eliminate
the 1,800 flight-hour interval. Boeing stated that the longitudinal chem-milled cracks are driven
primarily by hoop loading as a result of pressurization cycles, and added that the vertical chem-milled
cracks are driven by both pressure and flight loads. Boeing added that the threshold and repetitive
inspection intervals can be affected by this. Boeing noted that repeating the inspection at 1,800 flight
cycles at the butt joints was a conservative estimate obtained from crack growth data of longitudinal
chem-milled cracks; this is conservative because the stresses in the skins at the butt joints are lower
than the hoop stresses, which cause the longitudinal cracks to develop and grow. Boeing concluded
that a detailed analysis of the stresses on the vertical cracks compared with the horizontal cracks
confirmed that repeating the inspections every 1,800 flight cycles is adequate to detect cracks before
they spread and result in an unsafe condition.
We agree that eliminating the 1,800-flight-hour aspect of the repetitive inspection interval and
the threshold is acceptable for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have determined that this
2
change adequately addresses the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, we have changed paragraph
(r) of this final rule accordingly.
Requests To Clarify Exception to Service Information
Boeing and Southwest Airlines (SWA) asked that we clarify the exception language identified in
paragraph (o) of the SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012). Boeing and SWA both suggested
language for changing that paragraph.
Boeing stated that the language in paragraph (o) of the SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10,
2012) gives relief for inspections under FAA-approved repair doublers that span the chem-milled step
by a minimum of three rows of fasteners above and below the chem-milled step. Boeing added that
paragraph (o) of the SNPRM does not distinguish the reason for the repair (i.e., cracks, dents,
corrosion, etc.), but just specifies that a repair doubler exists and spans the chem-milled step with a
sufficient number of fastener rows. Boeing asked that this same allowance be given to chem-milled
steps under repairs that are accomplished according to the general skin repairs specified in paragraph
(k) of the SNPRM. Boeing noted that paragraph (k) of the SNPRM already has language that
terminates inspections under repairs accomplished according to paragraph (k) of the SNPRM;
however, paragraph (k) of the SNPRM is for the repair of chem-milled step cracks only, so it would
not terminate future chem-milled steps under a repair that is installed for some reason other than
chem-milled cracking.
SWA stated certain conditions for external repairs are not stipulated in paragraph (o) of the
SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012). SWA noted that for airplanes on which the repair does
not meet these conditions, paragraph (o) of the SNPRM specifies that one option to comply with the
inspections is to use the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1210, Revision
3, dated July 16, 2009. SWA added that the option to use an alternate inspection is given in the notes
section of Tables 1 through 6 of paragraph 1.E., ''Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, rather than in the Work Instructions of this service
bulletin. SWA also asked that we change the language in paragraphs (p), (q), and (r) of the SNPRM
for the alternate inspection given in Tables 1 through 6 of paragraph 1.E., ''Compliance'' of this
service bulletin.
We agree that clarification of the language in paragraph (o) of this final rule is necessary to
ensure that all inspection requirements are complied with as written. We have revised the language in
paragraph (o) of this final rule to include the language ''or repairs that have a minimum of 2 rows of
fasteners above and below the chem-milled step, and have been installed in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (k) of this final rule.'' We have also included language for repairs to the
vertical chem-milled steps. In addition, we have revised paragraph (o) of this final rule to refer to the
notes in Tables 1 through 6 of paragraph 1.E., ''Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, for the inspection requirements. With this clarification
added to paragraph (o) of this final rule, it is not necessary to change the language in paragraphs (p)
and (q) of this final rule. We have added the exception specified in paragraph (o) of this final rule to
paragraphs (r), (s), (t), and (u) of this final rule.
Request To Clarify Certain Repetitive Inspection Intervals
SWA asked that we clarify the repetitive inspection intervals required by paragraph (h) of the
SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012). SWA stated that paragraph (h) of the SNPRM includes a
new repetitive inspection interval for doing the inspections of the lower lobe and section 41, and that
repeating those inspections every 4,500 flight cycles is a new requirement. SWA added that
paragraph (s) of the SNPRM introduces a new repetitive inspection interval of 1,800 flight cycles for
the inspections of the lower lobe and section 41, which contradicts paragraph (h) of the SNPRM.
