Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes, 54612-54616 [05-18313]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
54612
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
shall be made for a term of at least
twenty (20) years. In any case, samples
must be stored under agreements that
would make them available to the Office
during the enforceable life of the
certificate for which the deposit was
made.
(g) Viability of deposit. A deposit of
biological material that is capable of
self-replication either directly or
indirectly must be viable at the time of
deposit and during the term of deposit.
Viability may be tested by the
depository periodically. The test must
conclude only that the deposited
material is capable of reproduction. No
evidence necessarily is required
regarding the ability of the deposited
material to perform any function
described in the application. If a
viability test indicates that the deposit
is not viable upon receipt or that the
quantity of material is insufficient, the
examiner shall proceed as if no deposit
was made. The examiner will accept the
conclusion set forth in a viability
statement issued by a depository
recognized under paragraph 97.7(c).
(h) Furnishing of samples. A deposit
must be made under conditions that
assure that:
(1) Public access to the deposit will
not be available during pendency of the
application or during the term of
protection, and
(2) All restrictions on the availability
to the public of the deposited material
will be irrevocably removed upon the
abandonment, cancellation, expiration,
or withdrawal of the certificate.
(i) Examination procedures. The
examiner shall determine, prior to
issuance of the certificate, in each
application if a voucher sample deposit
actually made is acceptable for plant
variety protection purposes.
I 4. Section 97.175 is revised to read as
follows:
(h) Correcting or re-issuance of a
certificate—$518.00.
(i) Recording an assignment, any
revision of an assignment, or
withdrawal or revocation of an
assignment (per certificate or
application)—$41.00.
(j) Copies of 8 x 10 photographs in
color—$41.00.
(k) Additional fee for
reconsideration—$518.00.
(l) Additional fee for late payment—
$41.00.
(m) Fee for handling replenishment
seed sample (applicable only for
certificates issued after June 20, 2005)—
$38.00.
(n) Additional fee for late
replenishment of seed—$41.00.
(o) Filing a petition for protest
proceeding—$4,118.00.
(p) Appeal to Secretary (refundable if
appeal overturns the Commissioner’s
decision)—$4,942.00.
(q) Granting of extensions for
responding to a request—$89.00.
(r) Field inspections by a
representative of the Plant Variety
Protection Office, made at the request of
the applicant, shall be reimbursable in
full (including travel, per diem or
subsistence, and salary) in accordance
with Standardized Government Travel
Regulation.
(s) Any other service not covered
above will be charged for at rates
prescribed by the Commissioner, but in
no event shall they exceed $107.00 per
employee-hour. Charges also will be
made for materials, space, and
administrative costs.
§ 97.175
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Fees and charges.
The following fees and charges apply
to the services and actions specified
below:
(a) Filing the application and
notifying the public of filing—$518.00.
(b) Search or examination—$3,864.00.
(c) Submission of new application
data, after notice of allowance, prior to
issuance of certificate—$432.00.
(d) Allowance and issuance of
certificate and notifying public of
issuance—$768.00.
(e) Revive an abandoned
application—$518.00.
(f) Reproduction of records, drawings,
certificates, exhibits, or printed material
(cost per page of material)—$1.80.
(g) Authentication (each page)—$1.80.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
Dated: September 13, 2005.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–18511 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–20364; Directorate
Identifier 2004–NM–186–AD; Amendment
39–14274; AD 2005–19–09]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 747 Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Boeing Model 747 airplanes. This AD
requires repetitive inspections of the
dual side braces (DSBs), underwing
midspar fittings, and associated parts;
other specified actions; and corrective
actions if necessary. This AD also
provides an optional terminating action
for the inspections and other specified
actions. This AD is prompted by reports
of corroded, migrated, and rotated
bearings for the DSBs in the inboard and
outboard struts, a report of a fractured
retainer for the eccentric bushing for
one of the side links of a DSB, and
reports of wear and damage to the
underwing midspar fitting on the
outboard strut. We are issuing this AD
to prevent the loss of a DSB or
underwing midspar fitting load path,
which could result in the transfer of
loads and motion to other areas of a
strut, and possible separation of a strut
and engine from the airplane during
flight.
