Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 59263 

Note: The placard information in this AD 

is different from the information in the 

applicable service bulletins. This AD takes 

precedence over the service bulletins. You 

should update your placards to reflect the 

information presented in this AD. 

May I Request an Alternative Method of 

Compliance? 

(f) You may request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD by following the procedures in 14 

CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, 

send your request to your principal 

inspector. The principal inspector may add 

comments and will send your request to the 

Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane 

Directorate, FAA. For information on any 

already approved alternative methods of 

compliance, contact Gregory A. Davison, 

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4130; facsimile: (816) 329–4090. 

Is There Other Information That Relates to 

This Subject? 

(g) German AD D–2003–231R3, dated 

November 9, 2004, also addresses the subject 

of this AD. 

Does This AD Incorporate Any Material by 

Reference? 

(h) You must do the actions required by 

this AD following the instructions in GROB 

Service Bulletin No. MSB315–64/3, dated 

September 14, 2004; Grob Service Bulletin 

No. MSB315–65, dated September 15, 2003; 

Grob Service Bulletin No. OSB 315–66, dated 

October 16, 2003; and Work Instruction for 

OSB 315–66, dated October 16, 2003. 

(1) On August 12, 2004 (69 FR 34258, June 

21, 2004), and in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, the Director of the 

Federal Register approved the incorporation 

by reference of Grob Service Bulletin No. 

MSB315–65, dated September 15, 2003; Grob 

Service Bulletin No. OSB 315–66, dated 

October 16, 2003; and Work Instruction for 

OSB 315–66, dated October 16, 2003. 

(2) As of November 30, 2005, and in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51, the Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

GROB Service Bulletin No. MSB315–64/3, 

dated September 14, 2004. 

(3) To get a copy of this service 

information, contact GROB Luft-und 

Raumfahrt, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D–86874 

Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany; telephone: 

011 49 8268 998139; facsimile: 011 49 8268 

998200; e-mail: productsupport@grobaerospace.de. To review copies of this 

service information, go to the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the availability 

of this material at NARA, go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html or call (202) 741–6030. To 

view the AD docket, go to the Docket 

Management Facility; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, 

DC 20590–001 or on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA–

2005–20441; Directorate Identifier 2003–CE–

35–AD. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

September 28, 2005. 

David R. Showers, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–19929 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20221; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–173–AD; Amendment 

39–14329; AD 2005–20–32] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330–200 and –300 and A340–200 and 

–300 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Airbus Model A330–200 and –300 and 

A340–200 and –300 series airplanes. 

This AD requires inspecting to 

determine the part number and serial 

number of the left- and right-hand 

elevator assemblies, performing related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary, and re-protecting the elevator 

assembly. This AD results from reports 

that areas on the top skin panel of the 

right-hand elevator have disbonded due 

to moisture penetration. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent disbonding of the 

elevator assembly, which could reduce 

the structural integrity of the elevator 

and result in reduced controllability of 

the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 16, 2005. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of November 16, 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 Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2797; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 Airbus Model A330, A340–

200, and A340–300 series airplanes. 

That NPRM was published in the 

Federal Register on February 1, 2005 

(70 FR 5073). That NPRM proposed to 

require inspecting to determine the part 

number and serial number of the leftand right-hand elevator assemblies, 

performing related investigative and 

corrective actions if necessary, and reprotecting the elevator assembly. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Request To Allow Records Check as a 

Method of Compliance 

One commenter believes that it is 

unnecessary to inspect its fleet to 

determine that none of the airplanes in 

its fleet are subject to the proposed AD. 

The commenter states that its airplanes 

were delivered new from Airbus in July 

2003, after Airbus had changed its 

production processes to prevent 

moisture penetration of the elevator. 

The delivery records for these airplanes 

show the part number and serial 

number of the left- and right-hand 

elevator assemblies. The commenter 

notes that it has not replaced the 

elevator assemblies on any airplane in 

its fleet. Further, the Illustrated Parts 

Catalog shows that the elevator 

assemblies that would be affected by the 

proposed AD cannot legally be installed 

on the airplanes in its fleet. The 

commenter asserts that its airplanes are 

in compliance with the intent of the 

proposed AD, and that it will be able to 

ensure continuing compliance by 

inspecting all incoming spare elevator 

59264 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

assemblies and any elevators on 

airplanes purchased from other 

operators to ensure that the elevator 

assemblies are not subject to the 

proposed AD. The commenter states 

that these measures will provide a level 

of safety equivalent to the level that 

would be provided by the proposed AD. 

