Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63965

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–

54–0107, dated January 16, 2003, are 

considered acceptable for compliance with 

the corresponding action specified in this 

AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

21, 2004. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24540 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19495; Directorate 

Identifier 2003–NM–180–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–100, –100B, –100B SUD, 

–200B, and –300 Series Airplanes; and 

Model 747SR and 747SP Series 

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 

747–100, –100B, –100B SUD, –200B, 

and –300 series airplanes; and Model 

747SR and 747SP series airplanes. That 

AD currently requires repetitive 

inspections to detect fatigue cracking in 

the upper deck floor beams located at 

certain body stations, and repair, if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 

lower the threshold for the existing 

inspections and would require new 

repetitive inspections of previously 

repaired areas, and repair if necessary. 

This proposed AD is prompted by the 

results of an additional detailed analysis 

that indicate fatigue cracks can initiate 

sooner than has previously been 

observed. We are proposing this AD to 

prevent failure of the upper deck floor 

beams at certain body stations due to 

fatigue cracking, which could result in 

rapid decompression and reduced 

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 20, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:/

/dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

You can examine the contents of this 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov, or at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., room PL–401, on the plaza level of 

the Nassif Building, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Technical information: Ivan Li, 

Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, 

ANM–120S, FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6437; fax (425) 917–6590. 

Plain language information: Marcia 

Walters, marcia.walters@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Docket Management System (DMS) 

The FAA has implemented new 

procedures for maintaining AD dockets 

electronically. As of May 17, 2004, new 

AD actions are posted on DMS and 

assigned a docket number. We track 

each action and assign a corresponding 

directorate identifier. The DMS AD 

docket number is in the form ‘‘Docket 

No. FAA–2004–99999.’’ The Transport 

Airplane Directorate identifier is in the 

form ‘‘Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–

999–AD.’’ Each DMS AD docket also 

lists the directorate identifier (‘‘Old 

Docket Number’’) as a cross-reference 

for searching purposes. 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–

2004–19495; Directorate Identifier 

2003–NM–180–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of the proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend the 

proposed AD in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You can 

review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you can visit http://

dms.dot.gov.

We are reviewing the writing style we 

currently use in regulatory documents. 

We are interested in your comments on 

whether the style of this document is 

clear, and your suggestions to improve 

the clarity of our communications that 

affect you. You can get more 

information about plain language at 

http://www.faa.gov/language and http://

www.plainlanguage.gov.

Examining the Docket 

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 DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the DMS 

receives them. 

Discussion 

On February 22, 2000, we issued AD 

2000–04–17, amendment 39–11600 (65 

FR 10695, February 29, 2000), for 

certain Boeing Model 747–100, –200, 

and –300 series airplanes. That AD 

requires repetitive inspections to detect 

fatigue cracking in the upper deck floor 

beams located at certain body stations, 

and repair, if necessary. That AD was 

prompted by a report from the 

manufacturer that, during a fatigue test 

at approximately 34,000 total flight 

cycles, the upper chord and web of the 

upper deck floor beams located at body 

63966 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

stations (BS) 340 and 360 were found 

severed. Another report by an operator 

indicated that, at approximately 33,000 

total flight cycles, a severed upper chord 

and web were found in the upper deck 

floor beam at BS 380. In addition, 

cracking was found at multiple fastener 

hole locations. We issued that AD to 

prevent failure of the upper deck floor 

beams at certain body stations due to 

fatigue cracking, which could result in 

rapid decompression and reduced 

controllability of the airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2000–04–17, the 

results of an additional detailed analysis 

indicate that fatigue cracks can initiate 

sooner than has previously been 

observed. Subsequent to this analysis, 

the manufacturer issued, and we 

reviewed Revision 2 of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2431, dated 

June 13, 2002. (The original issue of the 

service bulletin was referred to in AD 

2000–04–17 as the appropriate source of 

service information for the required 

actions). Revision 2 of the service 

bulletin changes the initial inspection 

threshold from 28,000 total flight cycles 

to 22,000 total flight cycles. It also adds 

new repetitive inspections of areas 

repaired per earlier issues of the service 

bulletin, and repair of any crack. 

Depending on the location of the repair, 

the inspections include: 

• Open-hole HFEC inspections to 

detect cracks at the fastener holes of the 

floor panel attachment and the inboard 

and outboard end fastener locations 

common to the repair strap; and 

• Surface HFEC inspections to detect 

cracks of the upper chord along the edge 

of the trimmed surface. 