DATES: This AD becomes effective
October 21, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of a
certain publication listed in the AD is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of October 21, 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
disposition. You can examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket
Management Facility office between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Management Facility office
(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building at
the U.S. Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street SW., room PL–401,
Washington, DC. This docket number is
FAA–2005–20364; the directorate
identifier for this docket is 2004–NM–
186–AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan
Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055–4056; telephone (425) 917–6437;
fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA
proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with
an AD for certain Boeing Model 747
airplanes. That action, published in the
Federal Register on February 14, 2005
(70 FR 7446), proposed to require
repetitive inspections of the dual side
braces (DSBs), underwing midspar
fittings, and associated parts; other
specified actions; and corrective actions
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
if necessary. That action also provides
an optional terminating action for the
inspections and other specified actions.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments that have
been submitted on the proposed AD.
Support for the Proposed AD
One commenter concurs with the
content of the proposed AD.
Requests to Refer to Revised Service
Bulletin and Give Credit for Prior Issue
One commenter asks that the
proposed AD reference Boeing Service
Bulletin 747–54A2218, Revision 1,
dated February 24, 2005. Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747–54A2218, dated
June 17, 2004, was referenced in the
proposed AD as the appropriate source
of service information for accomplishing
the specified actions. The commenter
states that Revision 1 specifies that no
more work is necessary on airplanes
changed per the original issue of the
service bulletin. The commenter also
asks that we give credit for actions done
in accordance with the original issue of
the service bulletin. The commenter
notes that this will prevent additional
work for the Civil Aviation Authorities
that would necessitate approving
Revision 1 as an alternative method of
compliance. The commenter adds that
the revised information specified in
Revision 1 may be helpful for operators
in accomplishing the actions required
by the proposed AD. A second
commenter asks that credit be given for
the initial inspection done in
accordance with the original issue of the
service bulletin.
We agree with the commenters. We
have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin
747–54A2218, Revision 1, dated
February 24, 2005. The instructions in
Revision 1 are essentially the same as
those in the original issue of the service
bulletin. Accordingly, we have revised
this AD to refer to Revision 1 of the
service bulletin in the applicability
section and as the applicable source of
service information for accomplishing
the actions required by this AD. We
have also added a new paragraph (i)
(and re-identified subsequent
paragraphs accordingly) to give credit
for actions accomplished before the
effective date of this AD in accordance
with the original issue of the service
bulletin.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
Requests to Remove/Delay Check for an
Insufficient Gap/Delay Corrective
Actions
One commenter questions why the
check for an insufficient gap between
the underwing midspar fitting and the
strut midspar fitting is necessary if no
discrepancies are found during the
proposed inspections of the dual side
brace (DSB) bearings. The commenter
states that it was both surprising and
disappointing to learn of reported
interference between the underwing
midspar fitting and the adjacent strut
midspar fitting. The commenter states
that, while recognizing that corrective
actions should be accomplished only if
conditions warrant such actions, any
future adopted rule should consider the
inclusion of options that will enable
corrective actions to occur during
planned D-check visits to minimize
unplanned out-of-service situations. The
commenter notes that the proposed AD
includes a check for an insufficient gap
between those fittings within 24
months. The commenter concludes that
the check for an insufficient gap
between those fittings should only be
required if discrepancies are found
during the inspection of the DSB
bearings per Parts 1 and 2 of the
referenced service bulletin.
A second commenter asks that
paragraph (f) of the proposed AD be
changed to postpone the requirement for
accomplishing the corrective actions per
Parts 3, 5, and 6 of the referenced
service bulletin, if an insufficient gap is
found per Part 4. The commenter states
that those actions can be performed at
its first FD-check, and until the actions
are performed, the spring beam/wing
fitting joint and DSB fitting can be
inspected per the baseline inspection
task specified in Boeing Service Bulletin
747–54A2182, Revision 1, dated January
8, 2004, but at a 3A interval. That
service bulletin describes procedures for
certain baseline inspections of the strutto-wing attachment structure. The
commenter adds that it has performed
wing pylon modifications on more than
50 airplanes per Boeing Alert Service
Bulletins 747–54A2156 (referenced in
AD 95–13–06, amendment 39–9286, as
the appropriate source of service
information for modification of the
nacelle strut and wing) and 747–
54A2158 (referenced in AD 95–13–07,
amendment 39–9287, as the appropriate
source of service information for
modification of the nacelle strut and
wing), concurrently with Boeing Service
Bulletin 747–57–2246, Revision 5, dated
July 17, 1997. Boeing Service Bulletin
747–57–2246 describes procedures for
modification of the nacelle strut
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54613
attachment fittings. The commenter
notes that Service Bulletin 747–57–2246
also describes procedures for checking
the surface wear on the underwing
fittings of the outboard pylon midspar
that were caused by interference with
the spring beam flanged bushings, and
removal of any damage by spotfacing.
