Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes, 5361-5365 [05-1724]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
§ 1709.217
and supplement their application
material.
§ 1709.216
Evaluation criteria and weights.
Unless supplemented in the grant
announcement, the criteria listed in this
section will be used to evaluate
proposals submitted under this
program. The total points available and
the distribution of points to be awarded
per criterion will be identified in the
grant announcement.
(a) Program Design. Reviewers will
consider the financial viability of the
applicant’s revolving fund program
design, the proposed criteria for
establishing eligible projects and
borrowers, and how the program will
improve the cost effectiveness of bulk
fuel purchases in eligible areas.
Programs demonstrating a strong design
and the ability to improve cost
effectiveness will receive more points
than applications that are less detailed.
(b) Assessment of needs. Reviewers
will award more points to programs that
serve or give priority to assisting more
costly areas than those that serve
populations that suffer from less severe
physical and economic challenges.
(c) Program evaluation and
performance measures. Reviewers may
award more points to performance
measures that are relevant to the project
objective and quantifiable than to
performance measures that are more
subjective and do not incorporate
variables that reflect a reduction in fuel
cost or improvement in service.
(d) Demonstrated experience.
Applicants may be awarded points for
relevant experience in administering
revolving fund or other comparable
programs.
(e) Rurality. Reviewers may award
more points to proposals that give
priority in access to funds to
communities with low population
density or that are located in remote
eligible areas than to proposals that
serve eligible, but less remote and
higher population density communities.
(f) Cost sharing. Although costsharing is not required under this
program, projects that evidence
significant funding or contributed
property, equipment or other in kind
support for the project may be awarded
points for this criterion where the
aggregate value of these contributions
exceed 25 percent of the annual funding
operations.
(g) Additional priority considerations.
The grant announcement may provide
for additional points to be awarded to
projects that advance identified Agency
priority interests under this program.
VerDate jul<14>2003
10:46 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
Grant award.
§§ 1709.602–1709.700
(a) Notification of applicants. The
Agency will notify all applicants in
writing whether or not they have been
selected for a grant award.
(b) Letter of conditions. The Agency
will notify a selected applicant in
writing, setting out the amount of grant
approved and the conditions under
which the grant will be made.
(c) Applicant’s intent to meet
conditions. Upon reviewing the
conditions and requirements in the
letter of conditions, the selected
applicant must complete, sign and
return the Agency’s ‘‘Letter of Intent to
Meet Conditions,’’ or, if certain
conditions cannot be met, the applicant
may propose alternate conditions to the
Agency. The Agency must concur with
any changes proposed to the letter of
conditions by the applicant before the
application will be further processed.
(d) Grant agreement. The Agency and
the grantee must execute a grant
agreement acceptable to the Agency
prior to the advance of funds.
§§ 1709.218–1709.300
Subparts D–F
[Reserved]
[Reserved]
Subpart G—Recovery of Financial
Assistance Used for Unauthorized
Purposes
§ 1709.601
Policy.
This subpart prescribes the policies of
the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) when
it is subsequently determined that the
recipient of an Assistance to High
Energy Cost Rural Communities
program loan or grant was not eligible
for all or part of the financial assistance
received or that the assistance received
was used for unauthorized purposes. It
is the policy of the Agency that when
assistance under this part has been
received by an ineligible recipient or
used for unauthorized purposes the
Agency shall initiate appropriate actions
to recover from the recipient the sum
that is determined to be ineligible or
used for unauthorized purposes,
regardless of amount, unless any
applicable statute of limitation has
expired. The Agency shall make full use
of available authority and procedures,
including but not limited to those
available under 7 CFR part 3015,
subpart N.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[Reserved]
§§ 1709.701–1709.999
5361
[Reserved]
Dated: January 13, 2005.
Hilda Gay Legg,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 05–1880 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2001–NM–279–AD; Amendment
39–13957; AD 2005–03–01]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 747 Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a
new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to all Boeing Model 747
series airplanes, that requires repetitive
inspections of the nacelle strut-to-wing
attachment structure, and repetitive
overhaul of the diagonal brace and
spring beam load paths, to maintain
damage tolerance requirements and
ensure long-term structural integrity;
and follow-on and corrective actions if
necessary. This action is necessary to
ensure the structural integrity of the
strut-to-wing load path and prevent
separation of the strut and engine from
the airplane. This action is intended to
address the identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Effective March 9, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of March 9,
2005.