Accomplishing the actions specified 

in the service information is intended to 

adequately address the unsafe 

condition. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of this same 

type design. Therefore, we are 

proposing this AD, which would 

supersede AD 2000–04–17. This 

proposed AD would continue to require 

repetitive inspections to detect fatigue 

cracking in the upper deck floor beams 

located at certain body stations, and 

repair, if necessary. The proposed AD 

also would require the existing 

repetitive inspections at a lower 

threshold. In addition, the proposed AD 

would require new repetitive 

inspections of previously repaired areas, 

and repair of any crack. This proposed 

AD would require you to use the service 

information described previously to 

perform these actions, except as 

discussed under ‘‘Differences Between 

the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.’’

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Service Bulletin 

Although the service bulletin 

recommends accomplishing the initial 

inspection before the accumulation of 

22,000 total flight cycles, we have 

determined that the inspection 

threshold would not address the 

identified unsafe condition soon enough 

to ensure an adequate level of safety for 

the affected fleet. As described in AD 

2004–03–11, amendment 39–13455 (69 

FR 5920, February 8, 2004), we have 

received a report indicating that cracks 

were found in the upper deck floor at 

BS 420 on a Boeing Model 747–200F 

series airplane with 19,598 total flight 

cycles. The upper chord and web of the 

floor beam were completely severed. AD 

2004–03–11, applicable to certain 

Boeing Model 747–200C and –200F 

series airplanes, requires repetitive 

inspections to find fatigue cracking in 

the upper chord of the upper deck floor 

beams, and repair if necessary. For 

certain airplanes, that AD also provides 

an optional repair/modification, which 

extends certain repetitive inspection 

intervals. That AD is intended to find 

and fix cracking in certain upper deck 

floor beams, which extend and sever 

floor beams at a floor panel attachment 

hole location and could result in rapid 

decompression and consequent loss of 

controllability of the airplane. 

Since the issuance of AD 2004–03–11, 

we have received two reports of 

multiple-floor beam cracking on two 

Model 747–200F series airplanes with 

19,687 and 23,561 total flight cycles. 

Numerous cracks up to 0.75 inches long 

were found at the floor beams. Some of 

the cracks exceeded the repairable 

limits specified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2439, dated July 5, 

2001 (cited in AD 2004–03–11 as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for the required actions). 

We are considering further rulemaking 

action to address these new findings. 

The upper deck floor beams at BS 

340, 360, and 380 on Model 747–100, 

–100B, –100B SUD, –200B, and –300 

series airplanes, and Model 747SR and 

747SP series airplanes are a similar type 

design to those on Model 747–200C and 

–200F series airplanes. Therefore, we 

find that a 18,000 flight-cycle 

compliance time represents an 

appropriate interval of time for affected 

airplanes to continue to operate without 

compromising safety.

For locations that have been repaired 

by oversizing the fastener holes only 

(i.e., repair strap and/or clip not 

installed) as specified in Table 1 of Part 

3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

the service bulletin, Part 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

service bulletin does not specify an 

inspection method or compliance time 

for that type of repaired location. 

Therefore, this proposed AD would 

require an open-hole HFEC inspection 

to detect cracks of the upper floor beams 

in accordance with Part 1 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

service bulletin. The compliance time 

for that inspection is before the 

accumulation of the applicable 

threshold specified in the ‘‘New 

Inspection Threshold’’ column in Table 

1 of Part 3 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the service bulletin, or 

within 1,000 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later. 

The service bulletin specifies not to 

count flight cycles with a cabin pressure 

differential of 2.0 pounds per square 

inch (psi) or less, and that any flight 

cycles with momentary spikes in cabin 

pressure differential above 2.0 psi must 

be included as a full-pressure flight 

cycle. We find that insufficient data 

exist to support this adjustment to flight 

cycles. In fact, data are available which 

indicate that the use of a 2.0 adjustment 

factor provides inaccurate data and 

unjustified relief for inspection 

intervals. Consequently, this AD does 

not allow for this adjustment factor. 

The service bulletin specifies that you 

may contact the manufacturer for 

instructions on how to repair certain 

conditions, but this proposed AD would 

require you to repair those conditions in 

one of the following ways: 

• Using a method that we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the type 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by a Boeing 

Company Designated Engineering 

Representative who has been authorized 

by the FAA to make those findings. 

Although the service bulletin does not 

list a grace period in the compliance 

time for the post-repair inspection, this 

proposed AD adds a grace period to the 

compliance times. We find that a grace 

period will keep airplanes from being 

grounded unnecessarily. 

In addition, the effectivity of service 

bulletin incorrectly specifies ‘‘747–

300B’’ as an affected airplane model. 

The correct model designation is 747–

300, as specified in type certificate data 

sheet, A20WE, May 10, 2004. As 

explained further below, this AD 

specifies model designations in the 

applicability of this proposed AD as 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63967

published in the most recent type 

certificate data sheet. 

