Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, DC-8-43, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; and DC-8-50, DC-8-60, DC-8-60F, DC-8-70, and DC-8-70F Series Airplanes, 43628-43631 [05-14684]

Download as PDF 43628 § 1731.4 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 144 / Thursday, July 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations Procedures for reporting. (a) Procedures for reporting. (1) Prompt report. An Enterprise shall report promptly mortgage fraud or possible mortgage fraud in writing to the Director in such format and under such notification procedures as prescribed by OFHEO. The report shall describe the mortgage fraud or possible mortgage fraud in detail sufficient under OFHEO guidance. The Enterprise, at the sole discretion of the Director, may be required to provide additional or continuing information in connection with such mortgage fraud. (2) Immediate report. In addition to reporting in writing under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, in any situation requiring immediate attention by OFHEO, an Enterprise shall report the mortgage fraud or possible mortgage fraud to the Director by telephone or electronic communication. (b) Retention of records. An Enterprise shall maintain a copy of any report submitted to the Director and the original or business record equivalent of any supporting documentation for a period of five years from the date of submission. (c) Nondisclosure. An Enterprise may not disclose, without the prior written approval of the Director, to the party or parties connected with the mortgage fraud or possible mortgage fraud that it has reported such fraud under this part. This restriction does not prohibit an Enterprise from— (1) Disclosing or reporting such fraud pursuant to legal requirements, including reporting to appropriate law enforcement or other governmental authorities; or (2) Taking any legal or business action it may deem appropriate, including any action involving the party or parties connected with the mortgage fraud or possible mortgage fraud. (d) Acceptance of other forms. The Director may, upon written notice to each Enterprise, accept reports of mortgage fraud or possible mortgage fraud in formats promulgated by any Federal agency that has jurisdiction over the reporting of mortgage fraud or possible mortgage fraud by the Enterprises. (e) No waiver of privilege. An Enterprise does not waive any privilege it may claim under law by reporting mortgage fraud or possible mortgage fraud under this part. § 1731.5 Internal controls, procedures, and training. An Enterprise shall establish adequate and efficient internal controls and procedures and an operational training program to assure an effective system to VerDate jul<14>2003 14:10 Jul 27, 2005 Jkt 205001 detect and report mortgage fraud or possible mortgage fraud under this part. § 1731.6 Supervisory action. Failure by an Enterprise to comply with §§ 1731.3, 1731.4, and 1731.5 may subject the Enterprise or the board members, officers, or employees thereof to supervisory action by OFHEO under the Federal Housing Enterprises Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.), including but not limited to, cease-and-desist proceedings and civil money penalties. Dated: July 25, 2005. Stephen A. Blumenthal, Acting Director, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. [FR Doc. 05–14957 Filed 7–27–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4220–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 2001–NM–343–AD; Amendment 39–14203; AD 2005–15–14] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC–8–11, DC–8–12, DC–8–21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, DC–8– 33, DC–8–41, DC–8–42, DC–8–43, DC– 8F–54, and DC–8F–55 Airplanes; and DC–8–50, DC–8–60, DC–8–60F, DC–8– 70, and DC–8–70F Series Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas airplane models. This AD requires a one-time test to determine the material of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing, and corrective actions if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent stress corrosion cracking in the forward tang of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing, which could result in structural damage to adjacent components of the wing and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. DATES: Effective September 1, 2005. The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 1, 2005. ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800– 0024). 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 FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California. Jon Mowery, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5322; fax (562) 627–5210. 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 certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–8–11, DC–8–12, DC– 8–21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, DC–8–33, DC–8–41, DC–8–42, DC–8–43, DC–8F– 54, and DC–8F–55 airplanes; and DC–8– 50, DC–8–60, DC–8–60F, DC–8–70, and DC–8–70F series airplanes; was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2003 (68 FR 48576). For certain airplanes, that action proposed to require a one-time test to determine the material of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing, or a one-time inspection to determine if the slant panel cap has been repaired previously. For most airplanes, this action also proposed to require a one-time inspection for corrosion of the slant panel cap of the wing leading edge assembly, and follow-on actions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 from a single commenter, who is the airplane manufacturer. Request To Add Conductivity Test for Group 2 Airplanes The commenter requests that we revise paragraph (a) of the proposed AD to add Group 2 airplanes, as identified in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–57–072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995. (Paragraph (a) of the proposed AD specifies that the actions in that paragraph apply to airplanes in Group 1 of that service bulletin.) The commenter points out that Group 1 airplanes are those that do not have a E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 144 / Thursday, July 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations previous repair on the upper inboard spar cap. Group 2 airplanes are those airplanes modified previously under Condition 2 of the referenced service bulletin, or certain Service Rework Drawings. The commenter states that Group 2 airplanes should be added to paragraph (a) to ensure that all subject airplanes are inspected. We agree. The proposed AD separated requirements for Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes