75826 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

accordance with paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(f) Compliance reviews. A prime 

contractor’s performance under its 

subcontracting plan is evaluated by 

means of on-site compliance reviews 

and follow-up reviews. A compliance 

review is a surveillance review that 

determines a contractor’s achievements 

in meeting the goals and other elements 

in its subcontracting plan for both open 

contracts and contracts completed 

during the previous twelve months. A 

follow-up review is done after a 

compliance review, generally within six 

to eight months, to determine if the 

contractor has implemented SBA’s 

recommendations. 

(2) All compliance reviews begin with 

a validation of the contractor’s most 

recent SF–295, Summary Subcontract 

Report, and SF–294, Subcontracting 

Report for Individual Contracts, if 

applicable. The validation includes a 

review of the contractor’s methodology 

for completing these reports and a 

sampling of specific documentation to 

substantiate small business status. 

(3) Upon completion of the review 

and evaluation of a contractor’s 

performance and efforts to achieve the 

requirements in its subcontracting 

plans, the contractor’s performance will 

be assigned one of the following ratings: 

Outstanding, Highly Successful, 

Acceptable, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory. 

The factors listed in paragraph (c) of this 

section will be taken into consideration, 

where applicable, in determining the 

contractor’s rating. However, a 

contractor may be found Unsatisfactory, 

regardless of other factors, if it cannot 

substantiate the claimed achievements 

under its subcontracting plan. 

(4) Any contractor that receives a 

marginal or unsatisfactory rating must 

provide a written corrective action plan 

to SBA, or to both SBA and the agency 

that conducted the compliance review if 

the agency conducting the review has an 

agreement with SBA, within 30 days of 

its receipt of the official compliance 

report.

(5) Any contractor that fails to comply 

with paragraph (f)(4) of this section, or 

any contractor that fails to demonstrate 

a good-faith effort, as set forth in 

paragraph (d) of this section, may be 

considered for liquidated damages 

under the procedures in 48 CFR 19.705–

7 and the clause at 52.219–16. This 

action shall be considered by the 

contracting officer upon receipt of a 

written recommendation to that effect 

from the CMR. The CMR’s 

recommendation must include a copy of 

the compliance report and any other 

relevant correspondence or supporting 

documentation. 

(6) Reviews and evaluations of 

contractors with commercial plans are 

identical to reviews and evaluations of 

other contractors, except that 

contractors with commercial 

subcontracting plans do not submit the 

SF–294, Subcontracting Report for 

Individual Contracts. Instead, goal 

achievement is determined by 

comparing the goals in the approved 

commercial subcontracting plan against 

the cumulative achievements on the SF–

295, Summary Subcontract Report, for 

the same period. The same ratings 

criteria set forth in paragraph (f)(3) of 

this section apply to contractors with 

commercial plans. 

(7) SBA is authorized to enter into 

agreements with other Federal agencies 

or entities to conduct compliance 

reviews and otherwise further the 

objectives of the subcontracting 

program. Copies of these agreements 

will be published on http://

www.sba.gov/GC. SBA is the lead 

agency on all joint compliance reviews 

with other agencies. 

(g) Subcontracting consideration in 

source selection. When an ordering 

agency anticipates placing an order 

against a Federal Supply Schedule, 

government-wide acquisition contract 

(GWAC), or multi-agency contract 

(MAC), the ordering agency may 

evaluate subcontracting as a significant 

factor in its source selection process. In 

addition, the ordering agency may also 

evaluate subcontracting as a significant 

factor in source selection when entering 

into a blanket purchase agreement. At 

the time of contract award, the 

contracting officer must disclose to all 

competitors which one (or more) of 

these three elements will be evaluated 

as an important source selection 

evaluation factor in any subsequent 

procurement action. A small-business 

offeror automatically receives the 

maximum possible score or credit on 

this evaluation factor without having to 

submit a subcontracting plan and 

without having to demonstrate 

subcontracting past performance. The 

factors that may be evaluated, 

individually or in combination, are: 

(1) The subcontracting to be 

performed on the specific requirement; 

(2) The goals negotiated in previous 

subcontracting plans; and 

(3) The contractor’s past performance 

in meeting the subcontracting goals 

contained in previous subcontracting 

plans.

