Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes, 54612-54616 [05-18313]

Download as PDF 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 http:// 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 http://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 http:// 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 http://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 
http://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 http://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