# AD 95-01-06 R1: Main Deck Cargo Door - Type: Airworthiness directive - Status: Historical - Products: Boeing 737-200 Series, 737-200C Series and 737-300 Series - Effective: December 20, 1995 - Published: December 5, 1995, 60 FR 62192 - Superseded by: AD 2001-09-15 - Amendment: 39-9449 - Docket: 94-NM-247-AD - Data sheets: TCDS A16WE - Official PDF: https://openairdocs.org/files/sha256/86/3e/863e2b20960253f0467f0309c6304440cffd489d989053b0e782d54cc4693fd6 (from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1995-12-05/pdf/95-29480.pdf) - Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1995/12/05/95-29480/airworthiness-directives-boeing-model-737-200-and--300-series-airplanes-equipped-with-cargo-doors - FAA DRS: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/05826CCF854B3E1B862569760070140F.0001 - Page: https://openairdocs.org/ad/95-01-06-R1 ## 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. ## The airworthiness directive 95-01-06 R1 BOEING: Amendment 39-9449. Docket 94-NM-247-AD. Revises AD 95-01-06, Amendment 39-9117. 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 use the authority provided in paragraph (b) of this AD to request approval from the FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD. 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, for information concerning inspection and replacement procedures. In addition, this AD specifies replacement requirements different from those included in the service letter. Where there are differences between the AD and the service letter, the AD prevails. (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 visual inspectionto 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 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 service letter. Repeat the visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 450 flight cycles. (b) 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, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO. NOTE 3: Information concerningthe existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Atlanta ACO. (c) 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. (d) The inspection and replacement procedures shall be done in accordance with Pemco Alert Service Letter 737-53-0003, Revision 3, dated December 22, 1994. This incorporation by reference was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of January 24, 1995 (60 FR 2323, January 9, 1995). 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, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. (e) This amendment becomes effective on December 20, 1995. ## Rule preamble ### 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: ## Related - [AD 2001-09-15](https://openairdocs.org/ad/2001-09-15): Main Deck Cargo Door · Boeing 737-200 Series and 737-300 Series with STC SA2969SO. Effective Jun 14, 2001. Supersedes this AD - Names [STC SA2969SO](https://openairdocs.org/stc/SA2969SO): Installation of a cargo door. --- From OpenAirDocs.org, an independent open copy of FAA data. Only the Federal Register edition on govinfo.gov is the official legal text of an AD.