The airplane manufacturer also 

comments that airplane records should 

contain the part number and serial 

number of each elevator assembly, even 

in the event that the elevator assembly 

has been replaced. The airplane 

manufacturer states that a records check 

would be better than an inspection for 

determining the part number and serial 

number of the elevator assemblies, 

especially considering that very few 

airplanes with the subject part number/ 

serial number combinations could be 

registered in the U.S. 

We infer that the first commenter’s 

request is the same as the second 

commenter’s—remove the requirement 

to inspect the elevator assemblies to 

determine the part number and serial 

number, or allow a records check as a 

method of compliance with this AD. 

We concur with the commenters’

request to allow a records check as a 

method of compliance with this AD. We 

have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to 

state that a review of maintenance 

records is acceptable in lieu of an 

inspection, provided that the part 

number and serial number of the 

elevator assemblies can be conclusively 

determined from that review. 

Request To Revise Compliance Times 

One commenter, the airplane 

manufacturer, requests that we revise 

paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD to 

remove the reference to ‘‘the date of 

issuance of the original Airworthiness 

Certificate or the date of issuance of the 

original Export Certificate of 

Airworthiness.’’ (This term was used in 

lieu of the term ‘‘the first flight of the 

airplane,’’ which the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale 

de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) uses to 

establish the compliance times specified 

in French airworthiness directive F–

2004–118 R1, dated October 13, 2004.) 

The commenter states that it does not 

see any advantage in the FAA’s 

terminology. The commenter states that 

the reference for the service life of the 

airplane is the first flight—the point at 

which flight hours and flight cycles 

begin to count. The commenter states 

that the first flight of an airplane cannot 

be ‘‘interpreted differently by different 

operators’’ (as the FAA states under 

‘‘Differences Among the Proposed AD, 

the French Airworthiness Directive, and 

the Service Information’’ in the 

proposed AD). The commenter states 

that the date of the first flight is 

recorded in the airplane’s logbook. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request. We find that, for the airplane 

models affected by this AD, operators 

should be able to readily determine the 

date of the first flight of the airplane. We 

have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD 

accordingly. 

The same commenter also takes issue 

with the grace period of 18 months after 

the effective date of the AD, which is 

specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the 

proposed AD. The commenter states 

that this date will be long after the 

January 31, 2006, compliance date 

specified in French airworthiness 

directive F–2004–118 R1. 

We do not concur. We would use a 

calendar date to express a compliance 

time only when engineering analysis 

establishes a direct relationship between 

the date and either the compliance 

threshold or the grace period. In this 

case, this relationship does not exist, 

and we find that a grace period of 18 

months after the effective date of this 

AD represents an appropriate interval of 

time for affected airplanes to continue to 

operate without compromising safety. 

Also, we note that the compliance time 

of January 31, 2006, specified in French 

airworthiness directive F–2004–118 R1 

is approximately 18 months after the 

effective date of the original issue of 

French airworthiness directive F–2004–

118, July 31, 2004. Thus, the 18-month 

grace period is consistent with the grace 

period allowed by the DGAC in French 

airworthiness directive F–2004–118 R1. 

We have not changed the AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Refer to Service Bulletins 

for Repair Instructions 

One commenter, the airplane 

manufacturer, notes that paragraph (f)(1) 

of the proposed AD would require 

repairs to be done in accordance with a 

method approved by the FAA, the 

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile 

(DGAC) (which is the airworthiness 

authority for France), or the DGAC’s 

delegated agent, where the service 

bulletins specify to contact Airbus. The 

commenter states that any repair 

solution provided by Airbus would be 

DGAC approved through Airbus’s 

privileges as a Delegation Option 

Authorization (DOA) organization. For 

this reason, the commenter states that 

the instructions specified in the service 

bulletins should be followed. 