into paragraphs (a) (for airplanes in Group 1) and (b) (for airplanes in Group 2). The difference between the two paragraphs is that no conductivity test was specified for airplanes in Group 2. However, not providing the option to perform the conductivity test on Group 2 airplanes could result in airplanes being subject to unnecessary requirements if the upper inboard spar cap is made from 7075– T73 material. Thus, we have revised paragraph (a) of this final rule to specify the conductivity test for all affected airplanes. We have also included a new paragraph (b) to state that, for airplanes in Group 2, accomplishing the modification in paragraph (a)(2) of this AD without accomplishing the one-time eddy current conductivity test to determine the material of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing is acceptable for compliance with this AD. Request To Defer Requirements for Group 3 Airplanes The commenter states that no action is necessary for Group 3 airplanes, as identified in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–57–072 R03, Revision 03, until McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30 has been accomplished. The commenter points out that replacing the slant panel cap of the wing leading edge is not necessary to address the unsafe condition (an issue which is discussed fully later on in this final rule), and McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–57–072 R03, Revision 03, provides for deferral of the other action specified for Group 3 airplanes in the following statement: ‘‘Modification of the front spar stiffeners is to provide compatibility with rework of the lower spar cap rework per DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30, Revision 4[,] and may be deferred until accomplishing DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30.’’ However, in the section ‘‘Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Information’’ of the proposed AD, the FAA states that the proposed AD would not allow this deferral. The commenter states that if McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30 is done, McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–57–072 will be necessary for compatibility. VerDate jul<14>2003 14:10 Jul 27, 2005 Jkt 205001 We infer that the commenter is requesting that we reinstate the deferral of action for airplanes in Group 3 until DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30 is accomplished. We agree for the reasons stated by the commenter. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (c) of this final rule to state that, for Group 3 airplanes as identified in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–57–072 R03, Revision 03, the actions specified by paragraph (a) of this AD are not required until the actions specified in McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30 are accomplished, or within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. If the actions specified in McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30 have been accomplished before the effective date of the AD, the actions required by paragraph (a) of this AD must be accomplished within 48 months after the effective date of this AD. Request To Remove Requirements for Slant Panel Cap The commenter requests changes throughout the proposed AD to remove requirements that would apply to the slant panel cap of the wing leading edge. The commenter notes that the unsafe condition is stress corrosion cracking of upper inboard spar caps made of 7079–T6 material. The commenter states that the only time that an inspection of the slant panel cap is needed is during the modification of the upper inboard spar cap. The commenter points out that, in paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed AD, if the test reveals that the upper inboard spar cap is made from 7075–T73 material, then the proposed AD should specify that no further action is needed. The commenter also notes that paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of the proposed AD should be revised to note that the inspection of the slant panel cap for corrosion and previous repairs is needed to determine what modification configuration applies. The steps of repairing corrosion and repairing or replacing the slant panel cap, as applicable, are not relevant and should not be included. The commenter points out that the slant panel cap can be repaired separately from the service bulletin without affecting the actions required by this proposed AD for the upper inboard spar cap. We agree with the commenter’s request to remove actions that would have applied to the slant panel cap. Including these actions in this AD would place an unnecessary burden on affected operators, and would not benefit safety as it relates to the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. Accordingly, we have revised paragraph PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 43629 (a)(1) of this final rule to state that, if the upper inboard spar cap is made from 7075–T73 material, no further action is needed. We have also revised paragraph (a)(2) to remove the instructions to inspect for corrosion or previous repairs, and repair or replace the slant panel cap. (Inspecting for corrosion or previous repairs to determine the condition that applies is incidental to accomplishing the required actions.) Paragraph (a)(2) now explains that the procedures in the service bulletin include trimming the forward tang of the upper inboard spar cap, installing a spar cap angle doubler and stiffener clips, installing a wing upper surface doubler, and trimming the front spar stiffeners, as applicable. (As explained previously, the information in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposed AD does not appear in this final rule, so we have not changed paragraphs (b) and (c) of this final rule in this regard.) We have also revised the Summary section to state that this AD requires a one-time test to determine the material of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing; and corrective actions if necessary. We have also revised the Cost Impact estimate in this AD accordingly. Request To Allow Conductivity Test Without Removing Leading Edge The commenter requests that we revise the proposed AD to allow the conductivity test to determine the material of the upper inboard spar cap to be performed without removing the wing leading edge. The commenter notes that the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specify that the leading edge must be removed. However, the manufacturer has received requests from operators to allow the test to be done without removing the leading edge. The commenter states that it is possible to access the upper inboard spar cap through the leading edge access doors (on certain airplane models), through the center wing fuel tank, or through the fuselage, without removing the wing leading edge. We agree with the commenter’s request. We have revised paragraph (a) of this final rule to allow the conductivity test to be performed without removing the wing leading edge. Request To Revise Applicability The commenter notes that the Discussion paragraph of the proposed AD states that, ‘‘The FAA has received reports indicating that cracking has been found in the forward tang of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–8–70 E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1 43630 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 144 / Thursday, July 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations series airplanes.’’ The commenter states that this statement must be revised because all Model DC–8 airplanes need to be inspected because the engineering order that changed the material of the upper inboard spar cap (from 7079–T6 material to 7075–T73 material) allowed installing upper inboard spar caps made from 7079–T6 material until spares were exhausted. Thus, upper inboard spar caps were installed randomly through the fleet. The commenter states that the effectivity listing of the referenced service bulletin correctly identifies affected airplanes. We acknowledge the commenter’s concerns. The section of the proposed AD referenced by the commenter states that cracking was found on the upper inboard spar cap of the wing on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–8–70 series airplanes. This is not intended to imply that only Model DC–8–70 series airplanes are subject to the proposed AD. Indeed, the applicability section of this AD, as proposed, identifies ‘‘Model DC–8–11, DC–8–12, DC–8–21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, DC–8–33, DC–8–41, DC–8–42, DC–8–43, DC–8–51, DC–8–52, DC–8–53, DC–8–55, DC–8F–54, DC–8F–55, DC–8– 61, DC–8–62, DC–8–63, DC–8–61F, DC– 8–62F, DC–8–63F, DC–8–71, DC–8–72, DC–8–73, DC–8–71F, DC–8–72F, and DC–8–73F airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–57–072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995.’’ We find that this applicability statement includes all airplanes that should be subject to this AD. In addition, we note that the Discussion section is not restated in the final rule. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Explanation of Additional Changes Made to This AD We have revised paragraph (a) of this AD to refer specifically to McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–57–072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995, instead of referring to ‘‘the service bulletin.’’ Also, Boeing has received a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA). We have revised paragraph (e)(2) of this AD to delegate the authority to approve an alternative method of compliance for any repair required by this AD to the Authorized Representative for the Boeing DOA Organization rather than the Designated Engineering Representative (DER). We have revised compliance times in this AD to be stated in months (48 months after the effective date of this AD) instead of in years (4 years after the effective date of this AD). VerDate jul<14>2003 14:10 Jul 27, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 303 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 229 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. The electrical conductivity test will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane, at the average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $14,885, or $65 per airplane. For airplanes subject to corrective action, the modification will take between 110 and 416 work hours per airplane, at the average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $4,554 and $19,687. Based on these figures, the cost impact of these actions is estimated to be between $11,704 and $46,727 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 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 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: I 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 2005–15–14 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39–14203. Docket 2001– NM–343–AD. Applicability: Model DC–8–11, DC–8–12, DC–8–21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, DC–8–33, DC– 8–41, DC–8–42, DC–8–43, DC–8–51, DC–8– 52, DC–8–53, DC–8–55, DC–8F–54, DC–8F– 55, DC–8–61, DC–8–62, DC–8–63, DC–8–61F, DC–8–62F, DC–8–63F, DC–8–71, DC–8–72, E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 144 / Thursday, July 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations DC–8–73, DC–8–71F, DC–8–72F, and DC–8– 73F airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–57–072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995. Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. To prevent stress corrosion cracking in the forward tang of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing, which could result in structural damage to adjacent components of the wing and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following: Inspection and Investigative and Other Specified Actions (a) Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, except as provided by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this AD, perform a one-time eddy current conductivity test of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing to determine the type of material, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8– 57–072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995. Although the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specify that it is necessary to remove the wing leading edge to perform this test, this AD does not require removing the wing leading edge to access the upper inboard spar cap. The conductivity test can be accomplished through the access panels on the lower surface of the wing leading edge, through the main fuel tank, or through the fuselage at station 680, as applicable. (1) If the test reveals that the upper inboard spar cap is made from 7075–T73 material (as defined in the service bulletin): No further action is required by this paragraph. (2) If the test reveals that the upper inboard spar cap is made from 7079–T6 material: Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (c) of this AD, accomplish the modification specified in the service bulletin, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. The procedures specified in the service bulletin include determining the condition that applies, trimming the forward tang of the upper