The commenter states that only four of
its airplanes required the spotfaces to be
larger than what was allowed in the
service bulletin, and the larger spotfaces
were approved by the FAA. The
commenter adds that cracks were never
found in the wear/spotface area;
however, several of the 50 airplanes
must have had the insufficient gap
condition for many years. The
commenter concludes that if additional
surface damage occurs on the
underwing midspar fittings, it would be
detected in a timely manner when
performing the proposed inspections.
A third commenter, the airplane
manufacturer, states that it is concerned
with the comments regarding a no-gap
condition that may exist during
inspection, and the actions specified in
paragraph (f) of the proposed AD per
Parts 4, 5, and 6 of the referenced
service bulletin. The commenter adds
that a deferral for these actions may be
justified for a no-gap condition,
provided that no damage is found
during the Part 4 inspection. The
commenter’s position is based on fleet
history data with similar conditions, as
provided by other commenters. The
commenter may consider a change to
the referenced service bulletin upon a
recommended course of action, and will
advise us accordingly. The commenter
adds that we may choose to approve an
alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) on a case-by-case basis, at our
discretion.
We acknowledge the new information
provided by the commenters. The
airplane manufacturer has informed us
that it is planning to revise the service
bulletin to reflect this new information
by the end of 2005. Delaying this action
until after the release and approval of
the manufacturer’s planned service
bulletin is not warranted. We have
determined that the inspections must be
conducted to ensure continued
operational safety. When a new revision
of the service bulletin has been
developed, we will review that revision
and consider approving it as an
alternative method of compliance with
the requirements of this AD. In light of
this, we have determined that all the
actions required by this AD are
appropriate and warranted. No change
is made to the AD in this regard.
Additionally, insufficient technical
justification was provided by the
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
54614
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
commenters to justify delaying issuance
of the AD; however, if sufficient
technical justification is provided, we
may approve an AMOC, in accordance
with paragraph (j)(1) of the AD.
Requests to Change Costs of
Compliance Section/Extend Compliance
Time
One commenter states that we should
revise the Costs of Compliance section
that is specified in the preamble of the
proposed AD. The language in that
section states, ‘‘The following table
provides the estimated costs for U.S.
operators to comply with this proposed
AD.’’ The commenter notes that the
table provides the cost impact of the
required inspections, but offers no
estimate of the cost impact should an
inspection detect the specific
discrepancy that is the basis for the
proposal. The commenter states that it
is well aware that the FAA’s policy for
estimating the impact of proposed ADs
does not include publishing the impact
of aircraft re-routing, preparation,
access, correction of discrepancies
found, aircraft close-up, or return-toflight tests and procedures, often
categorizing them as ‘‘incidental’’
impacts. The commenter does not
support that policy. The commenter
states that, in this particular proposal,
the impact of the man hours necessary
for accomplishing the corrective action
alone can be an order-of-magnitude
greater than the per airplane cost
published for comment. The commenter
asks us to consider adopting a policy for
proposed ADs that consistently states
the per airplane impact of the
prescribed corrective action in cases
where that action is found necessary.
A second commenter states that it will
be subjected to a huge economic impact
when accomplishing the actions
specified in the proposed AD, per the
referenced service bulletin, due to the
mandatory status of the follow-up
inspections and modification after an
insufficient gap is found. The
commenter adds that the follow-up
inspections require engine and pylon
removal. The commenter lists, and we
respond to, the following factors that
will make the economic impact of the
proposed AD even greater:
1. Experience with the modification
specified in Part 3 of the referenced
service bulletin shows that one of the
DSB underwing fitting bolts may
interfere with the modification tool. If a
bolt interferes, it will have to be
removed. Removal of a bolt requires
removal of the WS 1140 rib to gain
access to the DSB underwing fitting bolt
for modification, which is a very timeconsuming job.
Since we issued the proposed AD,
this condition has not been reported by
any other operators. In addition,
accomplishing the modification is only
necessary if damage or cracking is
found, thus making it an on-condition
action and not part of the inspections
required by the AD.
2. The tooling kit specified in the
referenced service bulletin limits the
operator to modifying only one fitting
on one pylon at a time, and not two or
more pylons simultaneously. This
results in additional downtime when
more than one pylon must be modified.
As we stated previously,
accomplishing the modification is an
on-condition action. Obtaining the
tooling kits necessary for accomplishing
the modification should be addressed by
operators on a case-by-case basis.
