Jason A. Dickstein

Mr. Buster raises several important points related to PMA parts in his comments, that deserve further exploration. He first suggests that the FAA investigate two PMA part numbers for similar failures. The AD says ?It was concluded that an incompletely soldered joint failed and consequently separated.? This appears to be a production problem ? not a design problem. From the AD description, there appears to be no reason to believe that the PMA alternatives would have suffered from the same improper soldering. We are not saying that we know that the PMA parts don?t have problems ? just that there appears to be no evidence in the record presented that would suggest that the PMA parts are likely to have suffered from the same problem that caused the AD to be proposed. We think, from the evidence provided, that it is a bit presumptuous to assume that the PMA alternatives are likely to be defective. But there is another point to be intuited from Mr. Buster's comments. The FAA?s replacement directive seems to limit replacements only to those called out in the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-38A1054, dated August 23, 2007. This directive is not in the public record, and therefore it does not seem to meet the criteria for incorporation published in FAA-IR-M-8040.1A para. 144 (Jan 23, 2007) (in order to qualify for incorporation by reference, the document must be reasonably available to and usable by the persons affected by the publication). As the FAA is well aware, the regulated industry has repeatedly complained about unavailability of service information. In this case, it appears that the PMA replacements parts referenced in Mr. Buster's comment would be precluded from being installed as replacement parts - thus they are affected by the AD. And unless they are being given a copy of the Boeing Service document, that document is clearly not reasonably available. Which means that the FAA's criteria for incorporation by reference are not met. The final point to be raised is that the FAA?s replacement directive seems to limit replacements only to those called out in the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-38A1054, dated August 23, 2007. Unless that document explicitly permits installation of the PMA alternatives (and the public may never know since the bulletin is not included in the Federal Register), it would appear that installation of the PMA alternatives as replacements is forbidden. For the FAA to impede operators' commercial choice without some form of substantiation is arbitrary and capricious. The AD should explicitly permit the installation of other FAA approved replacement or modification parts.