We infer that the commenter is asking 

that we remove paragraph (f)(1) from 

this AD. We do not agree. We cannot 

specify in an AD that operators may 

contact the manufacturer for repair 

instructions when the nature of that 

repair is unknown. Doing so would be 

delegating our rulemaking authority to 

the manufacturer. We acknowledge that 

Airbus is able to approve repairs, as 

allowed by Airbus’s delegation 

authorization from the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). We 

find that requiring repair ‘‘according to 

a method approved by the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation 

Civile (or its delegated agent),’’ as 

specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, 

meets the intent of the commenter’s 

request (i.e., it allows repair in 

accordance with a method approved by 

Airbus), without compromising the 

terms of our rulemaking authority. We 

have not changed the AD in this regard. 

Request To Require Reporting 

One commenter, the airplane 

manufacturer, notes that paragraph (f)(2) 

of the proposed AD states that reporting 

information to the manufacturer is not 

required. The commenter requests that 

we revise the proposed AD to require 

inspection results be sent to Airbus. The 

commenter states that receiving the 

inspection results will allow it to gain 

as much information from the field as 

possible to allow continuous 

improvement. 

We do not concur with the 

commenter’s request. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) must 

approve information collection 

requirements under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The PRA 

requires government agencies to 

consider the extent of the paperwork 

burden that will accompany any new 

rule. The PRA is intended to reduce 

these burdens by requiring agencies not 

only to analyze the information 

collection and reporting costs they are 

imposing on the private sector, but to 

use those analyses to minimize the cost. 

We require operators to submit 

information relevant to AD actions only 

when our analyses indicate that such 

information is needed to ensure safety 

or to document compliance. We cannot 

require operators to submit information 

to improve processes. We have not 

changed the AD in this regard. 

Explanation of Change to Applicability 

We have revised the applicability of 

this AD to identify model designations 

as published in the most recent type 

certificate data sheet for the affected 

models. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 59265 

Clarification of Alternative Method of 

Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph 

We have revised this action to clarify 

the appropriate procedure for notifying 

the principal inspector before using any 

approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

received, and determined that air safety 

and the public interest require adopting 

the AD with the changes described 

previously. We have determined that 

these changes will neither increase the 

economic burden on any operator nor 

increase the scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

This AD affects about 20 airplanes of 

U.S. registry. The inspection to 

determine the part number and serial 

number of installed elevator assemblies 

takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at 

an average labor rate of $65 per work 

hour. Based on these figures, the 

estimated cost of this AD for U.S. 

operators is $1,300, or $65 per airplane. 

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 and placed it in the AD docket. 

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 

■ 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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

2005–20–32 Airbus: Amendment 39–14329. 

Docket No. FAA–2005–20221; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–173–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective November 

16, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model 

A330–201, –202, –203, –223, –243, –301, 

–321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 

airplanes; and Model A340–211, –212, –213, 

–311, –312, and –313 airplanes; certificated 

in any category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports that 

areas on the top skin panel of the right-hand 

elevator have disbonded due to moisture 

penetration. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent disbonding of the elevator assembly, 

which could reduce the structural integrity of 

the elevator and result in reduced 

controllability of the airplane. 

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. 

Service Bulletin References 

(f) The term ‘‘service bulletin,’’ as used in 

this AD, means the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–

55–3032 (for Model A330–201, –202, –203, 

–223, –243, –301, –321, –322, –323, –341, 

–342, and –343 airplanes) or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A340–55–4029 (for Model A340–

211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 

airplanes), both dated December 22, 2003, as 

applicable. 

(1) Where the service bulletins recommend 

contacting Airbus for appropriate action: 

Before further flight, repair the condition 

according to a method approved by the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the 

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile (or its 

delegated agent). 

(2) Although the service bulletins specify 

submitting certain information to the 

manufacturer, this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

Determining Part Number, Serial Number 

(g) At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: 

Perform an inspection to determine the part 

number and serial number of the left- and 

right-hand elevator assemblies. A review of 

airplane maintenance records is acceptable in 

lieu of this inspection if the part number and 

serial number of each elevator assembly can 

be conclusively determined from that review. 

If neither elevator assembly has a part 

number and serial number combination 

identified in Table 1 of this AD, no further 

action is required by this paragraph. If either 

elevator assembly has a part number and 

serial number combination identified in 

Table 1 of this AD, do paragraph (h) of this 

AD. 

(1) Within 10 years after the date of the 

first flight of the airplane, or before the 

accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles, 

whichever is first. 

(2) Within 18 months after the effective 

date of this AD. 