3. The airplane manufacturer does not
seem ready to support so many
modifications with tooling and material
kits. Currently, the airplane
manufacturer does not have enough
tooling and material kits available to
support all operators in the 24-month
timeframe allowed for the modification.
We have no way of estimating how
many operators will be accomplishing
the on-condition modifications. The
airplane manufacturer has confirmed
that it will have the necessary tooling
and material kits available to complete
the on-condition actions required by the
AD.
A third commenter states that the
maintenance and economic impact of
the proposed AD could be significantly
greater than that specified in the ‘‘Costs
of Compliance’’ section. The commenter
notes that a review of labor estimates in
the referenced service bulletin revealed
that over 500 labor hours per airplane
may be required to perform the
necessary corrective actions if problems
exist at all four engine strut to wing
attachment locations. The commenter
adds that this would raise the labor cost
for compliance to over $30K per
airplane; additionally, material costs
total over $21K per airplane, plus
tooling rental charges in excess of $1K
per day are expected.
We do not agree with the commenters
that request changing the work hours in
this AD, because the AD reflects only
the direct costs of the specific required
actions based on the best data available
from the manufacturer. We recognize
that operators may incur incidental
costs (such as the time for planning and
associated administrative actions) in
addition to the direct costs. The cost
analysis in ADs, however, typically does
not include incidental costs.
The 24-month compliance time for
the initial inspection required by this
AD should allow ample time for the
majority of affected operators to do the
required actions at the same time as
scheduled major airplane inspection
and maintenance activities, which
would reduce the additional time and
costs associated with special
scheduling. We note that the 24-month
compliance time is consistent with the
compliance time specified in the
referenced service bulletin. However,
operators may submit a request for
approval of an AMOC, as specified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. The request
must include data substantiating that an
acceptable level of safety would be
maintained by extending the
compliance time. No change is made to
the AD in this regard.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the
available data, including the comments
that have been submitted, and
determined that air safety and the
public interest require adopting the AD
with the changes described previously.
These changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor
increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 1,091 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet.
The following table provides the
estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Work
hours
Action
Part 1 Inspections, per inspection
cycle.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
Average
labor rate
per hour
8
PO 00000
$65
Frm 00006
Parts
None .................
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Cost per
airplane
Number
of U.S.registered
airplanes
$520
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
229
16SER1
Fleet cost
$119,080, per inspection
cycle.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
54615
ESTIMATED COSTS—Continued
Part 2 Inspections, per inspection
cycle.
Part 4 Inspections, per inspection
cycle.
Number
of U.S.registered
airplanes
None .................
3,120
229
4
65
None .................
260
229
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Jkt 205001
Cost per
airplane
65
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will
not have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132. This AD 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this AD:
(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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for
a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.
15:20 Sep 15, 2005
Parts
48
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Average
labor rate
per hour
Work
hours
Action
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
I
2005–19–09 Boeing: Amendment 39–14274.
Docket No. FAA–2005–20364;
Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–186–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective October 21,
2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747–
100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B,
747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400,
747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP
series airplanes; certificated in any category;
as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747–
54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24,
2005.
Fleet cost
714,480, per inspection
cycle.
59,540, per inspection
cycle.
Inspections and Other Specified Actions
(f) At the times specified in Figure 1 of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747–54A2218,
Revision 1, dated February 24, 2005, except
as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD: Do
the various inspections and other specified
actions in the figure to detect discrepancies
of the DSBs, underwing midspar fittings, and
associated parts, by doing all of the actions
specified in Parts 1, 2, and 4; and the
applicable corrective actions specified in
Parts 3, 5, 6, and 7; of the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service bulletin, except as
provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Repeat
the inspections and other specified actions
thereafter at the intervals specified in Figure
1 of the service bulletin. Accomplishment of
any terminating action specified in Figure 1
of the service bulletin terminates the
inspections and other specified actions for
the affected strut.
(g) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747–
54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24,
2005, recommends an initial compliance
threshold of ‘‘within 24 months after the
original issue date on this service bulletin’’
for Parts 1 and 4 of the service bulletin, and
of ‘‘within 72 months after the original issue
date on this service bulletin’’ for Part 2 of the
service bulletin, this AD requires an initial
compliance threshold of ‘‘within 24 months
after the effective date of this AD’’ for Parts
1 and 4 of the service bulletin and of ‘‘within
72 months after the effective date of this AD’’
for Part 2 of the service bulletin.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of
corroded, migrated, and rotated bearings for
the dual side braces (DSB) in the inboard and
outboard struts, a report of a fractured
retainer for the eccentric bushing for one of
the side links of a DSB, and reports of wear
and damage to the underwing midspar fitting
on the outboard strut. We are issuing this AD
to prevent the loss of a DSB or underwing
midspar fitting load path, which could result
in the transfer of loads and motion to other
areas of a strut, and possible separation of a
strut and engine from the airplane during
flight.