Dated: October 6, 2004. 

Hector V. Barreto, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–27765 Filed 12–17–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2002–NM–347–AD; Amendment 

39–13908; AD 2004–25–20] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model 

SAAB 2000 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a 

new airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB 

2000 series airplanes. This action 

requires various repetitive inspections 

for cracking of the drag and shear angles 

that attach the nacelle to the wing, and 

related corrective action. This action 

also requires eventual modification of 

the drag and shear angles, which would 

end the repetitive inspections. This 

action is necessary to prevent fatigue 

cracking of the drag and shear angles, 

which could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the nacelle attachment to the 

wing. This action is intended to address 

the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective January 24, 2005. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of January 24, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft 

Product Support, S–581.88, Linko ̈ping, 

Sweden. 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 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/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4057; 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) to 

include an airworthiness directive (AD) 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 75827

that is applicable to certain Saab Model 

SAAB 2000 series airplanes was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 19, 2004 (69 FR 28860). That action 

proposed to require various repetitive 

inspections for cracking of the drag and 

shear angles that attach the nacelle to 

the front spar of the wing, and related 

corrective action. That action also 

proposed to require eventual 

modification of the drag and shear 

angles, which would end the repetitive 

inspections. 

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 Temporary Flight 

With Known Cracking 

The commenter, the manufacturer, 

states that the Swedish airworthiness 

directives and the Saab service bulletins 

specify that operators may temporarily 

continue operating an airplane with 

known cracking in the drag and shear 

angles. The commenter notes that the 

proposed AD does not allow flight with 

any known cracking. The commenter 

also notes that it is aware of an FAA 

policy that does not allow airplanes to 

operate with known cracking, but that 

the FAA has allowed deviation from 

that policy under certain conditions. 

The commenter states that, for the 

proposed AD, these conditions apply: 

• The repairs are complicated and 

time consuming and can only be 

performed during a major maintenance 

stop. 

• The cracking is probably caused by 

secondary local bending of the flanges 

of the angles due to wing deflections. 

• Analysis shows that the structure 

will maintain the capability to sustain 

ultimate loads for cracking. 

• The maximum deferral time before 

repairing known cracking is 20,000 

flights. 

• Repair methods and terminating 

action have been identified and repair 

material is available for operators. 

We infer that the commenter is 

requesting that the proposed AD be 

revised to allow temporary flight with 

known cracking. 

We agree. While it is not our normal 

policy to allow flight with known 

cracking, based upon our review of the 

substantiating data submitted by the 

manufacturer, we have determined that 

we can allow temporary flight with 

known cracking within the limits 

specified in the applicable Saab service 

bulletins. We have determined that, if 

the crack size limits are strictly 

observed, and if repetitive inspections 

are performed at the required intervals, 

cracking that grows beyond the 

specified limits will be detected, and 

corrective action taken, before the 

cracking can grow to a size that would 

create an unacceptable risk of structural 

failure. Paragraph (c) of this final rule 

allows temporary flight with known 

cracking within the limits specified in 

the applicable Saab service bulletins. 

Request To Clarify Compliance Time 

for Initial Inspections 

The commenter requests that the 

compliance times specified in 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the 

proposed AD be changed to include the 

phrases ‘‘but not later than at 14,500 

flight cycles’’ and ‘‘but not later than at 

11,000 flight cycles,’’ respectively. The 

commenter did not provide any 

justification for this request.