The service information
referenced in this AD may be obtained
from Boeing Commercial Airplanes,
P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124–2207. This information may be
examined at the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call (202) 741–
6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
5362
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tamara Anderson, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055–4056; telephone
(425) 917–6421; fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A
proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to
include an airworthiness directive (AD)
that is applicable to all Boeing Model
747 series airplanes was published in
the Federal Register on September 18,
2003 (68 FR 54680). That action
proposed to require repetitive
inspections of the nacelle strut-to-wing
attachment structure, and repetitive
overhaul of the diagonal brace and
spring beam load paths, to maintain
damage tolerance requirements and
ensure long-term structural integrity;
and follow-on and corrective actions if
necessary.
Actions Since Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) Was Issued
Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA
has reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin
747–54A2182, Revision 1, dated January
8, 2004. Revision 1 of the service
bulletin describes procedures that are
essentially the same as the procedures
described in the original issue of the
service bulletin, which was referenced
in the NPRM as the appropriate source
of service information. For certain
airplanes, Revision 1 extends repetitive
intervals for the baseline inspections.
For certain other airplanes, Revision 1
revises the inspection method for the
supplemental inspection of a certain
structure, and reduces threshold and/or
repetitive intervals of the supplemental
inspections. Revision 1 also adds
repetitive torque checks of the fasteners
of lower spar fitting for Groups 1 and 2
airplanes.
We find that the additional work in
Revision 1 of the service bulletin is
acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of this AD. Therefore, we
have added new paragraph (f) to this AD
to specify that, as an option, the
required actions in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this AD may be
accomplished in accordance with
Revision 1. However, operators should
note that if any action specified in this
AD is done in accordance with Revision
1, then all of the actions in this AD and
the additional actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD must also be
done in accordance with Revision 1 at
the applicable compliance times
specified in that service bulletin.
Also since the NPRM was issued,
Boeing has received a Delegation Option
Authorization (DOA). We have revised
this final rule to delegate the authority
VerDate jul<14>2003
10:46 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
to approve an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) for any repair
required by this AD to the Authorized
Representative for the Boeing DOA
Organization rather than the Designated
Engineering Representative (DER).
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded
an opportunity to participate in the
making of this amendment. Due
consideration has been given to the
comments received.
Request To Issue a Supplemental
NPRM
One commenter requests that we issue
a supplemental NPRM after Boeing
Service Bulletin 747–54A2182, Revision
1, dated January 8, 2004, is published.
The commenter states that changes to
the service bulletin will have a direct
impact on the requirements of the
proposed AD, and that ‘‘if this AD is
deemed necessary, the AD should not be
released until it incorporates that
revision.’’ The commenter also states
that since Revision 1 has not yet been
published, the commenter does not fully
understand the changes made to the
service bulletin.
We do not agree with the request to
issue a supplemental NPRM. As
discussed previously, we have reviewed
Revision 1 of the service bulletin, which
was published after issuance of the
NPRM. We agree that Revision 1 of the
service bulletin is acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of
this AD and have added Revision 1 to
this final rule as an option for
accomplishing the requirements of
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this AD.
Therefore, it is not necessary to reopen
the comment period by issuing an
supplemental NPRM. No other change
to the final rule is necessary in this
regard.
Request To Include Changes to Revision
1 in This Final Rule
Another commenter requests that we
include all changes to Revision 1 of the
service bulletin in this final rule, since
the changes significantly affect fleet
maintenance and operations. The
commenter states that the changes in
Revision 1 are based on comments
received from operators through telex
traffic and meetings, and that the Boeing
Designated Engineer Representative
(DER) has recommended that the FAA
approve Revision 1.
We partially agree with the
commenter. For the reasons discussed
previously, we have added Revision 1 of
the service bulletin to this final rule as
an option for accomplishing the
requirements of paragraphs (b) through
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(e) of this AD. No other change to the
final rule is necessary in this regard.
Request To Remove Detailed Inspection
One commenter considers
unwarranted the detailed inspection ‘‘to
verify correct installation anytime a fuse
pin or secondary pin joint is
disassembled within 1,200 flight-cycles
or 18 months, whichever is earlier.’’ The
commenter states that installation
instructions ‘‘in the appropriate airplane
maintenance manuals when followed
and signed for by licensed maintenance
personnel should not require a special
subsequent inspection at future set time
to verify correct installation.’’ The
commenter also asserts that a required
inspection item at the time of
installation may be more effective and
appropriate. We infer that the
commenter requests that we remove the
above-stated detailed inspection from
the proposed AD.
We partially agree with the inferred
request to remove the above-stated
detailed inspection from this final rule.
Although the original issue of the
service bulletin recommends
accomplishing that detailed inspection,
Revision 1 does not recommend its
accomplishment for compliance with
this final rule. Therefore, the commenter
may choose to accomplish Revision 1,
which has been added as an alternative
source of service information for this
final rule as discussed previously. If the
commenter chooses to accomplish the
original issue of the service bulletin,
under the provisions of paragraph (h) of
this final rule, we may consider requests
for approval of an AMOC if sufficient
data are submitted to substantiate that
such a design change would provide an
acceptable level of safety. Therefore, no
further change to the final rule is
necessary in this regard.