inboard spar cap, installing a spar cap angle doubler and stiffener clips, installing wing upper surface doublers, and trimming the front spar stiffeners, as applicable. Group 2 Airplanes: Waiver of Conductivity Test (b) For airplanes in Group 2 as defined by McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8– 57–072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995: In lieu of accomplishing the one-time eddy current conductivity test to determine the material of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing required by paragraph (a) of this AD, accomplishing the modification in paragraph (a)(2) of this AD within the compliance time specified in that paragraph is acceptable for compliance with this AD. Group 3 Airplanes: Inspection and Modification (c) For airplanes in Group 3 as defined by McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8– 57–072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995: The actions specified by paragraph (a) of this AD are not required until the actions VerDate jul<14>2003 14:10 Jul 27, 2005 Jkt 205001 specified in McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30 are accomplished. If the actions specified in McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30 have not been accomplished before the effective date of the AD, the actions required by paragraph (a) of this AD must be accomplished concurrent with McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30 (if McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30 is accomplished), or within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. If the actions specified in McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–30 have been accomplished before the effective date of the AD, the actions required by paragraph (a) of this AD must be accomplished within 48 months after the effective date of this AD. Accomplishing Certain Actions Constitutes Compliance With AD 90–16–05 (d) Accomplishment of the action(s) required by this AD constitutes compliance with the inspections required by paragraph A. of AD 90–16–05, amendment 39–6614, as it pertains to McDonnell Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 57–72, Revision 2, dated July 16, 1971; and McDonnell Douglas DC– 8 Service Bulletin 57–34, Revision 3, dated December 29, 1970. Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD does not terminate the remaining requirements of AD 90–16–05 as it applies to other service bulletins; operators are required to continue to inspect and/or modify in accordance with the other service bulletins listed in that AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (e)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) for this AD. (2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any 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, Los Angeles ACO, to make such 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. Incorporation by Reference (f) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions must be done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8– 57–072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995. 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. To get copies of this service information, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–0024). To inspect copies of this service information, go to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or to the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 43631 the availability of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to http://www. archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal _regulations/ibr_locations.html. Effective Date (g) This amendment becomes effective on September 1, 2005. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 20, 2005. Kevin M. Mullin, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 05–14684 Filed 7–27–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2005–20138; Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–167–AD; Amendment 39–14204; AD 2005–15–15] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757–200, –200PF, and –200CB Series Airplanes Equipped With Pratt & Whitney or Rolls-Royce Engines Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 757–200, –200PF, and –200CB series airplanes. This AD requires inspecting to determine the part number of the upper link forward fuse pins of the engine struts and replacing the fuse pins as necessary. This AD is prompted by a report indicating that, due to an incorrect listing in the illustrated parts catalog, persons performing maintenance on the engine strut(s) could have installed an incorrect upper link forward fuse pin. We are issuing this AD to prevent a ruptured wing box, due to the engine not separating safely during certain emergency landing conditions, which could lead to a fuel spill and consequent fire. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 1, 2005. The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 1, 2005. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Docket: The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any final E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 144 (Thursday, July 28, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43628-43631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14684]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NM-343-AD; Amendment 39-14203; AD 2005-15-14]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-
12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, DC-8-43, DC-
8F-54, and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; and DC-8-50, DC-8-60, DC-8-60F, DC-8-70, 
and DC-8-70F Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation 
(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas airplane models. This AD 
requires a one-time test to determine the material of the upper inboard 
spar cap of the wing, and corrective actions if necessary. This action 
is necessary to prevent stress corrosion cracking in the forward tang 
of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing, which could result in 
structural damage to adjacent components of the wing and consequent 
reduced structural integrity of the airplane. This action is intended 
to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective September 1, 2005.
    The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of September 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and 
Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). 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 FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Mowery, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; 
telephone (562) 627-5322; fax (562) 627-5210.

