Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 30919 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

June 19, 2009. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15099 Filed 6–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–1071; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–093–AD; Amendment 

39–15951; AD 2009–14–02] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD), 

which applies to certain Boeing Model 

747 airplanes. That AD currently 

requires repetitive inspections to detect 

evidence of wear damage in the area at 

the interface between the vertical 

stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, and 

corrective actions, if necessary. The 

existing AD also provides for an 

optional terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections. For all Boeing 

Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B 

SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 

747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747– 

400F, 747SR, and 747SP series 

airplanes, this new AD requires 

repetitive inspections for wear damage 

and cracks of the fuselage skin in the 

interface area of the vertical stabilizer 

seal and fuselage skin, a detailed 

inspection for wear damage and cracks 

of the surface of any skin repair doubler 

in the area, and corrective actions if 

necessary. For airplanes on which the 

fuselage skin has been blended to 

remove wear damage, this new AD 

requires repetitive external detailed 

inspections or high frequency eddy 

current inspections for cracks of the 

blended area of the fuselage skin, and 

corrective actions if necessary. This AD 

results from reports of wear damage on 

airplanes with fewer than 8,000 total 

flight cycles. In addition, there have 

been three reports of skin wear damage 

on airplanes that applied Boeing 

Material Specifications 10–86 Teflonfilled coating (terminating action per the 

existing AD). We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct wear damage and 

cracks of the fuselage skin in the 

interface area of the vertical stabilizer 

seal and fuselage skin in sections 46 and 

48, which could cause in-flight 

depressurization of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

August 3, 2009. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of August 3, 2009. 

On February 10, 2003 (68 FR 476, 

January 6, 2003), the Director of the 

Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, 

dated February 7, 2002. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the Document Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room, W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan 

Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6437; 

fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that 

supersedes AD 2002–26–15, amendment 

39–13003 (68 FR 476, January 6, 2003). 

The existing AD applies to certain 

Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on October 8, 2008 (73 FR 

58903). That NPRM proposed to require, 

for all Boeing Model 747–100, 747– 

100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747– 

200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 

747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes, repetitive inspections 

for wear damage and cracks of the 

fuselage skin in the interface area of the 

vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, 

a detailed inspection for wear damage 

and cracks of the surface of any skin 

repair doubler in the area, and 

corrective actions if necessary. For 

airplanes on which the fuselage skin has 

been blended to remove wear damage, 

that NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive external detailed inspections 

or high frequency eddy current (HFEC) 

inspections for cracks of the blended 

area of the fuselage skin, and corrective 

actions if necessary. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments that have 

been received on the NPRM. 

Request for Change in Applicability 

Boeing requests that the second 

paragraph under ‘‘Relevant Service 

Information’’ of the NPRM be revised to 

list the specific Boeing Model 747 series 

airplanes affected by this rule. The 

commenter states that Boeing Model 

747–8 series airplanes, which are not 

yet FAA type-certificated, should be 

excluded because they are equipped 

with corrosion-resistant steel rubstrips 

on the affected skins, which are a 

baseline configuration on these 

airplanes. 

We find that clarification is necessary. 

The applicability in paragraph (c) of the 

AD identifies specifically affected 

Boeing Model 747 airplanes. However, 

the ‘‘Relevant Service Information’’ 

section is not restated in the final rule. 

Therefore, for clarity, we have specified 

in the Discussion section of this AD the 

specific Boeing Model 747 airplanes 

identified in the AD applicability 

(paragraph (c)) of this AD. 

Request To Delay Issuance of the AD 

Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we 

delay the issuance of the AD until the 

service bulletin is revised and the repair 

doubler wear limits can be incorporated 

into the final rule. JAL states that the 

NPRM and Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 1, 

dated March 27, 2008, do not provide 

any wear limits for the repair doublers. 

JAL also states that operators would 

have to contact Boeing for repair 

instructions, replace the repair, or 

replace the repair doubler even if minor 

blending is found. 

We disagree with the request to delay 

issuance of this AD. The wear limits 

provided in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 1, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
30920 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

dated March 27, 2008, are also 

applicable to skin repair doublers since 

the skin repair doublers have the same 

function as the fuselage skin. Because of 

the degree of urgency associated with 

addressing the identified unsafe 

condition, we have determined that 

further delay of this final rule is not 

appropriate. We have not changed this 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Request for an Alternative Inspection 

Plan 

Cargolux Airlines International S.A. 

(CLX) and Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) 

request an alternative inspection plan 

for paragraph (i)(1) of the NPRM. The 

commenters request that we increase the 

grace period from 6,000 flight hours 

after the effective date of this AD to 

12,000 flight hours after the effective 

date of this AD (for those airplanes over 

the threshold); and change the repetitive 

interval for the detailed inspection from 

7,500 flight hours to 12,000 flight hours 

(or 24 months) after the effective date of 

this AD, combining the detailed 

inspection and a surface HFEC 

inspection. CLX states that the higher 

sensitivity of the HFEC inspection 

would justify the increase in the 

inspection interval. KLM and CLX also 

state that a 12,000-flight-hour interval 

will allow for inspections to be done at 

regular ‘‘C-check’’ maintenance 

intervals. KLM also adds that there is a 

large economic impact due to its 

airplanes having passed the threshold 

and being the subject to the low 

repetitive interval of 7,500 flight hours. 

