5920 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Incorporation by Reference 

(i) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, 

the actions shall be done in accordance with 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 31–51–2, dated 

February 1, 2001, and Bombardier Service 

Bulletin 31–51–3, Revision 1, dated August 

2, 2001; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 35/

36–51–3, dated February 1, 2001, and 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 35/36–51–4, 

Revision 1, dated August 2, 2001; as 

applicable. This incorporation by reference 

was approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained 

from Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, 

Kansas 67209–2942. Copies may be inspected 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington; or at the FAA, Wichita Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, 

Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, 

Kansas; or at the Office of the Federal 

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 

700, Washington, DC. 

Effective Date 

(j) This amendment becomes effective on 

March 15, 2004.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

29, 2004. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–2585 Filed 2–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2001–NM–278–AD; Amendment 

39–13455; AD 2004–03–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–200C and –200F Series 

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a 

new airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain Boeing Model 747–

200C and –200F series airplanes, that 

requires repetitive inspections to find 

fatigue cracking in the upper chord of 

the upper deck floor beams, and repair 

if necessary. For certain airplanes, this 

amendment also provides an optional 

repair/modification, which extends 

certain repetitive inspection intervals. 

This action is necessary to find and fix 

cracking in certain upper deck floor 

beams. Such cracking could 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. This action is intended to 

address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective March 15, 2004. 

The incorporation by reference of a 

certain publication listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of March 15, 

2004.

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; or at the Office of the 

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick 

Kawaguchi, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6434; 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 747–200C and –200F series 

airplanes was published in the Federal 

Register on July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43688). 

That action proposed to require 

repetitive inspections to find fatigue 

cracking in the upper chord of the upper 

deck floor beams, and repair if 

necessary. For certain airplanes, that 

action also proposed an optional repair/

modification, which would extend 

certain repetitive inspection intervals. 

Comments 

Interested persons have been afforded 

an opportunity to participate in the 

making of this amendment. Due 

consideration has been given to the 

comments received. 

Request To Allow an Additional 

Adjustment to the Compliance Time 

One commenter requests that 

adjustments to the compliance time in 

paragraph (c) of the proposed AD 

should apply not only to the actions 

described in paragraph (a), but also to 

those described in paragraph (b). 

The FAA concurs. We find that relief 

of the cabin pressure differential should 

be applicable to the compliance 

thresholds and repetitive inspections for 

the optional action described in 

paragraph (b) as well as those required 

by paragraph (a). Paragraph (c) of this 

final rule has been changed accordingly. 

Request To Expand Provisions for 

Optional Repair/Modification 

One commenter suggests that 

paragraph (b) of the proposed AD be 

revised to provide that, if the inspection 

required by paragraph (a) of the 

proposed AD were done per Part 2 

Surface High Frequency Eddy Current 

(HFEC) Inspection Method of the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2439, then 

accomplishment of the optional repair 

or modification specified in paragraph 

(b)(1) of the proposed AD could be 

performed. The commenter indicates 

that repair per paragraph (b)(1) of the 

proposed AD already requires open-hole 

HFEC inspection of the floor panel hole 

and reworking of the hole, until any 

cracking is removed. It should, 

therefore, be acceptable to accomplish 

repair following inspection per Part 2 of 

the Work Instructions of the service 

bulletin. 

The FAA agrees that repair per 

paragraph (b)(1) of the proposed AD 

requires open hole HFEC inspection of 

the floor panel hole and re-working of 

the hole, until any cracking is removed. 

We find, therefore, that following 

inspection per Part 2 of the Work 

Instructions of the service bulletin, the 

repair may be accomplished per 

paragraph (b)(1). We have revised 

paragraph (b) of the final rule 

accordingly. 

Request To Clarify Location of Fatigue 

Cracking 

One commenter asks that the 

Discussion section of the proposed AD 

be revised to refer to STA 420, rather 

than STA 340. The commenter also asks 

that the language in the Discussion 

section and in the third paragraph of the 

introduction of the proposed AD be 

changed from ‘‘* * * could extend and 

sever floor beams adjacent to the body 

frame * * *’’ to ‘‘* * * could extend 

and sever floor beams at a floor panel 

hole location * * *.’’

The commenter notes that the 

Background section of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2439 indicates 

that fatigue cracking was reported at 

STA 420 rather than at STA 340. The 

commenter also notes that the 

applicable inspections and possible 

repair or modification is at the upper 

deck floor beam floor panel attachment 

holes, which exist throughout the span 

of the floor beams, not just adjacent to 

where the floor beam joins the body 

frame. 