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 certain McDonnell Douglas Model 
DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, 
DC-8-43, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 airplanes; and DC-8-50, DC-8-60, DC-8-
60F, DC-8-70, and DC-8-70F series airplanes; was published in the 
Federal Register on August 14, 2003 (68 FR 48576). For certain 
airplanes, that action proposed to require a one-time test to determine 
the material of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing, or a one-time 
inspection to determine if the slant panel cap has been repaired 
previously. For most airplanes, this action also proposed to require a 
one-time inspection for corrosion of the slant panel cap of the wing 
leading edge assembly, and follow-on actions.

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 from a single commenter, who is the airplane 
manufacturer.

Request To Add Conductivity Test for Group 2 Airplanes

    The commenter requests that we revise paragraph (a) of the proposed 
AD to add Group 2 airplanes, as identified in McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995. (Paragraph 
(a) of the proposed AD specifies that the actions in that paragraph 
apply to airplanes in Group 1 of that service bulletin.) The commenter 
points out that Group 1 airplanes are those that do not have a

[[Page 43629]]

previous repair on the upper inboard spar cap. Group 2 airplanes are 
those airplanes modified previously under Condition 2 of the referenced 
service bulletin, or certain Service Rework Drawings. The commenter 
states that Group 2 airplanes should be added to paragraph (a) to 
ensure that all subject airplanes are inspected.
    We agree. The proposed AD separated requirements for Group 1 and 
Group 2 airplanes into paragraphs (a) (for airplanes in Group 1) and 
(b) (for airplanes in Group 2). The difference between the two 
paragraphs is that no conductivity test was specified for airplanes in 
Group 2. However, not providing the option to perform the conductivity 
test on Group 2 airplanes could result in airplanes being subject to 
unnecessary requirements if the upper inboard spar cap is made from 
7075-T73 material. Thus, we have revised paragraph (a) of this final 
rule to specify the conductivity test for all affected airplanes. We 
have also included a new paragraph (b) to state that, for airplanes in 
Group 2, accomplishing the modification in paragraph (a)(2) of this AD 
without accomplishing the one-time eddy current conductivity test to 
determine the material of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing is 
acceptable for compliance with this AD.