We disagree with the request to 

include an alternative inspection plan. 

The service and analytical data from the 

airplane manufacturer do not support 

this request because significant wear 

damage has been found on an airplane 

with the Teflon-filled coating at 21,371 

flight hours. Also, one commenter’s 

proposed surface HFEC inspection does 

not detect wear damage to the skin; a 

surface HFEC inspection is used to 

detect cracks. 

In developing the compliance times 

for this AD, we considered not only the 

safety implications of the identified 

unsafe condition, but the average 

utilization rate of the affected fleet and 

the practical aspects of an orderly 

inspection, repair, and modification of 

the fleet during regular maintenance 

periods. We have considered the 

commenters’ requests, and we have 

concluded that the proposed 

compliance times remain appropriate. 

However, under the provisions of 

paragraph (m) of this AD, we may 

consider requests for approval of an 

alternative method of compliance if 

sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that an alternative 

inspection plan would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We have not 

changed this final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Request To Revise the Compliance 

Times in Paragraph (i) of This AD 

Northwest Airlines (NWA) requests a 

change in the initial inspection 

threshold and repetitive inspection 

interval specified in paragraph (i) of the 

NPRM. The commenter requests that we 

change the compliance time to: 

20,000 total flight hours from delivery, or to 

20,000 flight hours after the last application 

of Teflon-filled coating, or within 9,000 flight 

hours after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs later. 

NWA states that the threshold fails to 

recognize an equivalent effectiveness of 

a subsequent Teflon application after 

delivery. NWA believes that a grace 

period of 9,000 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD would enable 

the proposed actions to occur during a 

heavy maintenance check visit in a 

suitable and safer environment. The 

commenter also recommends a 

repetitive inspection interval of up to 

20,000 flight hours from the last Teflon 

application. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request. The service and analytical data 

from the airplane manufacturer do not 

support the request to change the initial 

inspection threshold because significant 

wear damage has been found on an 

airplane with the Teflon-filled coating at 

21,371 total flight hours. In addition, we 

do not agree that a repetitive inspection 

interval of 20,000 flight hours from the 

last Teflon application is appropriate 

because the affected skins are more 

likely to have suffered damage from the 

accumulated debris and other sources 

after prolonged usage since delivery. 

We consider that the compliance 

times remain appropriate. However, 

under the provisions of paragraph (m) of 

this AD, we may consider requests for 

approval of an AMOC if sufficient data 

are submitted to substantiate that an 

alternative inspection plan would 

provide an acceptable level of safety. 

We have not changed this final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Explanation of Restatement of Optional 

Terminating Action 

We have restated paragraph (b) of AD 

2002–26–15 as paragraph (g) of this AD. 

We have added the phrase ‘‘prior to the 

effective date of this AD’’ to paragraph 

(g) of this AD. If operators complied 

with the optional terminating action 

prior to the effective date of this AD, the 

repetitive inspections in paragraph (f)(1) 

of this AD are terminated. However, 

after the effective date of this AD, the 

repetitive inspections cannot be 

terminated until the inspections in 

paragraph (i) of this AD are done. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We also determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 917 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Parts Cost per airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Inspection (required 

by AD 2002–26– 

15).

12 $80 None ..................... $960, per inspection cycle.253 $242,880, per inspection cycle. 

Inspection and application of BMS 

10–86 Teflonfilled coating 

(new action).

8 $80 None ..................... $640, per inspection cycle.165 $105,600, per inspection cycle. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 30921 

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 removing amendment 39–13003 (68 

FR 476, January 6, 2003) and by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2009–14–02 Boeing: Amendment 39–15951. 

Docket No. FAA–2008–1071; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–093–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective August 3, 

2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2002–26–15. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747– 

100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 

747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 

747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes, certificated in any category, 

as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 

2008. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from reports of skin 

wear damage on airplanes with fewer than 

8,000 total flight cycles. In addition, there 

have been three reports of skin wear damage 

on airplanes on which Boeing Material 

Specifications (BMS) 10–86 Teflon-filled 

coating was applied (terminating action per 

AD 2002–26–15). We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct wear damage and cracks of 

the fuselage skin in the interface area of the 

vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin in 

sections 46 and 48, which could cause inflight depressurization 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. 

Requirements of AD 2002–26–15 

Inspections for Damage/Corrective Actions 

(f) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, dated 

February 7, 2002: Prior to the accumulation 

of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,200 

flight cycles after February 10, 2003 (the 

effective date of AD 2002–26–15), whichever 

occurs later, perform a detailed inspection to 

detect evidence of wear damage of the 

fuselage skin at the interface area of the 

vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, per 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, 

dated February 7, 2002. 

(1) If no wear damage of the fuselage skin 

is detected or any existing blendout is within 

the structural repair manual (SRM) allowable 

damage limits: Repeat the detailed inspection 

at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles. 