Corrective Actions
(h) If any damage or crack is found during
any inspection or corrective action required
by this AD, before further flight, repair in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–
54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24,
2005; except, where the service bulletin
specifies to contact Boeing, before further
flight, 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. 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.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Actions Accomplished According to
Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(i) Inspections and other specified and
corrective actions accomplished before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
54616
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2218,
dated June 17, 2004, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions specified in paragraph
(f) of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(j)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(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, Seattle ACO, to make those
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.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(k) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin
747–54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24,
2005, to perform the actions that are required
by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise. The Director of the Federal
Register approves the incorporation by
reference of this document in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To
get copies of the service information, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box
3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. To
view the AD docket, go to the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
room PL–401, Nassif Building, Washington,
DC. To review copies of the service
information, go 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 https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
September 8, 2005.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–18313 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Sep 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–21140; Directorate
Identifier 2004–NM–274–AD; Amendment
39–14273; AD 2005–19–08]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell
Douglas Model DC–9–14, DC–9–15,
and DC–9–15F Airplanes; and
McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–20,
DC–9–30, DC–9–40, and DC–9–50
Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
transport category airplanes listed
above. This AD requires repetitive
inspections for cracks of the main
landing gear (MLG) shock strut cylinder,
and related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary. This AD results
from two reports of a collapsed MLG
and a report of cracks in two MLG
cylinders. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracks in the
shock strut cylinder of the MLG, which
could result in a collapsed MLG during
takeoff or landing, and possible reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.
DATES: This AD becomes effective
October 21, 2005.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in the AD
as of October 21, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street
SW., Nassif Building, room PL–401,
Washington, DC.
Contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,
California 90846, Attention: Data and
Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A
(D800–0024), for service information
identified in this AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712–4137; telephone (562)
627–5324; fax (562) 627–5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Examining the Docket
You may examine the airworthiness
directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
https://dms.dot.gov or in person at the
Docket Management Facility office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Docket Management Facility office
(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building at
the street address stated in the
ADDRESSES section.
Discussion
The FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would
apply to all McDonnell Douglas Model
DC–9–14, DC–9–15, and DC–9–15F
airplanes; Model DC–9–21 airplanes;
Model DC–9–31, DC–9–32, DC–9–32
(VC–9C), DC–9–32F, DC–9–33F, DC–9–
34, DC–9–34F, and DC–9–32F (C–9A,
C–9B) airplanes; Model DC–9–41
airplanes; and Model DC–9–51
airplanes. That NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on May 9, 2005 (70
FR 24338). That NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections for cracks
of the main landing gear (MLG) shock
strut cylinder, and related investigative
and corrective actions if necessary.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments received.
Request to Refer to Latest Service
Bulletin Revision
The commenter, an airplane operator,
states that the manufacturer is planning
to revise Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
DC9–32A350, dated December 3, 2004,
which was cited as the appropriate
source of service information for the
action in the NPRM. The commenter
asks that we revise paragraph (f) to refer
to the new revision of the service
bulletin, and that we also give credit for
the actions done in accordance with the
original issue of the service bulletin. In
addition, the commenter requests that
we address certain references in the
service bulletin that are incorrect.
We agree with the commenter. We
have revised paragraph (f) of the final
rule to refer to Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin DC9–32A350, Revision 1, dated
August 3, 2005, as the appropriate
source of service information. We have
also added a new paragraph (l) to give
credit for the actions done in
accordance with the original issue of the
service bulletin, and re-identified the
subsequent paragraph accordingly.
Revision 1 of the service bulletin does
not increase the scope of the AD;
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54612-54616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18313]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2005-20364; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-186-AD;
Amendment 39-14274; AD 2005-19-09]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive
inspections of the dual side braces (DSBs), underwing midspar fittings,
and associated parts; other specified actions; and corrective actions
if necessary. This AD also provides an optional terminating action for
the inspections and other specified actions. This AD is prompted by
reports of corroded, migrated, and rotated bearings for the DSBs in the
inboard and outboard struts, a report of a fractured retainer for the
eccentric bushing for one of the side links of a DSB, and reports of
wear and damage to the underwing midspar fitting on the outboard strut.
