This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

47267 

Vol. 77, No. 153 

Wednesday, August 8, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0607; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–024–AD; Amendment 

39–17142; AD 2012–15–13] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

all Model 747–100B SUD, 747–300, 

747–400, and 747–400D series 

airplanes; and Model 747–200B series 

airplanes having a stretched upper deck. 

The existing AD currently requires 

repetitively inspecting for cracking or 

discrepancies of the fasteners in the 

tension ties, shear webs, and frames at 

body stations 1120 through 1220; and 

related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. That AD requires 

modifying the frame-to-tension-tie joints 

at body stations 1120 through 1220 

(including related investigative actions 

and corrective actions if necessary), 

which provides a terminating action for 

the repetitive inspections. That AD also 

requires new repetitive inspections after 

the modification, corrective actions if 

necessary, and additional modification 

requirements at a specified time after 

the first modification. That AD also 

removed certain airplanes from the 

applicability. That AD was prompted by 

reports of cracked and severed tension 

ties, broken fasteners, and cracks in the 

frame, shear web, and shear ties 

adjacent to tension ties for the upper 

deck. This AD revises the existing AD 

by adding repetitive open hole high 

frequency eddy current (HFEC) 

inspections for cracking in the forward 

and aft tension tie channels, and repair 

if necessary. For certain airplanes, this 

AD also requires a one-time angle 

inspection to determine if the angle is 

installed correctly, and re-installation if 

necessary; and a one-time open hole 

HFEC inspection at the fastener 

locations where the tension tie 

previously attached to the frame prior to 

certain modifications, and repair if 

necessary. This AD also, for the Stage 2 

inspections, reduces the initial 

compliance times for those inspections. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct cracking of the tension ties, 

shear webs, and frames of the upper 

deck, which could result in rapid 

decompression and reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 

12, 2012. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of September 12, 2012. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain other publication listed in 

this AD as of November 28, 2007 (72 FR 

65655, November 23, 2007). 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6428; fax (425) 917–6590; 

email: nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to 

amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 

2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 

FR 65655, November 23, 2007). The 

SNPRM published in the Federal 

Register on February 2, 2012 (77 FR 

5195). The SNPRM applied to all Boeing 

Model 747–100B SUD, 747–300, 747– 

400, and 747–400D series airplanes; and 

Model 747–200B series airplanes having 

a stretched upper deck. The original 

NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009) 

proposed to supersede an existing AD 

that currently requires repetitively 

inspecting for cracking or discrepancies 

of the fasteners in the tension ties, shear 

webs, and frames at body stations 1120 

through 1220; and related investigative 

and corrective actions if necessary. The 

original NPRM proposed to require 

modifying the frame-to-tension-tie joints 

at body stations (STA) 1120 through 

1220 (including related investigative 

actions and corrective actions if 

necessary), which would provide a 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections. The original NPRM also 

proposed to require new repetitive 

inspections after the modification, 

corrective actions if necessary, and 

additional modification requirements at 

a specified time after the first 

modification. The original NPRM also 

proposed to remove certain airplanes 

from the applicability. The SNPRM 

proposed to add repetitive open hole 

high frequency eddy current (HFEC) 

inspections for cracking in the forward 

and aft tension tie channels, and repair 

if necessary. For certain airplanes, the 

SNPRM also proposed to require a onetime angle inspection to determine if the 

angle is installed correctly, and reinstallation if necessary; and a one-time 

open-hole HFEC inspection at the 

fastener locations where the tension tie 

previously attached to the frame prior to 

certain modifications, and repair if 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47268 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

necessary. The SNPRM also, for the 

Stage 2 inspections, proposed to reduce 

the initial compliance times for those 

inspections. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the SNPRM (77 FR 5195, 

February 2, 2012) and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Requests To Include Related 

Rulemaking 

Boeing asked that we include AD 

2007–16–19, Amendment 39–15158 (72 

FR 45151, August 13, 2007), in the 

SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 2012) 

as related rulemaking. Boeing stated that 

AD 2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 

(72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007), is 

identified as being superseded by the 

actions proposed in the SNRPM, as 

specified in paragraph (b) of the SNPRM 

(titled ‘‘Affected ADs’’). Boeing noted 

that AD 2007–16–19 is also affected by 

those actions. Boeing added that AD 

2007–16–19 has inspection 

requirements at the affected tension tie 

locations, and doing the modification in 

paragraph (m) of the SNPRM also ends 

the inspections required by AD 2007– 

16–19 for the modified locations. Boeing 

asked that we change paragraph (b) of 

the SNPRM to specify that the AD may 

modify the compliance requirements in 

AD 2007–16–19. 