Request To Revise Corrective Action
One commenter requests that we
revise paragraph (e) of the proposed AD,
so that defects found during the baseline
inspections may be repaired in
accordance with an FAA-acceptable
method. The commenter states that,
while Parts 1 through 9 of the service
bulletin specify to contact Boeing for
rework requirements and additional
inspections if any damage is found or
structural integrity is not verified,
paragraph (e) of the proposed AD would
require that these corrective actions be
repaired per a method approved by the
FAA, or per data approved by a Boeing
DER. The commenter considers the
method of repair specified in paragraph
(e) of the proposed AD unnecessarily
burdensome, especially for correcting
relatively simple defects such as
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
missing or broken fasteners.
Furthermore, the commenter believes
that the corrective action for a defect
found during a normal maintenance
period should not require AMOC
approval.
We do not agree with the request to
revise paragraph (e) of this final rule
because of the known, possible
consequences of discrepancies found in
the nacelle strut-to-wing attachment
structure. We also do not agree with the
request because the damage allowables
and corrective action are undefined in
the service bulletin. We retain approval
authority for repair according to a
method approved by the Manager,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, or according to data
meeting the certification basis of the
airplane approved by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing Delegation
Option Authorization Organization who
has been authorized by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, to make those findings.
Therefore, no change to the final rule is
necessary in this regard.
Request for Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO) Approval
One commenter requests that we
revise the proposed AD to allow
approval for changes in compliance
time ‘‘through the operators Flight
Standards District Office as per their
established procedures,’’ rather than by
the Manager of the Seattle ACO. The
commenter states that the repetitive
baseline inspections, and possibly the
supplemental inspections, should be
given the same flexibility as any other
maintenance program requirement. The
commenter also asserts that, in order for
operators to integrate the proposed AD
into their FAA-approved maintenance
program, the approval of inspection
escalation should be made through the
operator’s Flight Standards District
Offices.
We do not agree. The inspection
interval of the supplemental inspection
is based on complex engineering
analysis that meets the damage
tolerance requirements of Section
25.571 (‘‘Damage—tolerance and fatigue
evaluation of structure’’) of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) as
upgraded in the Type Certificate Data
Sheet for Boeing Model 747 series
airplanes. If that inspection interval is
changed, the damage tolerance
requirements may not be met.
Separation of the strut and engine
from the airplane prior to strut
modification resulted in two accidents
with fatalities on Model 747 series
airplanes. In addition, there have been
numerous structural issues even after
strut modification. Under the provisions
VerDate jul<14>2003
10:46 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
of paragraph (h) of this final rule, we
may approve requests for adjustments to
the compliance time if data are
submitted to substantiate that such an
adjustment would provide an acceptable
level of safety. Therefore, no change to
the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Consideration for a Change to the
Maintenance Program
Two commenters consider the
proposed AD an inappropriate use of an
airworthiness directive. One commenter
states that the recommendations
specified in the original issue of the
service bulletin appear better suited for
implementation via Maintenance
Review Board (MRB) and associated
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
documents, with the exception of the
check for the part number of the side
link fuse pins.
Another commenter states that the
service bulletin/AD process is an
inappropriate method for enacting
changes to the required maintenance
programs. The commenter also states
that the FAA should work together with
manufacturers and operators to develop
a better method of revising the
maintenance, inspection, and overhaul
requirements for large, transport
category aircraft. Furthermore, the
commenter believes ‘‘that appropriate
revisions to the Maintenance Review
Board Document, the Maintenance
Planning Document and/or the Aircraft
Limitation Instruction are warranted.’’
The commenter also notes that the
proposed AD would be applicable to all
future Model 747 series airplanes that
are yet to be built with the current strut
design.
We do not agree that the proposed AD
is an inappropriate use of an
airworthiness directive. We are
requiring the post strut modification
inspections in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–54A2182, dated July 12,
2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747–
54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8,
2004; to meet the upgraded certification
basis of the strut-to-wing attachments as
listed in the Type Certificate Data Sheet
for Model 747 series airplanes. The
certification basis was upgraded to a
higher level of safety due to accidents
involving the strut-to-wing attachments.
To adequately address the unsafe
condition, we are mandating the post
strut modification inspections as
recommended in the service bulletin by
the airplane manufacturer to meet the
new certification basis.