We agree with the commenter’s 

request to add the phrases stated above 

to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this 

final rule. Upon review of the 

compliance times specified in the 

applicable service bulletins, we find 

that this information was inadvertently 

omitted from the compliance times 

stated in the proposed AD. We have 

determined that including this 

information in this final rule imposes no 

additional burden on any U.S.-

registered airplane because none of 

these airplanes have accumulated the 

number of flight cycles that would make 

these provisions applicable. This change 

also provides harmonization between 

the Swedish airworthiness directives, 

Saab service bulletins, and this final 

rule. 

Request To Clarify Unsafe Condition 

The commenter suggests that the 

unsafe condition statement in the 

Summary and Discussion sections and 

the body of the proposed AD be changed 

to include the phrase ‘‘attachment to the 

wing.’’ The commenter states that it is 

the integrity of the attachment of the 

nacelle to the wing that can be reduced, 

not the structural integrity of the nacelle 

or the wing. 

We agree. The unsafe condition in the 

Summary, Discussion, and body 

sections of the proposed AD states ‘‘This 

action is necessary to prevent fatigue 

cracking of the drag and shear angles, 

which could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the nacelle and wing.’’ The 

unsafe condition statement in the 

Summary and body of this final rule is 

‘‘To prevent fatigue cracking of the drag 

and shear angles, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the 

nacelle attachment to the wing.’’ The 

Discussion section is not restated in this 

final rule, so no change to the final rule 

is necessary in this regard. 

Request for Changes to Paragraph (a) 

The commenter requests that, after the 

word ‘‘fasteners’’ in paragraph (a)(1) of 

the proposed AD, the words ‘‘and in the 

radius of the shear angle’’ be included. 

The commenter also requests that, after 

the words ‘‘around the fasteners’’ in 

paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed AD, the 

words ‘‘as applicable’’ be included. The 

commenter did not provide any 

justification for the request. We infer 

that the commenter requests these 

changes for clarification purposes. 

We agree. Paragraph (a)(1) of this final 

rule includes the words ‘‘and in the 

radii of the shear angles.’’ (We have 

pluralized the wording since more than 

one angle is being inspected.) Paragraph 

(a)(2) of this final rule includes the 

words ‘‘where applicable.’’

Request To Clarify Termination of 

Repetitive Inspections 

The commenter requests that the 

Summary section of the proposed AD be 

changed to clarify that the terminating 

action specified in the proposed AD 

would only end the repetitive 

inspections identified in the Saab 

service bulletins. The commenter states 

that the structural inspection program 

will continue to require inspections of 

the drag and shear angles. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request to change the proposed AD to 

specify that only the repetitive 

inspections identified in the service 

bulletins will be terminated. Paragraph 

(e) of the proposed AD, which is the 

Terminating Action paragraph, clearly 

states, ‘‘Accomplishment of these 

modifications ends the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this AD.’’ Furthermore, an AD 

is not the vehicle for terminating 

inspections in operators’ maintenance 

programs. No change to the final rule is 

necessary in this regard. 

Request To Include Reporting 

Information to the Manufacturer 

The commenter notes that the 

proposed AD does not include a 

reporting requirement. The Saab service 

bulletins referenced in the proposed AD 

include instructions for reporting 

inspection information to the 

manufacturer. The commenter states 

that feedback from operators is 

important to ‘‘keep a high confidence in 

the analysis and to be able to plan 

supply of repair and modification 

material.’’ We infer that the commenter 

requests that the proposed AD include 

a reporting requirement. 

75828 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

We do not agree. We understand the 

need for manufacturers to collect useful 

data; however, we do not require this 

information. The Paperwork Reduction 

Act requires agencies to consider the 

extent of the paperwork burden that will 

accompany any new rule. This Act 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 also to use those analyses to 

minimize the cost. Since we do not need 

the information regarding the inspection 

findings, we will not include a reporting 

requirement in this final rule. Operators 

may voluntarily submit inspection 

results to the manufacturer. 