The FAA partially concurs with the 

comment. No change is needed in the 

Discussion section, since that section is 

not restated in this final rule. In terms 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5921

of the location where the floor beams 

can sever, the suggested change has 

been made in the summary section and 

in the regulatory text of this final rule. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the available 

data, including the comments noted 

above, the FAA has determined that air 

safety and the public interest require the 

adoption of the rule with the changes 

previously described. The FAA has 

determined that these changes will 

neither increase the economic burden 

on any operator nor increase the scope 

of the AD. 

Change to Labor Rate Estimate 

We have reviewed the figures we have 

used over the past several years to 

calculate AD costs to operators. To 

account for various inflationary costs in 

the airline industry, we find it necessary 

to increase the labor rate used in these 

calculations from $60 per work hour to 

$65 per work hour. The cost impact 

information, below, reflects this 

increase in the specified hourly labor 

rate. 

Cost Impact 

There are approximately 78 airplanes 

of the affected design in the worldwide 

fleet. The FAA estimates that 21 

airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected 

by this AD, that it will take 

approximately 30 work hours per 

airplane to accomplish the required 

inspections, and that the average labor 

rate is $65 per work hour. Based on 

these figures, the cost impact of the AD 

on U.S. operators is estimated to be 

$40,950, or $1,950 per airplane, per 

inspection.

The cost impact figure discussed 

above is based on assumptions that no 

operator has yet accomplished any of 

the requirements of this AD action, and 

that no operator would accomplish 

those actions in the future if this AD 

were not adopted. The cost impact 

figures discussed in AD rulemaking 

actions represent only the time 

necessary to perform the specific actions 

actually required by the AD. These 

figures typically do not include 

incidental costs, such as the time 

required to gain access and close up, 

planning time, or time necessitated by 

other administrative actions. 

Regulatory Impact 

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is 

determined that this final rule does not 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has 

been prepared for this action and it is 

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy 

of it may be obtained from the Rules 

Docket at the location provided under 

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive:

2004–03–11 Boeing: Amendment 39–

13455. Docket 2001–NM–278–AD.

Applicability: Model 747–200C and -200F 

series airplanes, as listed in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2439, dated July 5, 

2001; certificated in any category. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

To find and fix cracking in certain upper 

deck floor beams, which could 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, accomplish 

the following: 

Inspections and Repair 

(a) Before the accumulation of 22,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is later: Do the applicable inspection to find 

fatigue cracking in the upper chord of the 

upper deck floor beams as specified in Part 

1 (Open-Hole High Frequency Eddy Current 

(HFEC) Inspection Method) or Part 2 (Surface 

HFEC Inspection Method) of the Work 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2439, dated July 5, 2001. Do the 

inspections per the service bulletin. 

(1) If any crack is found, before further 

flight, repair per Part 3 (Repair) of the Work 

Instructions of the service bulletin; except 

where the service bulletin specifies to contact 

Boeing for appropriate action, before further 

flight, repair according to a method approved 

by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA; or according to data 

meeting the type certification basis of the 

airplane approved by a Boeing Company 

Designated Engineering Representative (DER) 

who has been authorized by the Manager, 

Seattle ACO, to make 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. Do the 

applicable inspection of the repaired area per 

Part 1 of the service bulletin at the applicable 

time per Part 3 of the service bulletin. Repeat 

the applicable inspection at the applicable 

interval per Figure 1 of the service bulletin. 

(2) If no crack is found, repeat the 

applicable inspection per paragraph (a) of 

this AD within the applicable interval per 

Figure 1 of the service bulletin. As an option, 

accomplishment of paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) 

of this AD, before further flight, extends the 

threshold for the initiation of the repetitive 

inspections required by this paragraph. 

Optional Repair/Modification 

(b) For airplanes on which the inspection 

required by paragraph (a) of this AD is done 

per Part 1 of the Work Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2439, dated 

July 5, 2001; and on which no cracking is 

found: Accomplishment of the actions 

specified in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) 

of this AD extends the threshold for the 

initiation of the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (a)(2) of this AD. For 

airplanes on which the inspection required 

by paragraph (a) of this AD is done per Part 

2 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2439, dated July 5, 

2001; and on which no cracking is found: 

Accomplishment of the actions specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this AD extends the 

threshold for the initiation of the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (a)(2) of 

this AD. 

(1) Do the repair per Part 3 of the service 

bulletin. At the applicable time specified in 

Table 1 of Part 3 of the service bulletin, do 

the inspection of the repaired area per Part 

1 of the service bulletin. Repeat the 

inspection thereafter within the applicable 

interval per Figure 1 of the service bulletin. 

(2) Do the modification of the attachment 

hole of the floor panel per Figure 5 of the 

service bulletin. Within 10,000 flight cycles 

after accomplishment of the modification, do 

the inspection of the modified area per Part 

1 of the service bulletin. Repeat the 

inspection thereafter within the applicable 

interval per Figure 1 of the service bulletin. 