Furthermore, certain airplanes have
been delivered with MPD documents
that do not require accomplishing these
inspections, so we are mandating the
inspections with an AD. Note that an
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5363
operator is only required to accomplish
inspections included in the MPD
delivered with the airplane; inspections
added in subsequent revisions to the
MPD are not mandatory until we
mandate them with an AD. Therefore,
we find that this final rule is the least
complex and most timely method to
mandate new inspections, if the
inspections were not included in the
MPD delivered with an airplane. For
commonality, we have mandated the
inspections for all Model 747 series
airplanes through a service bulletin
developed by the manufacturer. We may
consider revising the applicability of the
AD if the inspections in the service
bulletin are incorporated in the
airworthiness limitation section of the
MPD, which is provided with the
airplane upon delivery from the
production line for future airplanes.
Therefore, no change to the final rule is
necessary in this regard.
Additional Change to This AD
Operators should note that, although
the Accomplishment Instructions of the
referenced service bulletins specify to
report damaged or cracked fuse pins to
the manufacturer, this AD would not
require those actions. We do not need
this information from operators.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available
data, including the comments noted
above, the FAA has determined that air
safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule with the changes
previously described. The FAA has
determined that these changes will
neither increase the economic burden
on any operator nor increase the scope
of the AD.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 991
airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that
187 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD.
It will take approximately 280 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the
repetitive baseline, supplemental, and
fuse pin inspections at an average labor
rate of $65 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the
inspections, per inspection cycle, on
U.S. operators is estimated to be
$3,403,400 for the fleet, or $18,200 per
airplane.
It will take approximately 48 work
hours per airplane to overhaul the
diagonal brace, at an average labor rate
of $65 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of the overhaul,
per overhaul cycle, on U.S. operators is
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
5364
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
estimated to be $583,440 for the fleet, or
$3,120 per airplane.
It will take approximately 40 work
hours per airplane overhaul the spring
beam, at an average labor rate of $65 per
work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the overhaul, per
overhaul cycle, on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $486,200 for the fleet, or
$2,600 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed
above are based on assumptions that no
operator has yet accomplished any of
the requirements of this AD action, and
that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD
were not adopted. The cost impact
figures discussed in AD rulemaking
actions represent only the time
necessary to perform the specific actions
actually required by the AD. These
figures typically do not include
incidental costs, such as the time
required to gain access and close up,
planning time, or time necessitated by
other administrative actions.
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.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
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.
This rulemaking is promulgated
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
AD.
I
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not
have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132.
For the 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
10:46 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
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:
I
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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive:
I
2005–03–01 Boeing: Amendment 39–13957.
Docket 2001–NM–279–AD.
Applicability: All Model 747 series
airplanes, certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless
accomplished previously.
To ensure the structural integrity of the
strut-to-wing load path and prevent
separation of the strut and engine from the
airplane, accomplish the following:
Compliance Times
(a) Where the compliance times for the
initial and repetitive baseline and
supplemental inspections in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–54A2182, dated July 12,
2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747–
54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2004;
specify a compliance time interval calculated
‘‘from the release of this service bulletin,’’
this AD requires compliance within the
interval specified in the service bulletin
‘‘after the effective date of this AD.’’
Inspections/Follow-On Actions
(b) Do the initial and repetitive baseline
and supplemental inspections of the nacelle
strut-to-wing attachment structure for
discrepancies (including cracks, corrosion, or
damage; and loose, missing, or broken
fasteners), and do the applicable follow-on
actions; by doing all the actions in Part 1
through Part 9 of the Work Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2182,
dated July 12, 2001. Do the inspections
(including inspections for correct installation
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of hardware and part numbers) and followon actions at the applicable times specified
in Figure 1 of the service bulletin.
(c) Do the initial and repetitive overhauls
of the diagonal brace and spring beam load
paths by doing all the actions in Part 10 and
Part 11 of the Work Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2182, dated
July 12, 2001. Do the initial and repetitive
overhauls at the applicable times specified in
Part 10 and Part 11 of the service bulletin.
(d) Do the initial and repetitive inspections
of the fuse pins and secondary pins of the
strut-to-wing attachment by doing all the
actions in Part 12 of the Work Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2182,
dated July 12, 2001. Do the inspections at the
times specified in Part 12 of the service
bulletin.
Corrective Actions
(e) If any discrepancy is found during any
inspection required by this AD: Before
further flight, do all applicable corrective
actions specified in Part 1 through Part 12 of
the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–54A2182, dated July 12, 2001.
Do the applicable corrective actions per the
service bulletin. If the service bulletin
specifies to contact the manufacturer for
appropriate action: Before further flight,
repair per a method approved by the
Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, or per data meeting the type
certification basis of the airplane approved
by an Authorized Representative for the
Boeing Delegation Option Authorization
Organization who has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such
findings.