Boeing also asked that we change 

paragraph (m) of the SNPRM (77 FR 

5195, February 2, 2012) because the 

modification identified in Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 

1, dated August 4, 2011, eliminates the 

need for the inspection requirements in 

paragraphs (g), (j), (p), and (q) of AD 

2007–16–19, Amendment 39–15158 (72 

FR 45151, August 13, 2007). Boeing 

stated that the corresponding 

requirements, for body stations 1120 

through 1220 only, terminate the 

inspections required by AD 2007–16– 

19, and all requirements for body 

stations 880 through 1100 still apply. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

requests and agree that AD 2007–16–19, 

Amendment 39–15158 (72 FR 45151, 

August 13, 2007), is affected by certain 

actions in the SNPRM (77 FR 5195, 

February 2, 2012). However, when 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, 

Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, was 

issued it contained an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC) 

approval for certain actions in AD 2007– 

16–19 for the tension tie locations that 

were modified using Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1, 

dated August 4, 2011. AD 2007–16–19 

also mandated inspections for tension 

ties between body stations 880 and 

1100, which are not included in Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 

1, dated August 4, 2011. We do not 

agree to include AD 2007–16–19 in the 

affected ADs section identified in 

paragraph (b) of this AD because 

paragraph (b) of this AD identifies ADs 

that are superseded, and we are not 

superseding that AD. In addition, we 

have not changed paragraph (m) of the 

SNPRM—(paragraph (p) of this AD) 

because the inspections of tension ties 

between body stations 880 and 1100 

required by AD 2007–16–19 are not 

related to this AD. We have made no 

change to the AD in this regard. 

Requests To Change or Add AMOC 

Language 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (n) of the SNPRM (77 FR 

5195, February 2, 2012) to add a 

provision for airplanes that were 

modified per Boeing Drawing 

144U0061, including any deviations 

during the modification and postmodification inspections that were 

previously approved as an AMOC to AD 

2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 

FR 65655, November 23, 2007). The 

provision should specify that those 

actions are acceptable for compliance 

with the corresponding actions in the 

SNPRM. 

We acknowledge and agree with the 

commenter’s request. We have added a 

new paragraph (r)(5) to this AD to allow 

AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007), as a terminating 

action, to be approved as AMOCs for the 

requirements of paragraph (p) of this 

AD. 

Boeing also asked that we change 

paragraph (s)(3) of the SNPRM (77 FR 

5195, February 2, 2012) to provide 

direction for obtaining an AMOC for any 

deviations that occur when doing the 

modification specified in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1, 

dated August 4, 2011. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

request; however, the reference to the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Organization Designation Authorization 

(ODA) specified in paragraph (s)(3) of 

this AD is our standard language. After 

the AD is published, we may empower 

certain authorized representatives of the 

Boeing ODA to approve AMOCs to 

deviations during the modification. We 

have made no change to the AD in this 

regard. 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (s)(4) of the SNPRM (77 FR 

5195, February 2, 2012) to also refer to 

paragraph (j) of the AD, in addition to 

the paragraphs identified as 

corresponding requirements for AMOCs 

previously approved in accordance with 

AD 2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 

(72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007). 

Boeing stated that paragraph (j) also 

contains inspection requirements, and 

previously accomplished repairs can be 

considered AMOCs for this paragraph. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request for the reason provided. We 

have added a reference to paragraph (j) 

of the AD to the AMOC language 

specified in paragraph (r)(4) of this AD. 

Request To Include Credit for 

Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document (SSID) Inspections Done per 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507 

Boeing asked that we change 

paragraph (b) of the SNPRM (77 FR 

5195, February 2, 2012) to include 

credit for related SSID inspections. 