Adjustments to Compliance Time: Cabin 

Differential Pressure 

(c) For the purposes of calculating the 

compliance threshold and repetitive intervals 

for actions described in paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this AD: The number of flight cycles 

5922 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

in which cabin differential pressure is at 2.0 

pounds per square inch (psi) or less need not 

be counted when determining the number of 

flight cycles that have occurred on the 

airplane, provided that flight cycles with 

momentary spikes in cabin differential 

pressure above 2.0 psi are included as full 

pressure cycles. For this provision to apply, 

all cabin pressure records must be 

maintained for each airplane. No fleetaveraging of cabin pressure is allowed. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(d)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, is authorized to 

approve alternative methods of compliance 

(AMOCs) for this AD. 

(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 DER who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make such findings. 

Incorporation by Reference 

(e) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, 

the actions shall be done in accordance with 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2439, 

dated July 5, 2001. This incorporation by 

reference was approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 

obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–

2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the 

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, 

DC. 

Effective Date 

(f) This amendment becomes effective on 

March 15, 2004.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

29, 2004. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–2584 Filed 2–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2002–NM–118–AD; Amendment 

39–13463; AD 2004–03–19] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A320–111, –211, and –231 Series 

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes 

an existing airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain Airbus Model 

A320–111, –211, and –231 series 

airplanes, that currently requires 

repetitive inspections for cracking in the 

transition and pick-up angles in the 

lower part of the center fuselage area, 

and corrective action if necessary. That 

AD also provides for an optional 

terminating modification for the 

repetitive inspection requirements. This 

amendment reduces the compliance 

time for the inspections for cracking of 

the same area. The actions specified by 

this AD are intended to detect and 

correct fatigue cracking in the transition 

and pick-up angles of the lower part of 

the center fuselage, which could result 

in reduced structural integrity of the 

wing-fuselage support and fuselage 

pressure vessel. This action is intended 

to address the identified unsafe 

condition.

DATES: Effective March 15, 2004. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications, as listed in the 

regulations, is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of March 15, 

2004. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain other publications, as listed in 

the regulations, was approved 

previously by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of July 14, 1998 (63 FR 

31345, June 9, 1998).

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. 

This information may be examined at 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of 

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125; 

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) 

by superseding AD 98–12–18, 

amendment 39–10573 (63 FR 31345, 

June 9, 1998), which is applicable to 

certain Airbus Model A320–111, –211, 

and –231 series airplanes, was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 18, 2003 (68 FR 65008). The 

action proposed to continue to require 

repetitive inspections for cracking in the 

transition and pick-up angles in the 

lower part of the center fuselage area, 

and corrective action if necessary. The 

action also provides for an optional 

terminating modification for the 

repetitive inspection requirements. The 

new action proposed to reduce the 

compliance time for the inspections for 

cracking of the same area. 

Comments 

Interested persons have been afforded 

an opportunity to participate in the 

making of this amendment. No 

comments were submitted in response 

to the proposal or the FAA’s 

determination of the cost to the public. 

Conclusion 

The FAA has determined that air 

safety and the public interest require the 

adoption of the rule as proposed. 

Cost Impact 

There are approximately 24 airplanes 

of U.S. registry that will be affected by 

this AD. The new requirements of this 

AD add no additional economic burden. 

The current costs for this AD are 

repeated for the convenience of affected 

operators, as follows: 

The inspections that are currently 

required by AD 98–12–18, and retained 

in this AD, take about 9 work hours per 

airplane to accomplish, at an average 

labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based 

on these figures, the cost impact of the 

currently required actions on U.S. 

operators is estimated to be $14,040, or 

$585 per airplane, per inspection cycle. 

The cost impact figure discussed 

above is based on assumptions that no 

operator has yet accomplished any of 

the requirements of this AD action, and 

that no operator would accomplish 

those actions in the future if this AD 

were not adopted. The cost impact 

figures discussed in AD rulemaking 

actions represent only the time 

necessary to perform the specific actions 

actually required by the AD. These 

figures typically do not include 

incidental costs, such as the time 

required to gain access and close up, 

planning time, or time necessitated by 

other administrative actions. 

If an operator chooses to do the 

optional terminating modification rather 

than continue the repetitive inspections, 

it will take between 5 and 10 work 

hours per airplane to accomplish the 

modification, at an average labor rate of 

$65 per work hour. Required parts will 

cost between $1,077 and $1,837 per 

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost 

impact of the modification is estimated 

to be between $1,402 and $2,487 per 

airplane. 

Regulatory Impact 

The regulations adopted herein will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national Government and the States,