Request To Defer Requirements for Group 3 Airplanes

    The commenter states that no action is necessary for Group 3 
airplanes, as identified in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-
072 R03, Revision 03, until McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-
30 has been accomplished. The commenter points out that replacing the 
slant panel cap of the wing leading edge is not necessary to address 
the unsafe condition (an issue which is discussed fully later on in 
this final rule), and McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 
R03, Revision 03, provides for deferral of the other action specified 
for Group 3 airplanes in the following statement:

    ``Modification of the front spar stiffeners is to provide 
compatibility with rework of the lower spar cap rework per DC-8 
Service Bulletin 57-30, Revision 4[,] and may be deferred until 
accomplishing DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-30.''

However, in the section ``Differences Between Proposed AD and Service 
Information'' of the proposed AD, the FAA states that the proposed AD 
would not allow this deferral. The commenter states that if McDonnell 
Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-30 is done, McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC8-57-072 will be necessary for compatibility.
    We infer that the commenter is requesting that we reinstate the 
deferral of action for airplanes in Group 3 until DC-8 Service Bulletin 
57-30 is accomplished. We agree for the reasons stated by the 
commenter. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (c) of this final rule 
to state that, for Group 3 airplanes as identified in McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, the actions specified by 
paragraph (a) of this AD are not required until the actions specified 
in McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-30 are accomplished, or 
within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is 
later. If the actions specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service 
Bulletin 57-30 have been accomplished before the effective date of the 
AD, the actions required by paragraph (a) of this AD must be 
accomplished within 48 months after the effective date of this AD.

Request To Remove Requirements for Slant Panel Cap

    The commenter requests changes throughout the proposed AD to remove 
requirements that would apply to the slant panel cap of the wing 
leading edge. The commenter notes that the unsafe condition is stress 
corrosion cracking of upper inboard spar caps made of 7079-T6 material. 
The commenter states that the only time that an inspection of the slant 
panel cap is needed is during the modification of the upper inboard 
spar cap. The commenter points out that, in paragraph (a)(1) of the 
proposed AD, if the test reveals that the upper inboard spar cap is 
made from 7075-T73 material, then the proposed AD should specify that 
no further action is needed. The commenter also notes that paragraphs 
(a)(2) and (b) of the proposed AD should be revised to note that the 
inspection of the slant panel cap for corrosion and previous repairs is 
needed to determine what modification configuration applies. The steps 
of repairing corrosion and repairing or replacing the slant panel cap, 
as applicable, are not relevant and should not be included. The 
commenter points out that the slant panel cap can be repaired 
separately from the service bulletin without affecting the actions 
required by this proposed AD for the upper inboard spar cap.
    We agree with the commenter's request to remove actions that would 
have applied to the slant panel cap. Including these actions in this AD 
would place an unnecessary burden on affected operators, and would not 
benefit safety as it relates to the unsafe condition addressed by this 
AD. Accordingly, we have revised paragraph (a)(1) of this final rule to 
state that, if the upper inboard spar cap is made from 7075-T73 
material, no further action is needed. We have also revised paragraph 
(a)(2) to remove the instructions to inspect for corrosion or previous 
repairs, and repair or replace the slant panel cap. (Inspecting for 
corrosion or previous repairs to determine the condition that applies 
is incidental to accomplishing the required actions.) Paragraph (a)(2) 
now explains that the procedures in the service bulletin include 
trimming the forward tang of the upper inboard spar cap, installing a 
spar cap angle doubler and stiffener clips, installing a wing upper 
surface doubler, and trimming the front spar stiffeners, as applicable. 
(As explained previously, the information in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
the proposed AD does not appear in this final rule, so we have not 
changed paragraphs (b) and (c) of this final rule in this regard.) We 
have also revised the Summary section to state that this AD requires a 
one-time test to determine the material of the upper inboard spar cap 
of the wing; and corrective actions if necessary. We have also revised 
the Cost Impact estimate in this AD accordingly.