We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of a DSB or underwing
midspar fitting load path, which could result in the transfer of loads
and motion to other areas of a strut, and possible separation of a
strut and engine from the airplane during flight.
DATES: This AD becomes effective October 21, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in
the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
October 21, 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 disposition. You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
https://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-
5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL-401,
Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2005-20364; the directorate
identifier for this docket is 2004-NM-186-AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6437;
fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with an AD for certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. That action,
published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2005 (70 FR 7446),
proposed to require repetitive inspections of the dual side braces
(DSBs), underwing midspar fittings, and associated parts; other
specified actions; and corrective actions
[[Page 54613]]
if necessary. That action also provides an optional terminating action
for the inspections and other specified actions.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
submitted on the proposed AD.
Support for the Proposed AD
One commenter concurs with the content of the proposed AD.
Requests to Refer to Revised Service Bulletin and Give Credit for Prior
Issue
One commenter asks that the proposed AD reference Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24, 2005. Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-54A2218, dated June 17, 2004, was referenced in
the proposed AD as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the specified actions. The commenter states that Revision
1 specifies that no more work is necessary on airplanes changed per the
original issue of the service bulletin. The commenter also asks that we
give credit for actions done in accordance with the original issue of
the service bulletin. The commenter notes that this will prevent
additional work for the Civil Aviation Authorities that would
necessitate approving Revision 1 as an alternative method of
compliance. The commenter adds that the revised information specified
in Revision 1 may be helpful for operators in accomplishing the actions
required by the proposed AD. A second commenter asks that credit be
given for the initial inspection done in accordance with the original
issue of the service bulletin.
We agree with the commenters. We have reviewed Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24, 2005. The
instructions in Revision 1 are essentially the same as those in the
original issue of the service bulletin. Accordingly, we have revised
this AD to refer to Revision 1 of the service bulletin in the
applicability section and as the applicable source of service
information for accomplishing the actions required by this AD. We have
also added a new paragraph (i) (and re-identified subsequent paragraphs
accordingly) to give credit for actions accomplished before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with the original issue of the
service bulletin.
Requests to Remove/Delay Check for an Insufficient Gap/Delay Corrective
Actions
One commenter questions why the check for an insufficient gap
between the underwing midspar fitting and the strut midspar fitting is
necessary if no discrepancies are found during the proposed inspections
of the dual side brace (DSB) bearings. The commenter states that it was
both surprising and disappointing to learn of reported interference
between the underwing midspar fitting and the adjacent strut midspar
fitting. The commenter states that, while recognizing that corrective
actions should be accomplished only if conditions warrant such actions,
any future adopted rule should consider the inclusion of options that
will enable corrective actions to occur during planned D-check visits
to minimize unplanned out-of-service situations. The commenter notes
that the proposed AD includes a check for an insufficient gap between
those fittings within 24 months. The commenter concludes that the check
for an insufficient gap between those fittings should only be required
if discrepancies are found during the inspection of the DSB bearings
per Parts 1 and 2 of the referenced service bulletin.
A second commenter asks that paragraph (f) of the proposed AD be
changed to postpone the requirement for accomplishing the corrective
actions per Parts 3, 5, and 6 of the referenced service bulletin, if an
insufficient gap is found per Part 4. The commenter states that those
actions can be performed at its first FD-check, and until the actions
are performed, the spring beam/wing fitting joint and DSB fitting can
be inspected per the baseline inspection task specified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2004, but at
a 3A interval. That service bulletin describes procedures for certain
baseline inspections of the strut-to-wing attachment structure. The
commenter adds that it has performed wing pylon modifications on more
than 50 airplanes per Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 747-54A2156
(referenced in AD 95-13-06, amendment 39-9286, as the appropriate
source of service information for modification of the nacelle strut and
wing) and 747-54A2158 (referenced in AD 95-13-07, amendment 39-9287, as
the appropriate source of service information for modification of the
nacelle strut and wing), concurrently with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
57-2246, Revision 5, dated July 17, 1997. Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
57-2246 describes procedures for modification of the nacelle strut
attachment fittings. The commenter notes that Service Bulletin 747-57-
2246 also describes procedures for checking the surface wear on the
underwing fittings of the outboard pylon midspar that were caused by
interference with the spring beam flanged bushings, and removal of any
damage by spotfacing. The commenter states that only four of its
airplanes required the spotfaces to be larger than what was allowed in
the service bulletin, and the larger spotfaces were approved by the
FAA. The commenter adds that cracks were never found in the wear/
spotface area; however, several of the 50 airplanes must have had the
insufficient gap condition for many years. The commenter concludes that
if additional surface damage occurs on the underwing midspar fittings,
it would be detected in a timely manner when performing the proposed
inspections.