SWA stated that paragraph (s) of the SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012) introduces the
terminology ''areas of known cracking'' and ''areas of no known cracking'' for inspections of the lower
3
lobe and section 41. SWA added that, for areas of known cracking, the inspections are required at the
latest of the times specified in paragraphs (s)(2)(i) and (s)(2)(ii) of the SNPRM. SWA stated that
paragraph (s)(2)(i) of the SNPRM specifies inspections before the accumulation of 35,000 total flight
cycles; paragraph (s)(2)(ii) of the SNPRM specifies inspections within 4,500 flight cycles after the
most recent inspection required by paragraph (h) of the SNPRM or within 1,800 flight cycles after the
effective date of the AD, whichever is earlier. SWA noted that although paragraph (h) of the SNPRM
includes the new requirement of repeating those inspections every 4,500 flight cycles, airplanes are
still subject to the existing repetitive inspection interval of 9,000 flight cycles, as required by AD
2004-18-06, Amendment 39-13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004). SWA added that this is a
significant conflict since airplanes on which the inspection threshold specified in paragraph (s)(2)(i)
of the SNPRM has been surpassed ''will immediately be rendered out of compliance by paragraph
(s)(2)(ii) if the most recent inspection was accomplished more than 4,500 flight cycles from the last
inspection.'' SWA also asked that we clarify the inspection requirements for airplanes that have
accumulated more than 35,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of the AD.
Boeing stated that paragraph (s)(2)(ii) of the SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012) gives a
grace period to start inspections in lower lobe and section 41 for areas of known cracking for
airplanes that have exceeded the threshold of 35,000 total flight cycles. Boeing added that this grace
period is 4,500 flight cycles from the previous inspections done in accordance with AD 2004-18-06,
Amendment 39-13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004), which required that those areas be re-
inspected at 9,000 flight-cycle intervals. Boeing noted that, as a result of this, it is likely that many
airplanes will be grounded. Boeing asked that the grace period be changed to 9,000 flight cycles.
We agree that paragraphs (h) and (s) of this final rule should be changed since the new
requirements could put airplanes out of compliance. We have revised paragraph (h) of this final rule
to specify a repetitive inspection interval of 9,000 flight cycles, as required by AD 2004-18-06,
Amendment 39-13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004), and have deleted paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of this final rule to eliminate those repetitive inspection intervals.
We have also revised paragraph (s)(2) of this final rule to include the existing repetitive
inspection interval of 9,000 flight cycles so that no airplanes will be out of compliance with the
inspection requirements carried over from AD 2004-18-06, Amendment 39-13784 (69 FR 54206,
September 8, 2004).
Request To Update Structural Repair Manual (SRM) References
SWA asked that we update the SRM repair references in paragraphs (k)(2) and (k)(4) of the
SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012). SWA stated that the references to Figure 229 for
Revisions 92 and 70, both dated November 10, 2010, in those paragraphs is incorrect. SWA noted
that the correct repair for those SRM revisions is Repair 31.
We agree that this final rule should refer to the latest repairs. We have determined that the SRM
repair references specified in paragraphs (k)(2) and (k)(4) of the SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10,
2012), have been updated. The SRM repair reference in paragraph (k)(3) of the SNPRM also has
been updated. Therefore, we have changed paragraphs (k)(2), (k)(3), and (k)(4) of this final rule to
update the SRM references to include the appropriate repair.
Request To Clarify Terminating Action
SWA asked that we change paragraph (j)(1)(i) of the SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012)
to reflect that the time-limited repair specified in that paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g) of the SNPRM. SWA also asked that, if we do not change that paragraph,
we provide clarification that accomplishment of the repair specified in paragraph (v) of the SNPRM
terminates those repetitive inspections. SWA stated that paragraph (j) of the SNPRM addresses
retained corrective actions for cracking found during the inspections required by paragraphs (g), (h),
(p), (q), (r), and (s) of the SNPRM. SWA added that paragraph (v) of the SNPRM specifies that
4
accomplishment of the permanent repair specified in Part 5, or the time-limited repair specified in
Part 6, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1210, Revision
3, dated July 16, 2009, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (p), (q), (r), and
(s) of the SNPRM for the repaired area only. SWA noted that paragraph (j)(1)(i) of the SNPRM
specifies that installation of a permanent repair terminates the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (g) of the SNPRM for the repaired area only; however, paragraph (j)(1)(i) of the SNPRM
does not indicate that accomplishing the time-limited repair terminates the repetitive inspections.
We agree that clarification is necessary. Since the crack at the chem-milled step has been
trimmed out during installation of the time-limited repair in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009, the inspections required by paragraph (g) of
this final rule cannot be accomplished. We have changed paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this final rule to
specify ''Installation of a time-limited repair ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)
of this final rule for the repaired area only.'' We have also added a reference to paragraph (j)(1)(i) of
this final rule in paragraph (g) of this final rule to specify that the actions specified in paragraph
(j)(1)(i) of this final rule terminate the repetitive inspections.
Additional Changes Made to This Final Rule
We have removed paragraph (b)(2) of the SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012) from this
final rule, because the ADs that were identified in paragraph (b)(2) of the SNPRM are not ''affected''
by this AD. We have also redesignated paragraph (b)(1) of the SNPRM as paragraph (b) of this final
rule. These changes do not affect the intent of this AD.
We have revised the wording in paragraph (n) of this AD; this change has not changed the intent
of that paragraph.
Conclusion
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously–and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 61550, October 10,
2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM
(77 FR 61550, October 10, 2012).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of this AD.
Costs of Compliance
We estimated that 903 airplanes of U.S. registry are affected by AD 2004-18-06, Amendment
39-13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004).
The inspections of the crown area that are retained from AD 2004-18-06, Amendment 39-13784
(69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004), take about 94 work-hours per airplane to accomplish, at an
average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the retained
inspections is $7,990 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The inspections of the lower lobe area that are retained from AD 2004-18-06, Amendment 39-
13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004), take about 96 work-hours per airplane to accomplish, at an
average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the retained
inspections is $8,160 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
Should an operator elect to install the preventive modification specified in AD 2004-18-06,
Amendment 39-13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004), it will take about 108 work-hours per
5
airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the modification is $9,180 per airplane.
We estimate that this AD affects about 701 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The new inspections take about 27 work-hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new actions specified in this AD for U.S.
operators is $1,608,795, or $2,295 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety.
Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III,
Section 44701, ''General requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices,
methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely
to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ''significant rule'' under 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.
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 removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2004-18-06, Amendment 39-
13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004), and adding the following new AD:
6
AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
FAA
www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/
Aviation Safety
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/advanced.html
2013-18-08 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17581; Docket No. FAA-2011-0155;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-141-AD.
(a) Effective Date
This AD is effective November 6, 2013.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2004-18-06, Amendment 39-13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1210,
Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code
53, Fuselage.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by new findings of vertical cracks along chem-milled steps adjacent to
the butt joints. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin panels, which
could result in sudden fracture and failure of the skin panels of the fuselage, and consequent rapid
decompression of the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(g) Retained External Detailed and Eddy Current Inspections
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 2004-18-06, Amendment 39-
13784 (69 FR 54206, September 8, 2004), with revised service information. For Groups 1 through 5
airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1210, Revision 1, dated October 25,
2001: Before the accumulation of 35,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight cycles after
October 13, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-18-06), whichever is later, do external detailed and
eddy current inspections of the crown area and other known areas of fuselage skin cracking, in
accordance with Part 1 and Figure 1 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1210, Revision 1, dated October 25, 2001; or in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1210, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2009; except
as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat the external detailed and eddy current inspections at
7