Boeing stated that AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007), included language 

specifying that inspections done per 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010, meet the requirements of the SSID 

inspections in structurally significant 

item (SSI) F–19A. 

We agree that the subject SSID 

inspections are related to this AD. When 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010; and Boeing Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 

2011; were issued, they contained 

AMOCs to those SSID inspections. 

Therefore, those inspections do meet the 

requirements of the SSID inspections in 

structurally significant item (SSI) F– 

19A, except as defined in those AMOCs. 

However, we do not agree to revise 

paragraph (b) of this AD as that 

paragraph only identifies ADs that are 

superseded. We have made no change to 

the AD in this regard. 

Request To Change Reporting 

Requirement 

Boeing asked that we change the 

reporting requirement in paragraph (l) of 

the SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 

2012). Boeing stated that the 

supplemental structural inspections 

(SSIs) in the SSID are replaced by Stage 

1, Stage 2, and post-modification 

inspections in the SSID. Boeing added 

that reporting findings from these three 

inspections is necessary to maintain the 

fleet monitoring aspects of the SSI 

program. Boeing asked that paragraph (l) 

of the SNPRM be changed to add all 

three inspections to the reporting 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 47269 

requirements in lieu of just the Stage 1 

inspection currently identified. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

request and agree that reporting is 

necessary for maintaining the fleet 

monitoring aspect of the SSI program. 

However, maintaining the fleet 

monitoring of the SSI program is not 

what the requirements in this AD were 

meant to do. We have evaluated the 

need for continued reporting, as 

required by paragraph (l) of this AD, and 

have determined that it is no longer 

necessary. Therefore, we have removed 

paragraph (l) from this AD and 

reidentified subsequent paragraphs 

accordingly. 

Requests To Change Certain 

Compliance Times 

British Airways asked that we change 

the compliance time in paragraphs (p) 

and (q) of the SNPRM (77 FR 5195, 

February 2, 2012) to match the 

compliance time for the Stage 2 

inspections. British Airways stated that 

this would reduce further disruption to 

the operator’s heavy maintenance 

program. 

UPS asked that the compliance time 

specified in paragraph (m)(1) of the 

SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 2012) 

be changed for the Boeing Special 

Freighter (BSF) and the Boeing 

Converted Freighter (BCF). UPS stated 

that since the modifications to the BSF 

and BCF configurations were done after 

original production, the compliance 

times in that paragraph are not 

appropriate for the replaced structure. 

UPS added that the remaining locations 

(stations 1140, 1180, and 1220) are not 

adjacent to each other. UPS believes that 

the risk of widespread fatigue damage 

has been greatly reduced at those 

locations. UPS stated that for airplanes 

that have been modified to the BSF or 

BCF configuration, the compliance time 

threshold should take into account the 

replaced structure. 

We do not agree with the commenters’ 

requests. In developing an appropriate 

compliance time for this action, we 

considered the urgency associated with 

the subject unsafe condition and the 

practical aspect of accomplishing the 

required actions within a period of time 

that corresponds to the normal 

scheduled maintenance for most 

affected operators. Further, we 

considered and agree with the 

compliance time recommended by the 

manufacturer in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, 

dated January 14, 2010. In addition, 

UPS provided no technical justification 

for changing the compliance time for the 

BSF and BCF airplanes. However, under 

the provisions of paragraph (r) of this 

AD, we will consider requests for 

approval of changing the compliance 

time if sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that the new compliance 

time would provide an acceptable level 

of safety. We have not changed the AD 

in this regard. 

British Airways also asked that the 

modification threshold be increased 

from 17,000 total flight cycles to 20,000 

total flight cycles. British Airways stated 

that an increased threshold would align 

with the Model 747–400 design service 

goal and the SSID inspection threshold 

of 20,000 total flight cycles. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. This request was already 

addressed in the comments section of 

the SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 

2012) under ‘‘Request to Extend the 

Modification Compliance Time.’’ As 

stated in the SNPRM: 

Since the issuance of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated April 21, 2005, 

further cracking in the fleet has occurred 

resulting in thresholds being further reduced 

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. 