A third commenter, the airplane manufacturer, states that it is
concerned with the comments regarding a no-gap condition that may exist
during inspection, and the actions specified in paragraph (f) of the
proposed AD per Parts 4, 5, and 6 of the referenced service bulletin.
The commenter adds that a deferral for these actions may be justified
for a no-gap condition, provided that no damage is found during the
Part 4 inspection. The commenter's position is based on fleet history
data with similar conditions, as provided by other commenters. The
commenter may consider a change to the referenced service bulletin upon
a recommended course of action, and will advise us accordingly. The
commenter adds that we may choose to approve an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) on a case-by-case basis, at our discretion.
We acknowledge the new information provided by the commenters. The
airplane manufacturer has informed us that it is planning to revise the
service bulletin to reflect this new information by the end of 2005.
Delaying this action until after the release and approval of the
manufacturer's planned service bulletin is not warranted. We have
determined that the inspections must be conducted to ensure continued
operational safety. When a new revision of the service bulletin has
been developed, we will review that revision and consider approving it
as an alternative method of compliance with the requirements of this
AD. In light of this, we have determined that all the actions required
by this AD are appropriate and warranted. No change is made to the AD
in this regard.
Additionally, insufficient technical justification was provided by
the
[[Page 54614]]
commenters to justify delaying issuance of the AD; however, if
sufficient technical justification is provided, we may approve an AMOC,
in accordance with paragraph (j)(1) of the AD.
Requests to Change Costs of Compliance Section/Extend Compliance Time
One commenter states that we should revise the Costs of Compliance
section that is specified in the preamble of the proposed AD. The
language in that section states, ``The following table provides the
estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.''
The commenter notes that the table provides the cost impact of the
required inspections, but offers no estimate of the cost impact should
an inspection detect the specific discrepancy that is the basis for the
proposal. The commenter states that it is well aware that the FAA's
policy for estimating the impact of proposed ADs does not include
publishing the impact of aircraft re-routing, preparation, access,
correction of discrepancies found, aircraft close-up, or return-to-
flight tests and procedures, often categorizing them as ``incidental''
impacts. The commenter does not support that policy. The commenter
states that, in this particular proposal, the impact of the man hours
necessary for accomplishing the corrective action alone can be an
order-of-magnitude greater than the per airplane cost published for
comment. The commenter asks us to consider adopting a policy for
proposed ADs that consistently states the per airplane impact of the
prescribed corrective action in cases where that action is found
necessary.
A second commenter states that it will be subjected to a huge
economic impact when accomplishing the actions specified in the
proposed AD, per the referenced service bulletin, due to the mandatory
status of the follow-up inspections and modification after an
insufficient gap is found. The commenter adds that the follow-up
inspections require engine and pylon removal. The commenter lists, and
we respond to, the following factors that will make the economic impact
of the proposed AD even greater:
1. Experience with the modification specified in Part 3 of the
referenced service bulletin shows that one of the DSB underwing fitting
bolts may interfere with the modification tool. If a bolt interferes,
it will have to be removed. Removal of a bolt requires removal of the
WS 1140 rib to gain access to the DSB underwing fitting bolt for
modification, which is a very time-consuming job.
Since we issued the proposed AD, this condition has not been
reported by any other operators. In addition, accomplishing the
modification is only necessary if damage or cracking is found, thus
making it an on-condition action and not part of the inspections
required by the AD.
2. The tooling kit specified in the referenced service bulletin
limits the operator to modifying only one fitting on one pylon at a
time, and not two or more pylons simultaneously. This results in
additional downtime when more than one pylon must be modified.
As we stated previously, accomplishing the modification is an on-
condition action. Obtaining the tooling kits necessary for
accomplishing the modification should be addressed by operators on a
case-by-case basis.
3. The airplane manufacturer does not seem ready to support so many
modifications with tooling and material kits. Currently, the airplane
manufacturer does not have enough tooling and material kits available
to support all operators in the 24-month timeframe allowed for the
modification.
We have no way of estimating how many operators will be
accomplishing the on-condition modifications. The airplane manufacturer
has confirmed that it will have the necessary tooling and material kits
available to complete the on-condition actions required by the AD.