Optional Service Bulletin
(f) As an option, paragraphs (b) through (e)
of this AD may be done in accordance with
Part 1 through Part 12, as applicable, of the
Work Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
747–54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8,
2004, at the applicable times specified in the
service bulletin. If any action specified in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this AD is done
in accordance with Revision 1 of the service
bulletin, do all of the actions specified in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this AD and the
additional actions specified in paragraph (g)
of this AD, in accordance with Revision 1 of
the service bulletin. If the service bulletin
specifies to contact the manufacturer for
appropriate action: Before further flight,
repair per a method approved by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, or per data
meeting the type certification basis of the
airplane approved by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing Delegation
Option Authorization Organization who has
been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO, to make such findings.
Additional Actions for Optional Service
Bulletin
(g) If, as an option, any action specified in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this AD is done
in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin
747–54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8,
2004, of the service bulletin, do a detailed
inspection of all strut-to-wing attach joints to
determine the part number of any dual side
link fuse pin; and install the correct fuse pin
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
if any incorrect fuse pin is found; by doing
all of the actions specified in the ‘‘Initial Base
Line Inspection Requirements’’ of the Work
Instructions of Revision 1 of the service
bulletin. Do these actions at the applicable
times specified in Revision 1 of the service
bulletin.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is ‘‘An intensive
examination of a specific item, installation,
or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying
lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.’’
No Reporting Requirement
(h) Although the service bulletins
referenced in this AD specify to submit
certain information to the manufacturer, this
AD does not include that requirement.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)
(i)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the
Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, is authorized to
approve AMOCs for this AD.
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for a repair
required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing
Delegation Option Authorization
Organization who has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such
findings.
Incorporation by Reference
(j) Unless otherwise specified in this AD,
the actions shall be done in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2182,
dated July 12, 2001. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes,
P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–
2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741–6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Effective Date
(k) This amendment becomes effective on
March 9, 2005.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January
18, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–1724 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
10:46 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Pacific
Aerospace Corporation, Ltd. Model
750XL Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd.
(Pacific Aerospace) Model 750XL
airplanes. This AD requires you to
replace any type TLP–D or TLED rivets
on the aileron pushrod ends and
elevator control pushrod ends. This AD
results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI)
issued by the airworthiness authority for
New Zealand. We are issuing this AD to
replace the above identified rivets on
the aileron pushrod ends and elevator
control pushrod ends, which, if not
replaced, could result in loose
mechanical elements in the control
systems. This could lead to control
anomalies and loss of airplane control.
DATES: This AD becomes effective on
March 21, 2005.
As of March 21, 2005, the Director of
the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulation.
ADDRESSES: To get the service
information identified in this AD,
contact Pacific Aerospace Corporation,
Ltd., Hamilton Airport, Private Bag HN
3027, Hamilton, New Zealand;
telephone: 64 7 843 6144; facsimile: 64
7 843 6134. To review this service
information, go to the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html or call (202) 741–
6030.
To view the AD docket, go to the
Docket Management Facility; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001 or on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov. The docket number is
FAA–2004–19444.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl
Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Room 302, Kansas City, MO 64106;
telephone: 816–329–4146; facsimile:
816–329–4090.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[Docket No. FAA–2004–19444; Directorate
Identifier 2004–CE–33–AD; Amendment 39–
13960; AD 2005–03–04]
PO 00000
5365
Sfmt 4700
Discussion
What events have caused this AD?
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA),
which is the airworthiness authority for
New Zealand, recently notified FAA
that an unsafe condition may exist on
all Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd.
(Pacific Aerospace) Model 750XL
airplanes. The CAA reports occurrences
of loose type TLP–D or TLED rivets on
the aileron pushrod ends and elevator
control pushrod ends on Model 750XL
airplanes in service in New Zealand.
What is the potential impact if FAA
took no action? Any type TLP–D or
TLED rivets on the aileron pushrod ends
and elevator control pushrod ends could
result in loose mechanical elements in
the control systems. This could lead to
control anomalies and loss of airplane
control.
Has FAA taken any action to this
point? We issued a proposal to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include
an AD that would apply to all Pacific
Aerospace Corporation, Ltd. (Pacific
Aerospace) Model 750XL airplanes.
This proposal was published in the
Federal Register as a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on November 22,
2004 (69 FR 67864). The NPRM
proposed to require you to replace any
type TLP–D or TLED rivets on the
aileron pushrod ends and elevator
control pushrod ends.
Comments
Was the public invited to comment?
We provided the public the opportunity
to participate in developing this AD. We
received no comments on the proposal
or on the determination of the cost to
the public.