The modification threshold and new 

inspection threshold are appropriate given 

the quantity and nature of cracks found on 

Model 747 airplanes, which are based on 

extensive analysis. Due in part to the 

reporting requirement of AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007) the manufacturer 

received a significant number of inspection 

findings. The findings include numerous 

cases of single or dual tension tie failure and 

one airplane with three adjacent severed 

tension ties. Because the findings constituted 

multiple site damage, a damage tolerance 

analysis alone was no longer appropriate. 

Rather, a widespread fatigue damage analysis 

had to be employed to properly analyze the 

risk of cracked and severed tension ties, and 

to set inspection and modification thresholds 

appropriately. The manufacturer performed 

widespread fatigue analysis and the FAA 

accepted its findings. 

The analysis, combined with the empirical 

data, supported an inspection threshold of 

10,000 total flight cycles, as reflected in 

Revision 1 of the Stage 2 inspection, and a 

modification threshold of 17,000 total flight 

cycles. 

Therefore, based upon crack reports 

received, material analysis completed, and 

widespread fatigue damage analysis 

performed, the inspection and modification 

thresholds contained in this AD are 

appropriate. 

We have made no change to the AD 

in this regard. 

Request To Terminate Certain 

Inspections 

UPS asked that the inspections 

required by paragraphs (o) and (q) of the 

SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 2012) 

be terminated after the modification 

required by paragraph (m) of the 

SNPRM is accomplished. UPS stated 

that the structure replaced by the 

modification, which is the structure that 

would have been inspected, has been 

removed. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request; if the structure has been 

removed the inspection is not possible. 

Therefore, we have changed paragraph 

(m) of the SNPRM (77 FR 5195, 

February 2, 2012) (paragraph (p) of this 

AD) to include a reference to paragraphs 

(o) and (q) of the SNPRM—(paragraphs 

(l) and (n) of this AD) in the terminating 

action language for the inspections. We 

have also included terminating action 

language in those paragraphs. 

Request for an Optional Modification 

British Airways asked that it be 

allowed to continue the Stage 1 and 

Stage 2 inspections with an option of 

doing the modification as terminating 

action for the inspections. British 

Airways added that the Stage 2 

inspections provide an adequate level of 

safety, as the discrepant structure is 

repaired to a similar compliance 

standard as the original structure. 

British Airways noted that the 

substantial number of work-hours 

necessary to do the modification would 

be a significant financial burden. 

This request was already addressed in 

the comments section of the SNPRM (77 

FR 5195, February 2, 2012) under 

‘‘Request for an Optional Modification.’’ 

As stated in the SNPRM, we do not 

agree with the request to make the 

required modification optional. The 

crack finding data and analysis 

performed support the inspection and 

modification actions in the SNPRM. 

Therefore, we have not changed the AD 

in this regard. 

Request To Use Substitute Fasteners 

UPS asked that paragraphs (g) and (j) 

of the SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 

2012) be changed to specify that it is 

structurally acceptable to use substitute 

fasteners per Chapter 51, Sections 51– 

40–03 and 51–40–05, of the Model 747– 

400SF Structural Repair Manual (SRM). 

UPS stated that Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, 

dated January 14, 2010, includes a 

General Note which specifies that it is 

acceptable to use the Model 747–400 

SRM for repairs on airplanes modified 

to BCF configuration, until such time as 

the SRM is updated with tension tie and 

frame repairs. UPS noted that Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, does 

not have any appropriate references for 

Model 747–400SF airplanes regarding 

fastener substitution, open-hole sizes, 

and installation. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47270 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

We do not agree with the request. 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010, identifies procedures for fastener 

substitution in paragraph 3.A., Notes 4, 

5, and 9 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions. Therefore, we have made 

no change to the AD in this regard. 

Requests To Clarify/Correct Paragraph 

Identifiers Within Certain Paragraphs 

in the SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 

2012) 

Boeing asked that we provide 

clarification in paragraph (g) of the 

SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 2012) 

that the reference to paragraph (l) of this 

AD as the terminating action paragraph 

should instead be paragraph (m) of this 

AD. Boeing added that paragraph (m) 

mandates the modification in Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 

1, dated August 4, 2011, which 

terminates the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (g) of the SNPRM. 