A third commenter states that the maintenance and economic impact
of the proposed AD could be significantly greater than that specified
in the ``Costs of Compliance'' section. The commenter notes that a
review of labor estimates in the referenced service bulletin revealed
that over 500 labor hours per airplane may be required to perform the
necessary corrective actions if problems exist at all four engine strut
to wing attachment locations. The commenter adds that this would raise
the labor cost for compliance to over $30K per airplane; additionally,
material costs total over $21K per airplane, plus tooling rental
charges in excess of $1K per day are expected.
We do not agree with the commenters that request changing the work
hours in this AD, because the AD reflects only the direct costs of the
specific required actions based on the best data available from the
manufacturer. We recognize that operators may incur incidental costs
(such as the time for planning and associated administrative actions)
in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in ADs, however,
typically does not include incidental costs.
The 24-month compliance time for the initial inspection required by
this AD should allow ample time for the majority of affected operators
to do the required actions at the same time as scheduled major airplane
inspection and maintenance activities, which would reduce the
additional time and costs associated with special scheduling. We note
that the 24-month compliance time is consistent with the compliance
time specified in the referenced service bulletin. However, operators
may submit a request for approval of an AMOC, as specified in paragraph
(j)(1) of this AD. The request must include data substantiating that an
acceptable level of safety would be maintained by extending the
compliance time. No change is made to the AD in this regard.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. These changes will neither increase the economic burden on
any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 1,091 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Work Average Cost per U.S.-
Action hours labor rate Parts airplane registered Fleet cost
per hour airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 Inspections, per inspection 8 $65 None.......................... $520 229 $119,080, per inspection
cycle. cycle.
[[Page 54615]]
Part 2 Inspections, per inspection 48 65 None.......................... 3,120 229 714,480, per inspection
cycle. cycle.
Part 4 Inspections, per inspection 4 65 None.......................... 260 229 59,540, per inspection
cycle. cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Findings
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to
examine the regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
2005-19-09 Boeing: Amendment 39-14274. Docket No. FAA-2005-20364;
Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-186-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective October 21, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; certificated in any
category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54A2218,
Revision 1, dated February 24, 2005.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of corroded, migrated, and
rotated bearings for the dual side braces (DSB) in the inboard and
outboard struts, a report of a fractured retainer for the eccentric
bushing for one of the side links of a DSB, and reports of wear and
damage to the underwing midspar fitting on the outboard strut. We
are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of a DSB or underwing
midspar fitting load path, which could result in the transfer of
loads and motion to other areas of a strut, and possible separation
of a strut and engine from the airplane during flight.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Inspections and Other Specified Actions
(f) At the times specified in Figure 1 of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24, 2005, except as
provided by paragraph (g) of this AD: Do the various inspections and
other specified actions in the figure to detect discrepancies of the
DSBs, underwing midspar fittings, and associated parts, by doing all
of the actions specified in Parts 1, 2, and 4; and the applicable
corrective actions specified in Parts 3, 5, 6, and 7; of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as
provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Repeat the inspections and
other specified actions thereafter at the intervals specified in
Figure 1 of the service bulletin. Accomplishment of any terminating
action specified in Figure 1 of the service bulletin terminates the
inspections and other specified actions for the affected strut.
(g) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54A2218, Revision 1, dated
February 24, 2005, recommends an initial compliance threshold of
``within 24 months after the original issue date on this service
bulletin'' for Parts 1 and 4 of the service bulletin, and of
``within 72 months after the original issue date on this service
bulletin'' for Part 2 of the service bulletin, this AD requires an
initial compliance threshold of ``within 24 months after the
effective date of this AD'' for Parts 1 and 4 of the service
bulletin and of ``within 72 months after the effective date of this
AD'' for Part 2 of the service bulletin.
Corrective Actions
(h) If any damage or crack is found during any inspection or
corrective action required by this AD, before further flight, repair
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24, 2005; except,
where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing, before
further flight, 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. 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.
Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(i) Inspections and other specified and corrective actions
accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with
[[Page 54616]]
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2218, dated June 17, 2004, are
considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions
specified in paragraph (f) of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(j)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(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,
Seattle ACO, to make those 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.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(k) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54A2218, Revision
1, dated February 24, 2005, to perform the actions that are required
by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the
Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of this
document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To
get copies of the service information, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. To view
the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL-401, Nassif
Building, Washington, DC. To review copies of the service
information, go 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 https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 8, 2005.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-18313 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