TABLE 1.—AFFECTED ELEVATOR PART NUMBERS AND SERIAL NUMBERS

Part Affected part 

numbers Affected serial numbers 

Left-hand elevator assembly .. F55280000000, 

F55280000004 

CG1002 through CG1091 inclusive, CG1093, CG1094, CG2001. 

59266 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—AFFECTED ELEVATOR PART NUMBERS AND SERIAL NUMBERS—Continued 

Part Affected part 

numbers Affected serial numbers 

Right-hand elevator assembly F55280000001, 

F55280000005 

CG1002 through CG1094 inclusive, CG2001. 

Inspections 

(h) If the left- or right-hand elevator 

assembly has a part number and serial 

number combination identified in Table 1 of 

this AD: Before further flight after 

accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD, do 

the actions in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and 

(h)(3) of this AD, as applicable. 

(1) Perform an endoscopic inspection to 

detect damage (such as a scratch, disbonding, 

or a tear), and a tap test and a thermographic 

inspection to detect signs of moisture 

penetration, to the upper and lower elevator 

panels on both sides of the airplane, in 

accordance with the service bulletin. 

(2) If any damage is found, before further 

flight, do all applicable corrective actions 

(including but not limited to repeating the 

thermographic inspection to determine the 

size of the damaged area, and performing a 

tap test around the areas where moisture is 

indicated), in accordance with the service 

bulletin. 

(3) Re-protect the elevator assembly 

(including performing a general visual 

inspection to determine if the drainage holes 

are clean, a general visual inspection to 

determine the condition of the sealant 

covering the static discharges contour, and 

applicable corrective actions), in accordance 

with the service bulletin. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

general visual inspection is: ‘‘A visual 

examination of an interior or exterior area, 

installation, or assembly to detect obvious 

damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of 

inspection is made from within touching 

distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror 

may be necessary to ensure visual access to 

all surfaces in the inspection area. This level 

of inspection is made under normally 

available lighting conditions such as 

daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or 

droplight and may require removal or 

opening of access panels or doors. Stands, 

ladders, or platforms may be required to gain 

proximity to the area being checked.’’

Parts Installation 

(i) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install, on any airplane, an 

elevator assembly having a part number and 

serial number combination identified in 

Table 1 of this AD unless the actions required 

by paragraph (h) of this AD are 

accomplished. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

the appropriate principal inspector in the 

FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding 

District Office. 

Related Information 

(k) French airworthiness directive F–2004–

118 R1, dated October 13, 2004, also 

addresses the subject of this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(l) You must use Airbus Service Bulletin 

A330–55–3032, excluding Appendix 01, 

dated December 22, 2003; or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A340–55–4029, excluding Appendix 

01, dated December 22, 2003; as applicable; 

to perform the actions that are required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

The Director of the Federal Register approved 

the incorporation by reference of these 

documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 

Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France, for a copy of this service 

information. You may review copies at the 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh 

Street SW., room PL–401, Nassif Building, 

Washington, DC; on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov; or at 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/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 29, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20064 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2003–NM–238–AD; Amendment 

39–14330; AD 2005–20–33] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 727, 727C, 727–100, and 727–

100C Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a 

new airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain Boeing Model 727, 

727C, 727–100, and 727–100C series 

airplanes. This AD requires repetitive 

inspections of the frame inner chord, 

outer chord, and web of the forward and 

aft edge frames of the lower lobe 

forward cargo door (FCD) cutout, and 

corrective action if necessary. The 

actions specified by this AD are 

intended to detect and correct fatigue 

cracking of the forward and aft edge 

frames of the lower lobe FCD cutout, 

which could result in the loss of the 

FCD and rapid decompression of the 

airplane. This action is intended to 

address the identified unsafe condition. 

DATES: Effective November 16, 2005. 

The incorporation by reference of a 

certain publication listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of November 

16, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 

98124–2207. This information may be 

examined at the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel F. Kutz, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6456; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to 

include an airworthiness directive (AD) 

that is applicable to certain Boeing 

Model 727, 727C, 727–100, and 727–

100C series airplanes was published as 

a supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register on August 22, 2005 (70 FR 

48904). That action proposed to require 

repetitive inspections of the frame inner 

chord, outer chord, and web of the 

forward and aft edge frames of the lower 

lobe forward cargo door cutout, and 

corrective action if necessary.