We agree with the commenter. 

Paragraph (g) of the SNPRM (77 FR 

5195, February 2, 2012) specifies that 

doing the modification required by 

paragraph (l) of the AD terminates the 

repetitive inspections; however, that is 

in error. The modification is specified in 

paragraph (m) of the SNPRM— 

(paragraph (p) of this AD). We have 

changed the paragraph reference in 

paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly. 

Boeing and UPS asked that we correct 

the error in paragraph (i)(1) of the 

SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 2012) 

which refers to doing the next 

inspection in accordance with 

paragraph (j) of this AD, but should 

instead refer to paragraph (h) of this AD. 

We partially agree with the 

commenters. Paragraph (i)(1) of the 

SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 2012) 

specifies doing the next inspection after 

the initial Stage 1 inspection done in 

accordance with paragraph (j) of this 

AD; however, that is in error because 

the initial Stage 1 inspection is in 

paragraph (g) of this AD (paragraph (h) 

only contains the compliance times for 

the initial inspection). We have changed 

the reference in paragraph (i)(1) of this 

AD accordingly. 

Boeing and UPS asked that we correct 

the error in paragraph (j) of the SNPRM 

(77 FR 5195, February 2, 2012), which 

refers to paragraph (j) of this AD as the 

exception paragraph; however, the 

correct reference is paragraph (k) of this 

AD. 

We agree with the commenters. 

Paragraph (k) of this AD contains the 

exception to corrective action 

instructions. We have corrected the 

reference in paragraph (j) of this AD 

accordingly. 

Boeing and UPS asked that we correct 

the error in paragraph (k) of the SNPRM 

(77 FR 5195, February 2, 2012), which 

refers to discrepancies found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g), 

(h), or (i) of the AD. Boeing asked that 

the reference to paragraph (j) of this AD 

be added to paragraph (k) of this AD. 

UPS asked that the reference to 

paragraphs (j), (o), (p), and (q) of this AD 

be added to the paragraphs referenced 

in paragraph (k) of this AD. 

We partially agree with the 

commenters. We agree that paragraph (j) 

of this AD should be included in the 

corrective action paragraphs referred to 

in paragraph (k) of this AD because it is 

included in the existing requirements. 

We have changed paragraph (k) of this 

AD accordingly. However, paragraphs 

(o), (p), and (q) of the SNPRM (77 FR 

5195, February 2, 2012)—(paragraphs 

(l), (m), and (n) of this AD) are part of 

the new requirements, and the 

corrective actions are contained within 

those paragraphs. 

Request To Clarify Undefined 

Requirement 

UPS stated that the actions specified 

in paragraph (m) of the SNPRM (77 FR 

5195, February 2, 2012) also require an 

additional modification, which is 

currently undefined in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747 53A2559, Revision 1, dated 

August 4, 2011. UPS understands that, 

at this time, Boeing does not believe this 

additional modification will cause an 

undue burden. UPS noted that Boeing 

should include such a requirement in 

that service information, given the age 

of the affected fleet and available 

resources, as opposed to adjusting the 

limit of validity of the 747 fleet. UPS 

added that based on its fleet age and 

current utilization, it does not believe it 

will be affected; however, UPS is 

concerned with the precedent of 

mandating undefined requirements. 

We infer that UPS wants clarification 

of the subject undefined requirement. 

Boeing has elected not to design the 

additional modification since Boeing 

foresees few, if any, operators that 

would require this modification. For 

this reason, Boeing Service Bulletin 747 

53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 

2011, specifies that operators contact 

Boeing for instructions. We have 

addressed this issue by requiring AMOC 

approval when operators are instructed 

to contact Boeing for instructions. We 

have made no change to the AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Change Cost Information 

UPS asked that the Costs of 

Compliance section in the SNPRM (77 

FR 5195, February 2, 2012) be changed. 

UPS stated that the costs specified do 

not accurately reflect the actual costs. 