Request To Change Explanation of 

Relevant Service Information 

The commenter requests the following 

changes to the Explanation of Relevant 

Service Information section of the 

proposed AD: 

• Delete ‘‘* * * and related 

corrective action’’ in the first paragraph. 

This paragraph discusses the procedures 

included in Saab Service Bulletins 

2000–54–026 and 2000–54–028, both 

Revision 01, both dated June 20, 2002. 

The commenter notes that the corrective 

actions are included in Saab Service 

Bulletins 2000–54–027 and 2000–54–

029, both dated November 4, 2002. 

• Change the order of the procedures 

in the second paragraph so the order of 

the procedures correlates to the order of 

the service bulletin references. The 

commenter suggests, ‘‘Additionally, the 

manufacturer has issued Service 

Bulletins 2000–54–027 and 2000–54–

029, both dated November 4, 2002, 

which describe procedures for 

modification of the shear angles and of 

the upper and lower drag angles.’’ The 

commenter notes that Service Bulletin 

2000–54–027 addresses modification of 

the shear angles and Service Bulletin 

2000–54–029 addresses modification of 

the upper and lower drag angles. 

• Delete the parenthetical reference, 

‘‘rotating probe,’’ that appears in the 

second paragraph. The commenter 

states that this phrase is not applicable.

• Change the last sentence of the 

second paragraph to ‘‘If any cracking is 

found, repair and modifications of the 

drag angles are detailed in the 

associated service bulletins. Both 

service bulletins describe procedures for 

determining the length and position of 

each crack and sending a report to the 

manufacturer.’’

We agree with the commenter’s 

suggestions. However, since the 

Explanation of Relevant Service 

Information section of the proposed AD 

is not restated in this final rule, no 

change to this final rule is necessary in 

this regard. 

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 

described previously. The FAA has 

determined that these changes will 

neither increase the economic burden 

on any operator nor increase the scope 

of the AD. 

Cost Impact 

We estimate that 3 airplanes of U.S. 

registry will be affected by this AD. 

It will take about 6 work hours per 

airplane to do the inspections, at an 

average labor rate of $65 per work hour. 

Based on these figures, the cost impact 

of the inspections on U.S. operators is 

estimated to be $1,170, or $390 per 

airplane, per inspection cycle. 

It will take about 40 work hours per 

airplane to do the modification of the 

shear angles, at an average labor rate of 

$65 per work hour. Required parts will 

cost about $6,200 per airplane. Based on 

these figures, the cost impact of the 

modification on U.S. operators is 

estimated to be $26,400, or $8,800 per 

airplane. 

It will take about 400 work hours per 

airplane to do the modification of the 

drag angles, at an average labor rate of 

$65 per work hour. Required parts will 

cost about $41,794 per airplane. Based 

on these figures, the cost impact of the 

modification on U.S. operators is 

estimated to be $203,382, or $67,794 per 

airplane. 

The cost impact figures discussed 

above are 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. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

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. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, the FAA is charged 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 AD. 

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:

2004–25–20 Saab Aircraft AB: Amendment 

39–13908. Docket 2002–NM–347–AD.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 75829

Applicability: Model SAAB 2000 series 

airplanes, certificated in any category, serial 

numbers –004 through –063 inclusive. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously.

To prevent fatigue cracking of the drag and 

shear angles of the wing, which could result 

in reduced structural integrity of the nacelle 

attachment to the wing, accomplish the 

following: 

Repetitive Inspections 

(a) Do the inspections required by 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, at the 

applicable time specified in paragraph (b) of 

this AD. 

(1) Do a detailed inspection for cracking of 

the shear angles which attach the nacelle to 

the front spar of the wing, and an eddy 

current inspection for cracking around the 

fasteners and in the radii of the shear angles, 

by doing all the actions per the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service 

Bulletin 2000–54–026, Revision 01, dated 

June 20, 2002. 

(2) Do an endoscope inspection of the 

upper and lower drag angles for cracking, 

and an eddy current inspection for cracking 

around the fasteners where applicable, by 

doing all the actions per the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000–

54–028, Revision 01, dated June 20, 2002.

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is defined as: ‘‘An 

intensive visual examination of a specific 

structural area, system, installation, or 

assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by 

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, 

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate access procedures 

may be required.’’

Compliance Times 

(b) Do the inspections required by 

paragraph (a) of this AD at the applicable 

compliance time specified in paragraph 

(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this AD. Repeat the 

inspections thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 4,000 flight cycles until the 

modification required by paragraph (e) of this 

AD is done. 

(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 

14,000 or more total flight cycles as of the 

effective date of this AD: Inspect within 500 

flight cycles after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(2) For airplanes that have accumulated 

10,000 or more total flight cycles, but fewer 

than 14,000 total flight cycles as of the 

effective date of this AD: Inspect within 

1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of 

this AD, but not later then 14,500 total flight 

cycles. 

(3) For airplanes that have accumulated 

fewer than 10,000 total flight cycles as of the 

effective date of this AD: Inspect within 

2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of 

this AD, but not later then 11,500 total flight 

cycles. 

Corrective Action 

(c) If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by this AD: Except as 

provided by paragraph (f) of this AD, do the 

actions specified in and at the times specified 

in Table 1 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000–

54–026, Revision 01, dated June 20, 2002; or 

Saab Service Bulletin 2000–54–028, Revision 

01, dated June 20, 2002; as applicable. Where 

the service bulletins specify to contact the 

manufacturer, before further flight, repair the 

cracking in accordance with a method 

approved by either the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the 

Luftfartsverket (or its delegated agent). 

Instead of repairing the cracking, doing the 

modifications required by paragraph (e) of 

this AD before further flight, terminates the 

repetitive inspections required by paragraphs 

(a) and (b) of this AD. 

Inspections Done Per Previous Issues of 

Service Bulletins 

(d) Inspections done before the effective 

date of this AD per Saab Service Bulletins 

2000–54–026 and 2000–54–028, both dated 

April 26, 2002, are considered acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding actions 

specified in this AD. 

Terminating Action 

(e) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of 

this AD: Do the modifications of the drag and 

shear angles of the wing at the times 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of 

this AD. Accomplishment of these 

modifications ends the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total 

flight cycles: Modify the shear angles that 

attach the nacelle to the front spar of the 

wing by doing all the actions per the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service 

Bulletin 2000–54–027, dated November 4, 

2002. 

(2) Before the accumulation of 24,000 total 

flight cycles: Modify the upper and lower 

drag angles by doing all the actions per the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service 

Bulletin 2000–54–029, dated November 4, 

2002. 

No Reporting Requirement 

(f) Although the Saab service bulletins 

referenced in this AD recommend submitting 

certain information to the manufacturer, this 

AD does not include such a requirement. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(g) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, is 

authorized to approve alternative methods of 

compliance for this AD. 

Incorporation by Reference 

(h) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, 

the actions shall be done in accordance with 

the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this 

AD.

TABLE 1.—SERVICE BULLETINS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Saab service bulletin— Revision level— Date— 

2000–54–026 ......................................................................... 01 ........................................................................................... June 20, 2002. 

2000–54–027 ......................................................................... Original .................................................................................. November 4, 2002. 

2000–54–028 ......................................................................... 01 ........................................................................................... June 20, 2002. 

2000–54–029 ......................................................................... Original .................................................................................. November 4, 2002. 

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 Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft 

Product Support, S–581.88, Linko ̈ping, 

Sweden. Copies may be inspected at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed 

in Swedish airworthiness directives 1–174 

and 1–175, both effective April 30, 2002; and 

Swedish airworthiness directives 1–1180 and 

1–181, both effective November 8, 2002.

Effective Date 

(i) This amendment becomes effective on 

January 24, 2005.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 6, 2004. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–27506 Filed 12–17–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P