Conclusion
What is FAA’s final determination on
this issue? We have carefully reviewed
the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. We have
determined that these minor
corrections:
—Are consistent with the intent that
was proposed in the NPRM for
correcting the unsafe condition; and
—Do not add any additional burden
upon the public than was already
proposed in the NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5361-5365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1724]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2001-NM-279-AD; Amendment 39-13957; AD 2005-03-01]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to all Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, that requires
repetitive inspections of the nacelle strut-to-wing attachment
structure, and repetitive overhaul of the diagonal brace and spring
beam load paths, to maintain damage tolerance requirements and ensure
long-term structural integrity; and follow-on and corrective actions if
necessary. This action is necessary to ensure the structural integrity
of the strut-to-wing load path and prevent separation of the strut and
engine from the airplane. This action is intended to address the
identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Effective March 9, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 9, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
[[Page 5362]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Anderson, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425)
917-6421; fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 747 series
airplanes was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2003
(68 FR 54680). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections
of the nacelle strut-to-wing attachment structure, and repetitive
overhaul of the diagonal brace and spring beam load paths, to maintain
damage tolerance requirements and ensure long-term structural
integrity; and follow-on and corrective actions if necessary.
Actions Since Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Was Issued
Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA has reviewed Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2004. Revision 1 of
the service bulletin describes procedures that are essentially the same
as the procedures described in the original issue of the service
bulletin, which was referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate source of
service information. For certain airplanes, Revision 1 extends
repetitive intervals for the baseline inspections. For certain other
airplanes, Revision 1 revises the inspection method for the
supplemental inspection of a certain structure, and reduces threshold
and/or repetitive intervals of the supplemental inspections. Revision 1
also adds repetitive torque checks of the fasteners of lower spar
fitting for Groups 1 and 2 airplanes.
We find that the additional work in Revision 1 of the service
bulletin is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.
Therefore, we have added new paragraph (f) to this AD to specify that,
as an option, the required actions in paragraphs (b) through (e) of
this AD may be accomplished in accordance with Revision 1. However,
operators should note that if any action specified in this AD is done
in accordance with Revision 1, then all of the actions in this AD and
the additional actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD must also
be done in accordance with Revision 1 at the applicable compliance
times specified in that service bulletin.
Also since the NPRM was issued, Boeing has received a Delegation
Option Authorization (DOA). We have revised this final rule to delegate
the authority to approve an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for
any repair required by this AD to the Authorized Representative for the
Boeing DOA Organization rather than the Designated Engineering
Representative (DER).
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Request To Issue a Supplemental NPRM
One commenter requests that we issue a supplemental NPRM after
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2004,
is published. The commenter states that changes to the service bulletin
will have a direct impact on the requirements of the proposed AD, and
that ``if this AD is deemed necessary, the AD should not be released
until it incorporates that revision.'' The commenter also states that
since Revision 1 has not yet been published, the commenter does not
fully understand the changes made to the service bulletin.
We do not agree with the request to issue a supplemental NPRM. As
discussed previously, we have reviewed Revision 1 of the service
bulletin, which was published after issuance of the NPRM. We agree that
Revision 1 of the service bulletin is acceptable for compliance with
the requirements of this AD and have added Revision 1 to this final
rule as an option for accomplishing the requirements of paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this AD. Therefore, it is not necessary to reopen the
comment period by issuing an supplemental NPRM. No other change to the
final rule is necessary in this regard.
Request To Include Changes to Revision 1 in This Final Rule
Another commenter requests that we include all changes to Revision
1 of the service bulletin in this final rule, since the changes
significantly affect fleet maintenance and operations. The commenter
states that the changes in Revision 1 are based on comments received
from operators through telex traffic and meetings, and that the Boeing
Designated Engineer Representative (DER) has recommended that the FAA
approve Revision 1.
We partially agree with the commenter. For the reasons discussed
previously, we have added Revision 1 of the service bulletin to this
final rule as an option for accomplishing the requirements of
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this AD. No other change to the final
rule is necessary in this regard.
Request To Remove Detailed Inspection
One commenter considers unwarranted the detailed inspection ``to
verify correct installation anytime a fuse pin or secondary pin joint
is disassembled within 1,200 flight-cycles or 18 months, whichever is
earlier.'' The commenter states that installation instructions ``in the
appropriate airplane maintenance manuals when followed and signed for
by licensed maintenance personnel should not require a special
subsequent inspection at future set time to verify correct
installation.'' The commenter also asserts that a required inspection
item at the time of installation may be more effective and appropriate.
We infer that the commenter requests that we remove the above-stated
detailed inspection from the proposed AD.
We partially agree with the inferred request to remove the above-
stated detailed inspection from this final rule. Although the original
issue of the service bulletin recommends accomplishing that detailed
inspection, Revision 1 does not recommend its accomplishment for
compliance with this final rule. Therefore, the commenter may choose to
accomplish Revision 1, which has been added as an alternative source of
service information for this final rule as discussed previously. If the
commenter chooses to accomplish the original issue of the service
bulletin, under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this final rule, we
may consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that such a design change would provide an
acceptable level of safety. Therefore, no further change to the final
rule is necessary in this regard.