UPS added that, based on its review of 

the modification instructions and the 

experiences of other operators that have 

performed similar modifications, the 

actual modification work, not including 

incidental costs, may take at least 1,000 

work-hours to accomplish. UPS stated 

that this is a substantial increase, and 

the cost section should be updated in 

the analysis of this rulemaking. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. This request was already 

addressed in the comments section of 

the SNPRM (77 FR 5195, February 2, 

2012) under ‘‘Request to Change Cost 

Information.’’ As stated in the SNPRM: 

The cost information in this supplemental 

NPRM describes only the direct costs of the 

specific required actions. Based on the best 

data available, the manufacturer provided the 

number of work hours necessary to do the 

required actions. This number represents the 

time necessary to perform only the actions 

actually required by this supplemental 

NPRM. We recognize that, in doing the 

actions required by an AD, operators might 

incur incidental costs in addition to the 

direct costs. But the cost analysis in AD 

rulemaking actions typically does not 

include incidental costs such as the time 

necessary for planning, airplane down time, 

or time necessitated by other administrative 

actions. Those incidental costs, which might 

vary significantly among operators, are 

almost impossible to calculate. 

We have not changed the AD in this 

regard. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously— 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 

5195, February 2, 2012) for correcting 

the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 5195, 

February 2, 2012) 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 67 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 47271 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators 

Stage 1 inspections (required by AD 2007– 

23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 

65655, November 23, 2007)).

19 work-hours × $85 

per hour = $1,615 

$0 ............................... $1,615 per inspection 

cycle.

$108,205 per inspection cycle. 

Stage 2 inspections (required by AD 2007– 

23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 

65655, November 23, 2007)).

83 work-hours × $85 

per hour = $7,055 

$0 ............................... $7,055 per inspection 

cycle.

$472,685 per inspection cycle. 

Modification (new action) ............................... Between 257 and 263 

work-hours, = between $21,845 and 

$22,355 

Between $341,334 

and $345,490.

Between $363,179 

and $367,845.

1Between 

$24,332,993 and 

$24,645,615. 

Post-modification inspections (new action) .... 6 work-hours × $85 

per hour = $510 

$0 ............................... $510 [per inspection 

cycle].

$34,170 [per inspection cycle]. 

1 Depending on airplane configuration. 

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), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) 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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 

FR 65655, November 23, 2007), and 

adding the following new AD: 

2012–15–13 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–17142; Docket No. 

FAA–2009–0607; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–024–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective September 12, 2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 747–100B SUD, 747–300, 

747–400, and 747–400D series airplanes; and 

Model 747–200B series airplanes having a 

stretched upper deck; certificated in any 

category; excluding airplanes that have been 

converted to a large cargo freighter 

configuration. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53: Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD results from reports of cracked 

and severed tension ties, broken fasteners, 

and cracks in the frame, shear web, and shear 

ties adjacent to tension ties for the upper 

deck. We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct cracking of the tension ties, shear 

webs, and frames of the upper deck, which 

could result in rapid decompression and 

reduced structural integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained Repetitive Stage 1 Inspections 

With Reduced Repetitive Interval 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (f) of AD 2007–23–18, Amendment 

39–15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007). 

For all airplanes: Do detailed inspections for 

cracking or discrepancies of the fasteners in 

the tension ties, shear webs, and frames at 

body stations 1120 through 1220, and related 

investigative and corrective actions as 

applicable, by doing all actions specified in 

and in accordance with ‘‘Stage 1 Inspection’’ 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

dated April 21, 2005, except as provided by 

paragraph (k) of this AD; or Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, 

dated January 14, 2010. As of the effective 

date of this AD only Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated 

January 14, 2010, may be used. Do the Stage 

1 inspections at the applicable times 

specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, 

except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of the 

initial Stage 2 inspection required by 

paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the 

requirements of this paragraph. Any 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions must be done before 

further flight. Doing the modification 

required by paragraph (q) of this AD 

terminates the repetitive inspection 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

dated April 21, 2005, specifies a compliance 

time relative to ‘‘the original issue date on 

this service bulletin,’’ this AD requires 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47272 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance before the specified compliance 

time after April 26, 2006 (the effective date 

of AD 2006–06–11, Amendment 39–14520 

(71 FR 14367, March 22, 2006)). 