Request To Allow Conductivity Test Without Removing Leading Edge

    The commenter requests that we revise the proposed AD to allow the 
conductivity test to determine the material of the upper inboard spar 
cap to be performed without removing the wing leading edge. The 
commenter notes that the Accomplishment Instructions of the service 
bulletin specify that the leading edge must be removed. However, the 
manufacturer has received requests from operators to allow the test to 
be done without removing the leading edge. The commenter states that it 
is possible to access the upper inboard spar cap through the leading 
edge access doors (on certain airplane models), through the center wing 
fuel tank, or through the fuselage, without removing the wing leading 
edge.
    We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph 
(a) of this final rule to allow the conductivity test to be performed 
without removing the wing leading edge.

Request To Revise Applicability

    The commenter notes that the Discussion paragraph of the proposed 
AD states that, ``The FAA has received reports indicating that cracking 
has been found in the forward tang of the upper inboard spar cap of the 
wing on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-70

[[Page 43630]]

series airplanes.'' The commenter states that this statement must be 
revised because all Model DC-8 airplanes need to be inspected because 
the engineering order that changed the material of the upper inboard 
spar cap (from 7079-T6 material to 7075-T73 material) allowed 
installing upper inboard spar caps made from 7079-T6 material until 
spares were exhausted. Thus, upper inboard spar caps were installed 
randomly through the fleet. The commenter states that the effectivity 
listing of the referenced service bulletin correctly identifies 
affected airplanes.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. The section of the 
proposed AD referenced by the commenter states that cracking was found 
on the upper inboard spar cap of the wing on certain McDonnell Douglas 
Model DC-8-70 series airplanes. This is not intended to imply that only 
Model DC-8-70 series airplanes are subject to the proposed AD. Indeed, 
the applicability section of this AD, as proposed, identifies ``Model 
DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, 
DC-8-43, DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, DC-8F-55, DC-8-
61, DC-8-62, DC-8-63, DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-72, 
DC-8-73, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes; certificated in 
any category; as identified in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-
57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995.'' We find that this 
applicability statement includes all airplanes that should be subject 
to this AD. In addition, we note that the Discussion section is not 
restated in the final rule. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Explanation of Additional Changes Made to This AD

    We have revised paragraph (a) of this AD to refer specifically to 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated 
October 2, 1995, instead of referring to ``the service bulletin.''
    Also, Boeing has received a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA). 
We have revised paragraph (e)(2) of this AD to delegate the authority 
to approve an alternative method of compliance for any repair required 
by this AD to the Authorized Representative for the Boeing DOA 
Organization rather than the Designated Engineering Representative 
(DER).
    We have revised compliance times in this AD to be stated in months 
(48 months after the effective date of this AD) instead of in years (4 
years after the effective date of this AD).

