AD 95-01-06 R1

Historical

Airworthiness directive · Main Deck Cargo Door · Boeing 737-200 Series, 737-200C Series and 737-300 Series with STC SA2969SO

Effective
December 20, 1995
Published
December 5, 1995 · 60 FR 62192–62194
Superseded by
AD2001-09-15
Models
737-200 Series, 737-200C Series, 737-300 Series
Data sheet
TCDSA16WE
Registered aircraft
18 matched by model
Product
Aircraft · Large airplane
Amendment
39-9449
Docket
94-NM-247-AD
Issued as
Final rule; request for comments

Unofficial copy of the text in the FAA’s Dynamic Regulatory System. Only the govinfo PDF is the legal edition. DRS record last changed August 7, 2025.

On this page

Summary

This amendment revises an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-200 and -300 series airplanes, that currently requires 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 amendment was prompted by reports of premature fatigue cracking on the support angles on the lower jamb of the main deck cargo door. The actions specified in that 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. This amendment requires a change in the cognizant aircraft certification office for requesting approvals of alternative methods of compliance with the provisions of this AD.

Rule preamble

The FAA’s background, reasoning and cost estimate, published with the AD.

Supplementary information

On December 29, 1994, the FAA issued AD 95-01-06, amendment 39-9117 (60 FR 2323, January 9, 1995), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-200 and -300 series airplanes, to require repetitive visual inspections to detect cracking in the radii on the support angles on the lower jamb of the main deck cargo door, and replacement of cracked parts with new parts. For those operators requesting approval of alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) with the requirements of that AD, that AD requires that those requests be submitted to the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO).

That AD was prompted by reports of premature fatigue cracking on the support angles on the lower jamb of the main deck cargo door. The actions required by that 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.

Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has reviewed the requirement for operators requesting approval of an AMOC to submit those requests to the Seattle ACO. The FAA considered the physical proximity of the supplemental type certificate (STC) holder, Pemco, which is located in Birmingham, Alabama, to the Atlanta ACO, which is located in College Park, Georgia. The FAA has determined that the Atlanta ACO would be more readily accessible to Pemco than the Seattle ACO, which is located in Renton, Washington. Consequently, the FAA finds that revising this AD to change the cognizant ACO for requesting approval of an AMOC, from the Seattle ACO to the Atlanta ACO, would allow the FAA to be more responsive to the needs of its customers. Therefore, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate to take action to revise paragraph (b) of that AD to change the cognizant ACO from Seattle to Atlanta.

Since unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design, this AD revises AD 95-01-06 to continue to require repetitive visual inspections to detect cracking in the radii on the support angles on the lower jamb of the main deck cargo door and replacement of cracked parts with new parts. This AD changes the cognizant ACO for requesting approval of an AMOC from the Seattle ACO to the Atlanta ACO.

This AD merely changes, for those operators requesting approval of an AMOC, the cognizant office from the Seattle ACO to the Atlanta ACO. In light of this, the FAA has determined that this AD has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary, and the amendment may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption "ADDRESSES." All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: "Comments to Docket Number 94-NM-247-AD." The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct effects 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, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For 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, 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 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701. § 39.13 - (Amended)

2.Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9117 (60 FR 2323, January 9, 1995), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), amendment 39-9449, to read as follows:

Affected TCDS · 1

The type certificate data sheets for the models this AD names, matched by model and maker.

Registered aircraft · 18

Registered aircraft whose airframe or engine model this AD names. Matched by model only, so check each against the AD’s applicability.

By aircraft maker
  • Boeing18 aircraft
By year built
19691999
Registered aircraft by year built: 13 aircraft
19691
19751
19791
19811
19863
19874
19951
19991

5 with no year recorded

By model

Aircraft

See all 18 aircraft