Request To Revise Corrective Action
One commenter requests that we revise paragraph (e) of the proposed
AD, so that defects found during the baseline inspections may be
repaired in accordance with an FAA-acceptable method. The commenter
states that, while Parts 1 through 9 of the service bulletin specify to
contact Boeing for rework requirements and additional inspections if
any damage is found or structural integrity is not verified, paragraph
(e) of the proposed AD would require that these corrective actions be
repaired per a method approved by the FAA, or per data approved by a
Boeing DER. The commenter considers the method of repair specified in
paragraph (e) of the proposed AD unnecessarily burdensome, especially
for correcting relatively simple defects such as
[[Page 5363]]
missing or broken fasteners. Furthermore, the commenter believes that
the corrective action for a defect found during a normal maintenance
period should not require AMOC approval.
We do not agree with the request to revise paragraph (e) of this
final rule because of the known, possible consequences of discrepancies
found in the nacelle strut-to-wing attachment structure. We also do not
agree with the request because the damage allowables and corrective
action are undefined in the service bulletin. We retain approval
authority for repair according to a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or according to data
meeting the certification basis of the airplane approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, to make those findings. Therefore, no change to the final
rule is necessary in this regard.
Request for Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) Approval
One commenter requests that we revise the proposed AD to allow
approval for changes in compliance time ``through the operators Flight
Standards District Office as per their established procedures,'' rather
than by the Manager of the Seattle ACO. The commenter states that the
repetitive baseline inspections, and possibly the supplemental
inspections, should be given the same flexibility as any other
maintenance program requirement. The commenter also asserts that, in
order for operators to integrate the proposed AD into their FAA-
approved maintenance program, the approval of inspection escalation
should be made through the operator's Flight Standards District
Offices.
We do not agree. The inspection interval of the supplemental
inspection is based on complex engineering analysis that meets the
damage tolerance requirements of Section 25.571 (``Damage--tolerance
and fatigue evaluation of structure'') of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) as upgraded in the Type Certificate Data
Sheet for Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. If that inspection
interval is changed, the damage tolerance requirements may not be met.
Separation of the strut and engine from the airplane prior to strut
modification resulted in two accidents with fatalities on Model 747
series airplanes. In addition, there have been numerous structural
issues even after strut modification. Under the provisions of paragraph
(h) of this final rule, we may approve requests for adjustments to the
compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an
adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. Therefore, no
change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Consideration for a Change to the Maintenance Program
Two commenters consider the proposed AD an inappropriate use of an
airworthiness directive. One commenter states that the recommendations
specified in the original issue of the service bulletin appear better
suited for implementation via Maintenance Review Board (MRB) and
associated Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) documents, with the
exception of the check for the part number of the side link fuse pins.
Another commenter states that the service bulletin/AD process is an
inappropriate method for enacting changes to the required maintenance
programs. The commenter also states that the FAA should work together
with manufacturers and operators to develop a better method of revising
the maintenance, inspection, and overhaul requirements for large,
transport category aircraft. Furthermore, the commenter believes ``that
appropriate revisions to the Maintenance Review Board Document, the
Maintenance Planning Document and/or the Aircraft Limitation
Instruction are warranted.'' The commenter also notes that the proposed
AD would be applicable to all future Model 747 series airplanes that
are yet to be built with the current strut design.
We do not agree that the proposed AD is an inappropriate use of an
airworthiness directive. We are requiring the post strut modification
inspections in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2182, dated July
12, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54A2182, Revision 1, dated
January 8, 2004; to meet the upgraded certification basis of the strut-
to-wing attachments as listed in the Type Certificate Data Sheet for
Model 747 series airplanes. The certification basis was upgraded to a
higher level of safety due to accidents involving the strut-to-wing
attachments. To adequately address the unsafe condition, we are
mandating the post strut modification inspections as recommended in the
service bulletin by the airplane manufacturer to meet the new
certification basis.
Furthermore, certain airplanes have been delivered with MPD
documents that do not require accomplishing these inspections, so we
are mandating the inspections with an AD. Note that an operator is only
required to accomplish inspections included in the MPD delivered with
the airplane; inspections added in subsequent revisions to the MPD are
not mandatory until we mandate them with an AD. Therefore, we find that
this final rule is the least complex and most timely method to mandate
new inspections, if the inspections were not included in the MPD
delivered with an airplane. For commonality, we have mandated the
inspections for all Model 747 series airplanes through a service
bulletin developed by the manufacturer. We may consider revising the
applicability of the AD if the inspections in the service bulletin are
incorporated in the airworthiness limitation section of the MPD, which
is provided with the airplane upon delivery from the production line
for future airplanes. Therefore, no change to the final rule is
necessary in this regard.