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 303 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 229 airplanes of U.S. registry 
will be affected by this AD.
    The electrical conductivity test will take approximately 1 work 
hour per airplane, at the average labor rate of $65 per work hour. 
Based on these figures, the cost impact of this inspection on U.S. 
operators is estimated to be $14,885, or $65 per airplane.
    For airplanes subject to corrective action, the modification will 
take between 110 and 416 work hours per airplane, at the average labor 
rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $4,554 and 
$19,687. Based on these figures, the cost impact of these actions is 
estimated to be between $11,704 and $46,727 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

    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 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:

2005-15-14 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-14203. Docket 2001-NM-
343-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-
32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, DC-8-43, DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, 
DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, DC-8F-55, DC-8-61, DC-8-62, DC-8-63, DC-8-61F, 
DC-8-62F, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-72,

[[Page 43631]]

DC-8-73, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes; certificated in 
any category; as identified in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent stress corrosion cracking in the forward tang of the 
upper inboard spar cap of the wing, which could result in structural 
damage to adjacent components of the wing and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:

Inspection and Investigative and Other Specified Actions

    (a) Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, except 
as provided by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this AD, perform a one-time 
eddy current conductivity test of the upper inboard spar cap of the 
wing to determine the type of material, in accordance with the 
Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995. Although the 
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specify that it 
is necessary to remove the wing leading edge to perform this test, 
this AD does not require removing the wing leading edge to access 
the upper inboard spar cap. The conductivity test can be 
accomplished through the access panels on the lower surface of the 
wing leading edge, through the main fuel tank, or through the 
fuselage at station 680, as applicable.
    (1) If the test reveals that the upper inboard spar cap is made 
from 7075-T73 material (as defined in the service bulletin): No 
further action is required by this paragraph.
    (2) If the test reveals that the upper inboard spar cap is made 
from 7079-T6 material: Within 48 months after the effective date of 
this AD, except as provided by paragraph (c) of this AD, accomplish 
the modification specified in the service bulletin, in accordance 
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. The 
procedures specified in the service bulletin include determining the 
condition that applies, trimming the forward tang of the upper 
inboard spar cap, installing a spar cap angle doubler and stiffener 
clips, installing wing upper surface doublers, and trimming the 
front spar stiffeners, as applicable.

Group 2 Airplanes: Waiver of Conductivity Test

    (b) For airplanes in Group 2 as defined by McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995: 
In lieu of accomplishing the one-time eddy current conductivity test 
to determine the material of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing 
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, accomplishing the modification 
in paragraph (a)(2) of this AD within the compliance time specified 
in that paragraph is acceptable for compliance with this AD.

Group 3 Airplanes: Inspection and Modification

    (c) For airplanes in Group 3 as defined by McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995: 
The actions specified by paragraph (a) of this AD are not required 
until the actions specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service 
Bulletin 57-30 are accomplished. If the actions specified in 
McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-30 have not been 
accomplished before the effective date of the AD, the actions 
required by paragraph (a) of this AD must be accomplished concurrent 
with McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-30 (if McDonnell 
Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-30 is accomplished), or within 48 
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. If 
the actions specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-
30 have been accomplished before the effective date of the AD, the 
actions required by paragraph (a) of this AD must be accomplished 
within 48 months after the effective date of this AD.

Accomplishing Certain Actions Constitutes Compliance With AD 90-16-05

    (d) Accomplishment of the action(s) required by this AD 
constitutes compliance with the inspections required by paragraph A. 
of AD 90-16-05, amendment 39-6614, as it pertains to McDonnell 
Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-72, Revision 2, dated July 16, 
1971; and McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-34, Revision 3, 
dated December 29, 1970. Accomplishment of the actions required by 
this AD does not terminate the remaining requirements of AD 90-16-05 
as it applies to other service bulletins; operators are required to 
continue to inspect and/or modify in accordance with the other 
service bulletins listed in that AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (e)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is authorized to approve 
alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) for this AD.
    (2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used for any 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, 
Los Angeles ACO, to make such 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.

Incorporation by Reference

    (f) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions must be 
done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-
072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995. 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. To get copies of 
this service information, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long 
Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 
90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-
0024). To inspect copies of this service information, go to the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington; or to the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or to the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information 
on the availability of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code
_of_federal_regulations/ibr_ locations. html.

Effective Date

    (g) This amendment becomes effective on September 1, 2005.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 20, 2005.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-14684 Filed 7-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P