Certain Changes to Existing AD 

We find that certain affected Model 

747–100, –100B, –100B SUD, –200B, 

and –300 series airplanes, and Model 

747SR and 747SP series airplanes were 

not specifically identified by model 

name in the applicability of AD 2000–

04–17. However, all of those airplanes 

were identified by manufacturer’s 

fuselage numbers in the effectivity 

listing of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2431, dated February 10, 2000, 

which was referenced in that AD as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for the required actions. 

Therefore, we have specified model 

designations in the applicability of this 

proposed AD as published in the most 

recent type certificate data sheet and 

Revision 2 of the referenced service 

bulletin for the affected models. 

This proposed AD would retain all 

requirements of AD 2000–04–17. Since 

AD 2000–04–17 was issued, the AD 

format has been revised, and certain 

paragraphs have been rearranged. As a 

result, paragraph (a) of AD 2000–04–17 

has been redesignated as paragraph (g) 

in this proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 539 Model 747–100, 

–100B, –100B SUD, –200B, and –300 

series airplanes; and Model 747SR and 

747SP series airplanes worldwide of the 

affected design. This proposed AD 

would affect about 168 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. 

The actions that are currently 

required by AD 2000–04–17 and 

retained in this proposed AD take about 

15 work hours per airplane, at an 

average labor rate of $65 per work hour. 

Based on these figures, estimated cost of 

the currently required actions is 

$163,800, or $975 per airplane. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

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 proposed 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, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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 amendment 39–11600 (65 FR 

10695, February 29, 2000) and adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2004–19495; 

Directorate Identifier 2003–NM–180–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

must receive comments on this airworthiness 

directive (AD) action by December 20, 2004. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2000–04–17, 

amendment 39–11600 (65 FR 10695, 

February 29, 2000). 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747–

100, –100B, –100B SUD, –200B, and –300 

series airplanes; and Model 747SR and 747SP 

series airplanes; certificated in any category; 

as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2431, Revision 2, dated June 13, 

2002. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by the results 

of an additional detailed analysis that 

indicate fatigue cracks can initiate sooner 

than has previously been observed. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 

upper deck floor beams at certain body 

stations (BS) due to fatigue cracking, which 

could result in rapid decompression and 

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. 

New Initial Compliance Time 

(f) At the earlier of the times specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, do the 

actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 28,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 60 days after March 

15, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–04–

17, amendment 39–11600), whichever occurs 

later. 

(2) Before the accumulation of 18,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later. 

Determining Number of Flight Cycles for 

Compliance Time 

(g) For the purposes of calculating the 

compliance threshold for the actions required 

by paragraph (f) of this AD, all pressurized 

flight cycles, including the number of flight 

cycles in which cabin differential pressure is 

at 2.0 pounds per square inch (psi) or less, 

must be counted when determining the 

number of flight cycles that have occurred on 

the airplane. Where the service bulletin and 

this AD differ, the AD prevails. 

Requirements of AD 2000–04–17 and New 

Repair Method 

(h) At the time specified in paragraph (f) 

of this AD, perform the actions required by 

either paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Gain access to the upper deck floor 

beams from above the upper deck floor, and 

perform an open-hole high frequency eddy 

current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking 

of the upper deck floor beams at BS 340 and 

360, and on both the left and right sides of 

the floor beam at BS 380 between buttock 

lines (BL) 40 and 76; in accordance with Part 

1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2431, 

Revision 2, dated June 13, 2002. 

(i) If no cracking is found, perform the 

actions required by paragraph (h)(1)(i)(A), 

(h)(1)(i)(B), or (h)(1)(i)(C) of this AD, in 

accordance with the alert service bulletin. 

(A) Repeat the inspection required by 

paragraph (h)(1) of this AD thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. 

(B) Modify (oversize) the floor panel 

attachment fastener holes as specified in 

Figure 5 of the alert service bulletin, and 

repeat the inspection required by paragraph 

(h)(1) of this AD within 10,000 flight cycles. 

Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals 

not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. 

(C) Do the applicable repair procedures 

shown in Part 3 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the alert service bulletin; 

except where the service bulletin specifies to 

contact Boeing for appropriate action, before 

further flight, repair in accordance with 

paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD. 

(ii) If any cracking is found, before further 

flight, do the action specified in either 

paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(A) or (h)(1)(ii)(B) of this 

AD. 

(A) Repair in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate; or in accordance with 

data meeting the type certification basis of 

the airplane approved by a Boeing Company 

Designated Engineering Representative (DER) 

who has been authorized by the FAA to make 

63968 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

such findings. For a repair method to be 

approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as 

required by this paragraph, the Manager’s 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD.