Additional Change to This AD
Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment
Instructions of the referenced service bulletins specify to report
damaged or cracked fuse pins to the manufacturer, this AD would not
require those actions. We do not need this information from operators.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 991 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 187 airplanes of U.S. registry
will be affected by this AD.
It will take approximately 280 work hours per airplane to
accomplish the repetitive baseline, supplemental, and fuse pin
inspections at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the inspections, per inspection
cycle, on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,403,400 for the fleet,
or $18,200 per airplane.
It will take approximately 48 work hours per airplane to overhaul
the diagonal brace, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the overhaul, per overhaul
cycle, on U.S. operators is
[[Page 5364]]
estimated to be $583,440 for the fleet, or $3,120 per airplane.
It will take approximately 40 work hours per airplane overhaul the
spring beam, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the overhaul, per overhaul cycle, on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $486,200 for the fleet, or $2,600 per
airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed
in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform
the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other
administrative actions.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated 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 AD.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the 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, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
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
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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:
2005-03-01 Boeing: Amendment 39-13957. Docket 2001-NM-279-AD.
Applicability: All Model 747 series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure the structural integrity of the strut-to-wing load
path and prevent separation of the strut and engine from the
airplane, accomplish the following:
Compliance Times
(a) Where the compliance times for the initial and repetitive
baseline and supplemental inspections in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2182, dated
July 12, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54A2182, Revision 1,
dated January 8, 2004; specify a compliance time interval calculated
``from the release of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
compliance within the interval specified in the service bulletin
``after the effective date of this AD.''
Inspections/Follow-On Actions
(b) Do the initial and repetitive baseline and supplemental
inspections of the nacelle strut-to-wing attachment structure for
discrepancies (including cracks, corrosion, or damage; and loose,
missing, or broken fasteners), and do the applicable follow-on
actions; by doing all the actions in Part 1 through Part 9 of the
Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2182,
dated July 12, 2001. Do the inspections (including inspections for
correct installation of hardware and part numbers) and follow-on
actions at the applicable times specified in Figure 1 of the service
bulletin.
(c) Do the initial and repetitive overhauls of the diagonal
brace and spring beam load paths by doing all the actions in Part 10
and Part 11 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-54A2182, dated July 12, 2001. Do the initial and
repetitive overhauls at the applicable times specified in Part 10
and Part 11 of the service bulletin.
(d) Do the initial and repetitive inspections of the fuse pins
and secondary pins of the strut-to-wing attachment by doing all the
actions in Part 12 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-54A2182, dated July 12, 2001. Do the inspections at the
times specified in Part 12 of the service bulletin.
Corrective Actions
(e) If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required
by this AD: Before further flight, do all applicable corrective
actions specified in Part 1 through Part 12 of the Work Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2182, dated July 12, 2001.
Do the applicable corrective actions per the service bulletin. If
the service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
appropriate action: Before further flight, repair per a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, or per data meeting the type certification basis of the
airplane approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings.
Optional Service Bulletin
(f) As an option, paragraphs (b) through (e) of this AD may be
done in accordance with Part 1 through Part 12, as applicable, of
the Work Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54A2182,
Revision 1, dated January 8, 2004, at the applicable times specified
in the service bulletin. If any action specified in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this AD is done in accordance with Revision 1 of the
service bulletin, do all of the actions specified in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this AD and the additional actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with Revision 1 of the
service bulletin. If the service bulletin specifies to contact the
manufacturer for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair
per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, or per data
meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, to make such findings.
Additional Actions for Optional Service Bulletin
(g) If, as an option, any action specified in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this AD is done in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2004, of the
service bulletin, do a detailed inspection of all strut-to-wing
attach joints to determine the part number of any dual side link
fuse pin; and install the correct fuse pin
[[Page 5365]]
if any incorrect fuse pin is found; by doing all of the actions
specified in the ``Initial Base Line Inspection Requirements'' of
the Work Instructions of Revision 1 of the service bulletin. Do
these actions at the applicable times specified in Revision 1 of the
service bulletin.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''
No Reporting Requirement
(h) Although the service bulletins referenced in this AD specify
to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not
include that requirement.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)
(i)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Seattle
ACO, FAA, is authorized to approve AMOCs for this AD.
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for a repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, to make such findings.
Incorporation by Reference
(j) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be
done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2182,
dated July 12, 2001. This incorporation by reference was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go
to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Effective Date
(k) This amendment becomes effective on March 9, 2005.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 18, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-1724 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