(2) If any wear damage of the fuselage skin 

is detected or any existing blendout exceeds 

the allowable damage limits specified in the 

SRM: Before further flight, repair the vertical 

stabilizer seal interface and refinish the skin 

with BMS 10–86 Teflon-filled coating, per 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, 

dated February 7, 2002. Accomplishment of 

the repair and refinishing is terminating 

action for the repetitive inspections required 

by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. 

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.’’ 

Optional Terminating Action for Paragraph 

(f) of This AD 

(g) Refinishing the fuselage skin with BMS 

10–86 Teflon-filled coating, prior to the 

effective date of this AD, per Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, dated 

February 7, 2002, terminates the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of 

this AD. 

Previously Accomplished Inspections and 

Terminating Action 

(h) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, dated 

February 7, 2002: Inspections and 

terminating action done before February 10, 

2003, per Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53– 

2192, dated July 21, 1981, are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding actions 

required by paragraph (f) of this AD, 

provided BMS 10–86 Teflon-filled coating 

was used, and the new allowable damage 

limits specified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2478, dated February 7, 

2002, are met. 

New Requirements of This AD 

New Repetitive Inspections 

(i) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of 

this AD: At the applicable times specified in 

Table 1 of this AD, do the actions specified 

in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, as 

applicable. Accomplishing the initial 

inspection specified in paragraph (i) 

terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) 

of this AD. 

(1) For all airplanes: Do the actions 

specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) 

of this AD, as applicable. 

(i) Do repetitive external detailed 

inspections for wear damage and cracks of 

the fuselage skin in the interface area of the 

vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 

2008. 

(ii) Where a skin repair doubler is present 

in the interface area of the vertical stabilizer 

seal and fuselage skin, do a detailed 

inspection for wear damage and cracks of the 

surface of the repair doubler. 

(2) For airplanes that have reduced skin 

thickness in section 46 due to blending 

without reinforcement: Do repetitive external 

detailed inspections or high frequency eddy 

(HFEC) current inspections for cracks of the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
30922 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

blended area of the fuselage skin, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 

2008. 

TABLE 1—COMPLIANCE TIMES

Action 

Compliance time 

(whichever occurs later) Repeat interval 

(Not to exceed) 

Threshold Grace Period 

For actions required by 

paragraph (i)(1) of this 

AD.

Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight 

hours since the date of issuance of the original 

airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance 

of the original export certificate of airworthiness, 

or within 7,500 flight hours after the last inspection of this AD, whichever occurs later.

Within 6,000 flight hours 

after the effective date 

of this AD.

7,500 flight hours. 

For actions required by 

paragraph (i)(2) of this 

AD.

Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles since the date of issuance of the original 

airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance 

of the original export certificate of airworthiness, 

or within 6,000 flight cycles after the initial 

blend, whichever occurs later.

Within 1,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date 

of this AD.

1,200 flight cycles for external detailed inspection, or 6,000 flight 

cycles for HFEC inspection. 

Exception to the Repetitive Inspections 

(j) If corrosion-resistant steel rubstrips are 

installed in the interface area of the vertical 

stabilizer seal and fuselage skin: Within the 

applicable compliance times specified in 

paragraph (i) of this AD, inspect the fuselage 

skin using a method approved in accordance 

with the procedures specified in paragraph 

(m) of this AD. 

For No Wear Damage or Cracks Found: 

Apply Teflon 

(k) If no wear damage or crack is found in 

the fuselage skin (or skin repair doubler) 

during any inspection required by paragraph 

(i) of this AD: Before further flight, apply 

Boeing Material Specifications (BMS) 10–86 

Teflon-filled coating in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 1, 

dated March 27, 2008. 

For Any Wear Damage or Crack Found: 

Applicable Corrective Actions 

(l) If any wear damage or crack is found in 

the fuselage skin (or skin repair doubler) 

during any inspections required by paragraph 

(i) of this AD: Before further flight, after the 

inspection required by paragraph (i), do the 

actions specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), 

and (l)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, Revision 1, 

dated March 27, 2008. 

(1) Measure the depth of the wear and 

record the location. 

(2) Repair any wear damage and any crack. 

(3) Apply BMS 10–86 Teflon-filled coating. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Ivan 

Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, 

ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 917–6437; fax (425) 

917–6590; has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(n) You must use Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2478, dated February 7, 

2002; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008; 

as applicable; to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2478, 

Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008, under 5 

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

(2) The Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation by 

reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2478, dated February 7, 2002, on 

February 10, 2003 (68 FR 476, January 6, 

2003). 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

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

5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(4) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 

(5) You may also review copies of the 

service information incorporated by reference 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 

2009. 

Dorr M. Anderson, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15085 Filed 6–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0160; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–176–AD; Amendment 

39–15947; AD 2009–13–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model MD–90–30 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

McDonnell Douglas Model MD–90–30 

airplanes. This AD requires repetitive 

inspections for cracks of the upper aft 

skin panels on the horizontal stabilizer, 

and related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. This AD results 

from a report of cracks found in the aft 

skin panels on the upper right side of 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES