[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60296-60301]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23800]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1411; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-074-AD;
Amendment 39-17206; AD 2012-19-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
report of a flightcrew not receiving an aural warning during a lack of
cabin pressurization event. This AD requires incorporating design
changes to improve the reliability of the cabin altitude warning system
by installing a redundant cabin altitude pressure switch, replacing the
aural warning module (AWM) with a new or reworked AWM, and changing
certain wire bundles or connecting certain previously capped and stowed
wires as

necessary. For certain airplanes, this AD also requires prior or
concurrent incorporation of related design changes by modifying the
instrument panels, installing light assemblies, modifying the wire
bundles, and installing a new circuit breaker, as necessary. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the loss of cabin altitude warning, which
could delay flightcrew recognition of a lack of cabin pressurization,
and could result in incapacitation of the flightcrew due to hypoxia (a
lack of oxygen in the body), and consequent loss of control of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective November 7, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of November 7,
2012.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>) 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: Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2011 (76 FR
82207). That NPRM proposed to require incorporating design changes to
improve the reliability of the cabin altitude warning system by
requiring installation of a redundant switch of the cabin altitude
pressure, replacing the AWM with a new or reworked AWM, changing
certain wire bundles, and connecting certain previously capped and
stowed wires, as necessary. For certain airplanes, that NPRM also
proposed to require modifying the instrument panels, installing light
assemblies, modifying the wire bundles, and installing a new circuit
breaker, as necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011) and the FAA's response to each
comment.

Support for NPRM (76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011)

    Air Line Pilot's Association International supported the intent and
the language of the NPRM (76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011). Europe
Airpost stated it has no objection to the NPRM as proposed for Model
737-700 airplanes. American Airlines (AAL) stated it has no objections
to the NPRM as proposed and finds the proposed compliance time to be
acceptable.

Request To Use the Latest Service Information

    Delta (DAL), AAL, and The Boeing Company requested that the
proposed AD (76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011) incorporate ``Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April
30, 2012,'' instead of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
21-1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010. Boeing stated that Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April
30, 2012, incorporates changes to fix errors in the airplane
maintenance manual, connection pin contacts, one splice, and one wire
that had been discovered by an operator attempting to incorporate the
service information. Boeing stated that if Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010, is
required, the operators affected by the errors in that service bulletin
will require alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) in order to
comply with the proposed AD.
    In addition, Boeing and US Airways requested that the proposed AD
(76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011) incorporate Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012. Boeing
stated that this revised service information incorporates changes from
an engineering validation that affects all identified airplane groups
and revises the engineering for airplanes with cold-bonded skins.
Boeing stated that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-
1164, dated February 10, 2011, cannot be incorporated as written due to
erroneous installation steps for the pressure switch location and
erroneous operational test instructions. US Airways noted that errors
with conflicting steps in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-21-1164, dated February 10, 2011, involve circuit breaker
operation.
    We agree with the commenters' requests to reference the latest
service information for the reasons provided by the commenters. We have
revised this AD by referencing Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012; and Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1, dated July
16, 2010, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
21-1165, Revision 2, dated April 30, 2012; throughout the AD. We have
also given credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD
in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-
1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010.

Request To Clarify or Delete Service Information

    Boeing requested that we either delete or clarify references in the
preamble and paragraph (i) (``Credit for Actions Accomplished in
Accordance with Previous Service Information'') of the NPRM (76 FR
82207, December 30, 2011) to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325,
dated January 11, 2010, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332,
Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011; as well as the supporting BAE
Systems service information. Boeing stated a concern that the
references to all of this service information will cause confusion
regarding the concurrent requirements and compliance times.
    Boeing also stated that AD 2011-03-14, Amendment 39-16598 (76 FR
6529, February 7, 2011), already mandates incorporation of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, dated January 11, 2010, and also
establishes the compliance time. Boeing added that another existing
NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2011-0258 (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011), proposes
to mandate Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010,
and it also establishes the compliance times.
    Boeing stated its concern that the proposed AD (76 FR 82207,
December 30, 2011) might inadvertently require operators to incorporate
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 1,
dated May 17, 2012; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325,
dated January 11, 2010; at the same time--instead of in the correct
order.
    We agree with Boeing's request to clarify or delete certain service
information in this final rule to avoid confusion.
    Notes 1 and 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011)
referenced the supporting BAE Systems service information; therefore,
we have removed those notes from this final rule to avoid confusion.
    It should be noted that since the issuance of the NPRM (76 FR
82207, December 30, 2011), we have reviewed Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012, which clarifies
certain actions and figures. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD
to reference this latest revision of the service information.
    We have also revised paragraph (i) of the NPRM (76 FR 82207,
December 30, 2011), which gave credit for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010. Paragraph (i)(1) of this
final rule provides credit for Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010. We have added
paragraph (i)(2) to this final rule to give credit for Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010; however,
such credit only applies to Group 1 airplanes identified in that
service information, except for Groups 24, 25, and 27 through 33
airplanes (as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332,
Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012). Paragraphs (i)(3) and (i)(4) of this
final rule to provide credit for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011, but only for the airplanes
identified in those paragraphs.
    We provide the following clarifications for references in this
final rule to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, dated January
11, 2010; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2,
dated August 18, 2011; as applicable.
    If an operator decides to comply with the actions in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012;
and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1,
dated July 16, 2010, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April 30, 2012; within the 72-
month compliance time specified in this AD, then prior to or
concurrently with those actions, the operator also must accomplish the
concurrent requirements in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325,
dated January 11, 2010, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332,
Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012, as applicable.
    However, we note that AD 2011-03-14, Amendment 39-16598 (76 FR
6529, February 7, 2011), requires accomplishment of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, dated January 11, 2010, within 36 months
after the effective date of that AD. In addition, NPRM Docket No. FAA-
2011-0258 (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011) also specifies 36 months as the
compliance time for accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010. Therefore, if an operator
waits until the end of the 72-month compliance time specified in
paragraph (g) this AD to accomplish the concurrent service information
specified in this AD--i.e., Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325,
dated January 11, 2010; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332,
Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012--then that operator would be out of
compliance with the other AD actions. Therefore, the order of these AD
actions is acceptable.

Request To Revise Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that paragraph (e) of the NPRM (76 FR 82207,
December 30, 2011) be revised. Boeing suggested that the paragraph
state: ``This AD was prompted by the report of a flight crew not
receiving an aural warning during a lack of cabin pressurization event.
The failure of the altitude pressure switch prevented the aural warning
from sounding when the cabin altitude exceeded 10,000 feet. We are
issuing this AD to improve reliability of the Cabin Altitude Warning to
flight crews. Loss of the Cabin Altitude Warning may delay flight crew
recognition of a lack of cabin pressurization, which could result in
incapacitation of the flightcrew due to hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in
the body), and consequent loss of control of the airplane.''
    Boeing stated that the pressure switch at issue is only used in the
cabin altitude warning system and is not used for pressurization
control. Boeing stated that the increased reliability of the cabin
altitude warning may prevent delays in the flightcrew's recognition of
a lack of cabin pressure event, but will not affect the flightcrew's
ability to recognize the warning intent or properly react because the
method of annunciation and associated flightcrew procedures are
unchanged. Boeing stated that AD 2011-03-14, Amendment 39-16598 (76 FR
6529, February 7, 2011), and NPRM Docket No. FAA-2011-0258 (76 FR
16579, March 24, 2011) address the failure of a flightcrew to recognize
and react to a valid cabin altitude warning.
    We agree with Boeing's request. We agree that the requested
revision clarifies that failure of the pressure switch was not the root
cause of the lack of cabin pressurization, but was the root cause of
the failure of the aural warning. We have changed the Summary and
paragraph (e) of this final rule accordingly, with certain editorial
changes.

Request To Match Compliance Times of Two AD Actions

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that the effective date of the
final rule after the NPRM (76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011) match the
effective date of the final rule after NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2011-
0258 (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011). UAL pointed out that Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April 30,
2012; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated
August 18, 2011; have been issued. UAL stated that the effective date
of this final rule will require installation of the redundant pressure
switch (which was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 82207, December 30,
2011)), and should not precede the effective date of the final rule for
NPRM Docket No. FAA-2011-0258, which currently proposes to require the
installation of annunciators. UAL stated that matching the compliance
times for the two final rules will allow operators to obtain parts and
schedule the two modifications concurrently, which is much more
effective than doing the two tasks at separate times, since the work is
required in the same areas for both modifications.
    We disagree with the commenter's request to harmonize the
compliance times. While we note that the safety issues identified in
this final rule and NPRM Docket No. FAA-2011-0258 (76 FR 16579, March
24, 2011) are related, each AD action addresses separate safety issues
and has specific compliance times based on our risk assessments.
Operators can always comply with an AD in advance of the compliance
time. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance Section

    Boeing requested clarification of incorporation costs reflected in
the NPRM as those costs relate to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
31A1325, dated January 11, 2010; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011; and the supporting BAE
service information.
    DAL requested that the work-hours for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011, to modify instrument
panels, install light assemblies, modify wire bundles, and install a
new circuit breaker, be changed from 84 to approximately 95. DAL stated
that it has noted a discrepancy in the work-hours for the actions
specified in the service information, excluding time estimates for
opening and closing.
    AAL requested that we revise the estimated work-hours for
accomplishing the actions in the NPRM (76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011).
AAL suggested that the work-hours specified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010, be
revised from 31 to approximately 95 work-hours for accomplishing the
installation of the redundant cabin altitude pressure switch, removal
and installation of the AWM, and wiring changes. AAL stated that it has
validated its estimates through implementation on several airplanes.
DAL requested the work-hours for the same action be adjusted to
approximately 53.
    UAL requested that the combined work-hours for both actions (we
infer to this as installation and modification) be changed from 115 to
200 work-hours. UAL stated that it has done surveys of airplanes to
determine how to gain access to affected areas, and it has determined
what additional testing will be required due to disturbed systems.
    Europe Airpost, DAL, US Airways, and UAL requested that we revise
the cost of parts in the NPRM (76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011). Europe
Airpost specifically stated that an additional cost should be included
for operators needing to procure a new AWM ($36,456 based on the Boeing
service information), which is not negligible for small airlines. UAL
stated that the price estimates specified in the service information
and the NPRM only include wire kit costs and do not include the costs
for modifying or replacing parts. US Airways indicated that the cost
for reworking the AWM would be $4,136, and the cost for replacement of
the AWM would be $33,576 (each).
    We agree with the commenters' request to revise the work-hours and
the cost of parts in this AD. We have revised the cost for the
installation, replacement, and wiring changes to include the 54 work-
hours in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165,
Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010, as revised by Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April 30, 2012, and the
8 hours in the concurrent BAE service information, a total of up to 62
work-hours. We have revised the cost of parts of the AWM to specify
$33,576. For the modification and other installations, we have included
the 8 work-hours in the concurrent BAE service information, a total of
up to 92 work-hours. We have revised the ``Cost of Compliance'' section
of this AD accordingly.

Request To Reopen the Comment Period for a Related NPRM (76 FR 16579,
March 24, 2011)

    UAL requested that we revise and re-open the comment period for a
related NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2011-0258 (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011).
UAL stated that the related NPRM is only applicable to airplanes in
Groups 1 through 7 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332,
Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010. UAL stated that it does not have any
airplanes within these groups and, therefore, did not comment on that
related NPRM. However, UAL stated that in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76
FR 82207, December 30, 2011), the concurrent requirements identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18,
2011, now include 23 groups of airplanes. UAL stated that operators
that have airplanes in groups 1 through 7 likely did not comment on the
related NPRM, and should be given the opportunity to do so.
    We are considering additional AD rulemaking at this time for the
related NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2011-0258 (76 FR 16579, March 24, 2011),
which will re-open the comment period.

Request for Editorial Changes

    Boeing requested that we make editorial changes to the NPRM (76 FR
82207, December 30, 2011). Boeing suggested we delete the comma after
``certain wire bundles,'' and add the word ``or'' so that the first
sentence in paragraph (g) of the NPRM would read as follows: ``Within
72 months after the effective date of this AD, install a redundant
switch of the cabin altitude pressure, replace the aural warning module
(AWM) with a new or reworked AWM, and change certain wire bundles or
connect certain capped and stowed wires, as applicable * * *.'' Boeing
noted that certain airplanes require the replacement of the AWM and
connection of the capped and stowed wires, as specified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April
30, 2012.
    We agree with the commenter's request for editorial changes for the
reason provided by the commenter. We have changed the Summary and
paragraph (g) of this final rule accordingly.

Revised AMOC Paragraph

    We have added paragraph (j)(3) to this final rule to delegate the
authority to approve an AMOC for any repair required by this AD to the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA).

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--and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
(NPRM (76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 82207, December 30, 2011).

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

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,405 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install a redundant cabin          Up to 62                    $33,576  Up to $38,846......  Up to $54,578,630.
 altitude pressure switch,          work[dash]hours x
 replace the AWM with a new or      $85 per hour = up
 reworked AWM, change certain       to $5,270.
 wire bundles or connect certain
 capped and stowed wires.
Modify the instrument panels,      Up to 92                      5,292  Up to $13,112......  Up to $18,422,360.
 install light assemblies, modify   work[dash]hours x
 the wire bundles, and install a    $85 per hour = up
 new circuit breaker (concurrent    to $7,820.
 requirements).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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),
    (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

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2012-19-11 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17206; Docket No. FAA-
2011-1411; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-074-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 7, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    The Boeing Company airplanes; certificated in any category; as
identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300,-400, and -500 series
airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012.
    (2) Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800,-900, and -900ER series
airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010, as revised by
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2,
dated April 30, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 21; Air Conditioning.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the report of a flightcrew not receiving
an aural warning during a lack of cabin pressurization event. The
failure of the altitude pressure switch prevented the aural warning
from sounding when the cabin altitude exceeded 10,000 feet. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the loss of cabin altitude warning, which
could delay flightcrew recognition of a lack of cabin
pressurization, and could result in incapacitation of the flightcrew
due to hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in the body), and consequent loss
of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Installation

    Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, install a
redundant cabin altitude pressure switch, replace the aural warning
module (AWM) with a new or reworked AWM, and change certain wire
bundles or connect certain capped and stowed wires, as applicable,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164, Revision 1, dated May 17,
2012 (for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes); or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-
1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010, as revised by Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 2, dated April 30,
2012 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes).

(h) Concurrent Actions

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
31A1325, dated January 11, 2010 (for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 series airplanes); and Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012 (for Model
737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes):
Before or concurrently with accomplishment of the actions specified
in paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable, modify the instrument
panels, install light assemblies, modify the wire bundles, and
install a new circuit breaker, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, dated
January 11, 2010 (for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -
500 series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332,
Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes).

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-21-1165, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010.

    (2) For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010; except Groups
24, 25, and 27 through 33 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012: This
paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
31A1332, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2010, which is not incorporated
by reference.
    (3) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011; except airplanes
identified in paragraph (i)(4) of this AD, and Groups 24, 25, and 27
through 33 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28, 2012: This paragraph
provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraph
(h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332,
Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011.
    (4) For Group 21, Configuration 2 airplanes identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3, dated March 28,
2012: This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011; and
provided that those actions in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-21-1171,
dated February 12, 2009, were accomplished prior to or concurrently
with the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332,
Revision 2, dated August 18, 2011.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, 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 Seattle ACO, send it to
the attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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 Organization Designation Authorization
(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.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Francis Smith,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1164,
Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165,
Revision 1, dated July 16, 2010.
    (iii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1165,
Revision 2, dated April 30, 2012.
    (iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1325, dated January
11, 2010.
    (v) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 1, dated
June 24, 2010.
    (vi) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 2,
dated August 18, 2011.
    (vii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-31A1332, Revision 3,
dated March 28, 2012.
    (3) For The Boeing Company 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 19, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-23800 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 239)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66236-66238]
[DOCID:fr15de09-9]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0670]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Franklin Canal, Franklin, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the
operation of the Chatsworth Road Swing Span Bridge across the Franklin
Canal, mile 4.8, at Franklin, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. The St. Mary
Parish Government requested that the operating regulation of the
Chatsworth Road swing span bridge be changed in order for the bridge
not to have to be continuously manned by a draw tender. This change
allows the bridge to remain unmanned during most of the day by
requiring a one-hour notice for an opening of the draw between 5 a.m.
and 9 p.m., during which time the bridge normally opens on signal.

DATES: This rule is effective January 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2009-0670 and are available online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0670 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, Eighth Coast
Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 19, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Franklin Canal,
Franklin, LA in the Federal Register (74 FR 41816). We received no
comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and
none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The St. Mary Parish Government requested that the operating
regulation of the Chatsworth Road Swing Span Bridge, located on the
Franklin Canal at mile 4.8 in Franklin, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, be
changed in order for the bridge not to have to be continuously manned
by a draw tender from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. when the bridge is now required
to open on signal. Because of the relocation of a public boat landing
downstream of the bridge, vessel traffic has become infrequent, and it
is no longer necessary to have a bridge tender continuously man the
bridge.
    Concurrent with the publication of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, a Test Deviation [USCG-2009-0670] was issued to allow the
St. Mary Parish Government to test the proposed schedule and to obtain
data and public comments. The Test Deviation has allowed the bridge to
operate as follows: The Chatsworth Road Bridge, mile 4.8 at Franklin,
shall open on signal from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. if at least one hour notice
is given. From October 1 through January 31 from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the
draw shall be opened on signal if at least three hours notice is given.
From February 1 through September 30 from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw
shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given. The test
period has been in effect during the entire Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking comment period. No comments were received from the public
from this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or the above referenced
Temporary Deviation. The Coast Guard has reviewed bridge tender logs
from before and after the temporary test deviation became effective.
The logs do not indicate an appreciable difference in the number of
openings between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m., since the test deviation was
issued. Based on the fact that no objections were received to the

proposed change, the Coast Guard has determined that the proposed
permanent change to the special drawbridge operating regulation is
warranted.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard did not receive any comments in response to the
NPRM.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The public will need to
notify the bridge owner one hour in advance for an opening of the draw
between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. There is no change in the regulatory text
published in the NPRM.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to
transit the bridge with less than 1-hour notice between the hours of 5
a.m. and 9 p.m. Because of the relocation of a public boat landing
downstream of the bridge, vessel traffic has become so infrequent that
this rule will not affect a substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Sec.  117.445 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  117.445  Franklin Canal.

    The draw of the Chatsworth Bridge, mile 4.8 at Franklin, shall open
on signal from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. if at least one hour notice is given.
From October 1 through January 31 from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall
be opened on signal if at least three hours notice is given. From
February 1 through September 30 from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall
open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given.

    Dated: November 28, 2009.
Mary E. Landry,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-29748 Filed 12-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P