(2) For any airplane that reaches the 

applicable compliance time for the initial 

Stage 2 inspection (as specified in Table 1, 

Compliance Recommendations, under 

paragraph 1.E., of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated April 21, 2005) 

before reaching the applicable compliance 

time for the initial Stage 1 inspection: 

Accomplishment of the initial Stage 2 

inspection eliminates the need to do the 

Stage 1 inspections. 

(h) Retained Compliance Time for Initial 

Stage 1 Inspection 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007). Do the initial Stage 1 

inspection at the earlier of the times specified 

in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. 

(1) At the earlier of the times specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated 

April 21, 2005. 

(ii) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after 

November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 

65655, November 23, 2007), whichever 

occurs later. 

(2) At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(ii) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days, 

whichever occurs first, after November 28, 

2007 (the effective date of AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007). 

(i) Retained Compliance Times for Repetitive 

Stage 1 Inspections 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (h) of AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007). Repeat the Stage 1 

inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this 

AD at the time specified in paragraph (i)(1) 

or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Repeat the 

inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 250 flight cycles, until the initial 

Stage 2 inspection required by paragraph (j) 

of this AD has been done. 

(1) For airplanes on which the initial Stage 

1 inspection has not been accomplished as of 

November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 

65655, November 23, 2007): Do the next 

inspection before the accumulation of 10,000 

total flight cycles, or within 250 flight cycles 

after the initial Stage 1 inspection done in 

accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD, 

whichever occurs later. 

(2) For airplanes on which the initial Stage 

1 inspection has been accomplished as of 

November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 

65655, November 23, 2007): Do the next 

inspection at the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) For airplanes that have accumulated 

fewer than 12,000 total flight cycles as of 

November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 

65655, November 23, 2007): Do the next 

inspection before the accumulation of 10,000 

total flight cycles, or within 250 flight cycles 

after November 28, 2007, whichever occurs 

later. 

(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 

12,000 total flight cycles or more as of 

November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 

65655, November 23, 2007): Do the next 

inspection at the later of the times specified 

in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(A) and (i)(2)(ii)(B) of 

this AD. 

(A) Within 250 flight cycles after 

accomplishment of the initial Stage 1 

inspection. 

(B) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days, 

whichever occurs first, after November 28, 

2007 (the effective date of AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007). 

(j) Retained Repetitive Stage 2 Inspections 

With Reduced Initial Compliance Time 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (i) of AD 2007–23–18, Amendment 

39–15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007). 

For all airplanes: Do detailed and high 

frequency eddy current inspections for 

cracking or discrepancies of the fasteners in 

the tension ties, shear webs, and frames at 

body stations 1120 through 1220, and related 

investigative and corrective actions as 

applicable, by doing all actions specified in 

and in accordance with ‘‘Stage 2 Inspection’’ 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

dated April 21, 2005; or Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated 

January 14, 2010; except as provided by 

paragraph (k) of this AD. Do the initial 

inspections at the earlier of the times 

specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this 

AD. Repeat the Stage 2 inspection thereafter 

at the applicable times specified in paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated April 21, 2005. 

As of the effective date of this AD only 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, may be 

used. Any applicable related investigative 

and corrective actions must be done before 

further flight. Accomplishment of the initial 

Stage 2 inspection ends the repetitive Stage 

1 inspections. Doing the modification 

required by paragraph (q) of this AD 

terminates the repetitive inspection 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after November 28, 2007 (the effective date of 

AD 2007–23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 

FR 65655, November 23, 2007), whichever 

occurs later. 

(2) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later. 

(k) Retained Exception to Corrective Action 

Instructions 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (j) of AD 2007–23–18, Amendment 

39–15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007). 

If any discrepancy including but not limited 

to any crack, broken fastener, loose fastener, 

or missing fastener is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), 

or (j) of this AD, and Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated April 21, 2005; 

or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010; 

specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate 

action: Before further flight, repair the 

discrepancy using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (r) of this AD. 