(B) Repair in accordance with Part 3 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the alert 

service bulletin; except where the service 

bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for 

appropriate action, before further flight, 

repair in accordance with paragraph 

(h)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD. 

(2) Gain access to the upper deck floor 

beams from below the upper deck floor; and 

perform a surface HFEC inspection to detect 

cracking of the floor beams at BS 340 and 

360, and on both the left and right sides of 

the floor beam at BS 380 between BL 40 and 

76; in accordance with Part 2 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2431, Revision 2, 

dated June 13, 2002. 

(i) If no cracking is found, repeat the 

inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of 

this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 

750 flight cycles. 

(ii) If any cracking is found, before further 

flight, do the action specified in paragraph 

(h)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

New Post-Repair Inspection 

(i) For areas repaired in accordance with 

paragraph (h)(1)(i)(C) or (h)(1)(ii)(B) of this 

AD: Before the accumulation of the 

applicable threshold specified in the ‘‘New 

Inspection Threshold’’ column in Table 1 of 

Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2431, 

Revision 2, dated June 13, 2002, after 

accomplishing the repair; or within 1,000 

flight cycles after the effective date of this 

AD; whichever occurs later: Do the actions 

specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3) of 

this AD, as applicable. 

(1) For locations that have been repaired by 

oversizing the fastener holes only (i.e., repair 

strap and/or clip not installed) as shown in 

Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Revision 1 or 2 of the alert service bulletin: 

Perform an open-hole HFEC inspection to 

detect cracking of the upper deck floor 

beams, in accordance with Part 1 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the alert 

service bulletin. 

(2) For locations previously repaired as 

shown in Figure 8 of Revision 1 or 2 of the 

alert service bulletin: Do an open-hole HFEC 

inspection to detect cracks at the fastener 

holes of the floor panel attachment and the 

inboard and outboard end fastener locations 

common to the repair strap, in accordance 

with Part 4 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2431, Revision 2, dated June 13, 

2002. 

(3) For locations previously repaired as 

shown in Figure 9 or Figure 10 of Revision 

1 or 2 of the alert service bulletin: Do a 

surface HFEC inspection to detect cracks at 

the upper chord along the edge of the 

trimmed surface; and perform an open-hole 

HFEC inspection to detect cracks at the 

fastener holes of the floor panel attachment 

and the inboard and outboard end fastener 

locations common to the repair strap, in 

accordance with Part 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2431, Revision 2, 

dated June 13, 2002. 

(j) If no crack is detected during any 

inspection required by paragraphs (i)(1) 

through (i)(3) of this AD, repeat the 

applicable inspection thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. 

(k) If any crack is detected during any 

inspection required by paragraph (i)(1) 

through (i)(3) of this AD, before further flight, 

do the action specified in paragraph 

(h)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD. 

(l) For areas repaired in accordance with 

paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD that do not 

have a post-repair inspection program 

approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO or by 

a Boeing Company DER who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings: Do the actions specified 

in paragraph (h) of this AD at the time 

specified in that paragraph. 

Credit for Previous Released Alert Service 

Bulletin 

(m) Actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD per Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2431, dated 

February 10, 2000; or Revision 1, dated 

March 8, 2001; are acceptable for compliance 

with the applicable requirements of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(n)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, 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 a 

Boeing Company Designated Engineering 

Representative who has been authorized by 

the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those 

findings. For a repair method to be approved, 

the approval must specifically refer to this 

AD. 

(3) AMOCs, approved previously per AD 

2000–14–17, amendment 39–11600, are 

approved as AMOCs with paragraph 

(h)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD, provided that a postrepair inspection program has been approved 

by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or by a Boeing 

Company Designated Engineering 

Representative who has been authorized by 

the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those 

findings.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

21, 2004. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24544 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19496; Directorate 

Identifier 2003–NM–181–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier 

Model CL–215–6B11 (CL215T Variant) 

and CL–215–6B11 (CL415 Variant) 

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Bombardier Model CL–215–

6B11 (CL215T variant) and CL–215–

6B11 (CL415 variant) series airplanes. 

This proposed AD would require 

replacing the mounting pad studs of the 

auxiliary feather pump with new, longer 

studs, and installing a pressure relief 

valve. This proposed AD is prompted by 

a few incidents of external oil leaks 

from the oil pump of the power control 

unit due to a malfunction of the 

pressure regulating valve. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent fracturing 

of the pump body, which could result 

in loss of engine oil, and consequent 

inability to maintain engine oil pressure 

and to feather the propeller.

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 3, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:/

/dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• By fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: room PL–401 on the 

plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You can get the service information 

identified in this proposed AD from 

Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace 

Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centreville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, 

Canada. 

You may examine the contents of this 

AD docket on the Internet at http://