(l) New Stage 2 Inspection: Additional Work 

at STA 1140 

For all airplanes: Except as provided by 

paragraph (o) of this AD; at the time specified 

in paragraph 1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010; do an 

open hole high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspection for cracking in the forward 

and aft tension tie channels at 12 fastener 

locations inboard of the aluminum straps at 

STA 1140, and before further flight do all 

applicable repairs. Do all actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the 

time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated 

January 14, 2010. Doing the modification 

required by paragraph (p) of this AD 

terminates the inspection requirements in 

this paragraph. 

(m) New One-time Inspection for Mis-located 

Angles 

For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010: Except as provided by paragraph (o) of 

this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 

1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated 

January 14, 2010, do a detailed inspection to 

determine if the angle is installed correctly, 

and before further flight re-install all angles 

that were installed incorrectly. Do all actions 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010. 

(n) New One-time Inspection for Cracks in 

Frames at Previous Tension Tie Locations 

For Group 1, Configuration 2, airplanes; 

and Group 2 and 3 airplanes; as identified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010: Except as 

provided by paragraph (o) of this AD, at the 

time specified in paragraph 1.E, 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated 

January 14, 2010, do an open hole HFEC 

inspection for cracks at the fastener locations 

(STA 1120, 1160, 1200, and 1220) where the 

tension tie previously attached to the frame 

prior to modification to the Boeing special 

freighter or Boeing Converted Freighter 

configuration, and before further flight do all 

applicable repairs. Do all actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 47273 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010. Doing the modification required by 

paragraph (p) of this AD terminates the onetime inspection requirements in this 

paragraph. 

(o) New Exception to Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, Dated 

January 14, 2010 

Where paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, specifies 

a compliance time relative to ‘‘the Revision 

1 date of this service bulletin,’’ this AD 

requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(p) New Modification 

Except as provided by paragraphs (p)(1) 

and (p)(2) of this AD: At the applicable times 

specified in paragraph 1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, 

Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, modify the 

frame-to-tension-tie joints at body stations 

(STA) 1120 through 1220; do all related 

investigative and applicable corrective 

actions; do the repetitive post-modification 

detailed inspections for cracking of the 

tension tie and frame structure and all 

applicable corrective actions; and do the 

additional modification. Do all actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011. 

Modifying the frame-to-tension-tie joints at 

body stations 1120 through 1220 terminates 

the repetitive inspection requirements of 

paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD, the 

inspection requirements of paragraph (l) of 

this AD, and the one-time inspection 

requirements of paragraph (n) of this AD. 

(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, 

Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, specifies a 

compliance time relative to ‘‘the original 

issue date of this service bulletin,’’ this AD 

requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, 

specifies to contact Boeing for repair 

instructions or additional modification 

requirements: Before further flight, repair the 

cracking or do the additional actions using a 

method approved in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (r) of this 

AD. 

(q) New Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

corresponding actions required by this AD, if 

those actions were done before the effective 

date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated January 8, 

2009. 

(r) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that 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. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007), are approved as AMOCs 

for the corresponding requirements of 

paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD. 

(5) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007), as a terminating action, 

are approved as AMOCs for the requirements 

of paragraph (p) of this AD. 

(s) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6428; fax: 

(425) 917–6590; email: 

nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766– 

5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(t) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the following service information 

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) You must use the following service 

information to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. 

(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, 

Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011. 

(3) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on November 28, 2007 (72 

FR 65655, November 23, 2007): 

(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, dated April 21, 2005. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766– 

5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/ 

cfr/ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 23, 

2012. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18627 Filed 8–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0264; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–179–AD; Amendment 

39–17147; AD 2012–15–17] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Airbus Model A300 B4–603, B4–605R, 

and B4–622R airplanes; Model A300 

C4–605R Variant F airplanes; and Model 

A300 F4–600R series airplanes. This AD 

was prompted by a report that chafing 

was detected between the autopilot 

electrical wiring conduit and the wing 

bottom skin. This AD requires 

modifying the wiring installation on the 

right-hand wing. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent sparking due to electrical 

chafing when flammable vapors are 

present in the area, which could cause 

an uncontrolled fire. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES