Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5361

and supplement their application 

material.

§ 1709.216 Evaluation criteria and weights. 

Unless supplemented in the grant 

announcement, the criteria listed in this 

section will be used to evaluate 

proposals submitted under this 

program. The total points available and 

the distribution of points to be awarded 

per criterion will be identified in the 

grant announcement. 

(a) Program Design. Reviewers will 

consider the financial viability of the 

applicant’s revolving fund program 

design, the proposed criteria for 

establishing eligible projects and 

borrowers, and how the program will 

improve the cost effectiveness of bulk 

fuel purchases in eligible areas. 

Programs demonstrating a strong design 

and the ability to improve cost 

effectiveness will receive more points 

than applications that are less detailed. 

(b) Assessment of needs. Reviewers 

will award more points to programs that 

serve or give priority to assisting more 

costly areas than those that serve 

populations that suffer from less severe 

physical and economic challenges. 

(c) Program evaluation and 

performance measures. Reviewers may 

award more points to performance 

measures that are relevant to the project 

objective and quantifiable than to 

performance measures that are more 

subjective and do not incorporate 

variables that reflect a reduction in fuel 

cost or improvement in service. 

(d) Demonstrated experience.

Applicants may be awarded points for 

relevant experience in administering 

revolving fund or other comparable 

programs. 

(e) Rurality. Reviewers may award 

more points to proposals that give 

priority in access to funds to 

communities with low population 

density or that are located in remote 

eligible areas than to proposals that 

serve eligible, but less remote and 

higher population density communities. 

(f) Cost sharing. Although costsharing is not required under this 

program, projects that evidence 

significant funding or contributed 

property, equipment or other in kind 

support for the project may be awarded 

points for this criterion where the 

aggregate value of these contributions 

exceed 25 percent of the annual funding 

operations. 

(g) Additional priority considerations.

The grant announcement may provide 

for additional points to be awarded to 

projects that advance identified Agency 

priority interests under this program.

§ 1709.217 Grant award. 

(a) Notification of applicants. The 

Agency will notify all applicants in 

writing whether or not they have been 

selected for a grant award. 

(b) Letter of conditions. The Agency 

will notify a selected applicant in 

writing, setting out the amount of grant 

approved and the conditions under 

which the grant will be made. 

(c) Applicant’s intent to meet 

conditions. Upon reviewing the 

conditions and requirements in the 

letter of conditions, the selected 

applicant must complete, sign and 

return the Agency’s ‘‘Letter of Intent to 

Meet Conditions,’’ or, if certain 

conditions cannot be met, the applicant 

may propose alternate conditions to the 

Agency. The Agency must concur with 

any changes proposed to the letter of 

conditions by the applicant before the 

application will be further processed. 

(d) Grant agreement. The Agency and 

the grantee must execute a grant 

agreement acceptable to the Agency 

prior to the advance of funds.

§§ 1709.218–1709.300 [Reserved]

Subparts D–F [Reserved]

Subpart G—Recovery of Financial 

Assistance Used for Unauthorized 

Purposes

§ 1709.601 Policy. 

This subpart prescribes the policies of 

the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) when 

it is subsequently determined that the 

recipient of an Assistance to High 

Energy Cost Rural Communities 

program loan or grant was not eligible 

for all or part of the financial assistance 

received or that the assistance received 

was used for unauthorized purposes. It 

is the policy of the Agency that when 

assistance under this part has been 

received by an ineligible recipient or 

used for unauthorized purposes the 

Agency shall initiate appropriate actions 

to recover from the recipient the sum 

that is determined to be ineligible or 

used for unauthorized purposes, 

regardless of amount, unless any 

applicable statute of limitation has 

expired. The Agency shall make full use 

of available authority and procedures, 

including but not limited to those 

available under 7 CFR part 3015, 

subpart N.

§§ 1709.602–1709.700 [Reserved]

§§ 1709.701–1709.999 [Reserved]

Dated: January 13, 2005. 

Hilda Gay Legg, 

Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.

[FR Doc. 05–1880 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2001–NM–279–AD; Amendment 

39–13957; AD 2005–03–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a 

new airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to all Boeing Model 747 

series airplanes, that requires repetitive 

inspections of the nacelle strut-to-wing 

attachment structure, and repetitive 

overhaul of the diagonal brace and 

spring beam load paths, to maintain 

damage tolerance requirements and 

ensure long-term structural integrity; 

and follow-on and corrective actions if 

necessary. This action is necessary to 

ensure the structural integrity of the 

strut-to-wing load path and prevent 

separation of the strut and engine from 

the airplane. This action is intended to 

address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective March 9, 2005. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of March 9, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 

98124–2207. This information may be 

examined at the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington; 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.

5362 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tamara Anderson, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6421; 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 all Boeing Model 

747 series airplanes was published in 

the Federal Register on September 18, 

2003 (68 FR 54680). That action 

proposed to require repetitive 

inspections of the nacelle strut-to-wing 

attachment structure, and repetitive 

overhaul of the diagonal brace and 

spring beam load paths, to maintain 

damage tolerance requirements and 

ensure long-term structural integrity; 

and follow-on and corrective actions if 

necessary. 

Actions Since Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) Was Issued 

Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA 

has reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 

8, 2004. Revision 1 of the service 

bulletin describes procedures that are 

essentially the same as the procedures 

described in the original issue of the 

service bulletin, which was referenced 

in the NPRM as the appropriate source 

of service information. For certain 

airplanes, Revision 1 extends repetitive 

intervals for the baseline inspections. 

For certain other airplanes, Revision 1 

revises the inspection method for the 

supplemental inspection of a certain 

structure, and reduces threshold and/or 

repetitive intervals of the supplemental 

inspections. Revision 1 also adds 

repetitive torque checks of the fasteners 

of lower spar fitting for Groups 1 and 2 

airplanes. We find that the additional work in 

Revision 1 of the service bulletin is 

acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of this AD. Therefore, we 

have added new paragraph (f) to this AD 

to specify that, as an option, the 

required actions in paragraphs (b) 

through (e) of this AD may be 

accomplished in accordance with 

Revision 1. However, operators should 

note that if any action specified in this 

AD is done in accordance with Revision 

1, then all of the actions in this AD and 

the additional actions specified in 

paragraph (g) of this AD must also be 

done in accordance with Revision 1 at 

the applicable compliance times 

specified in that service bulletin. Also since the NPRM was issued, 

Boeing has received a Delegation Option 

Authorization (DOA). We have revised 

this final rule to delegate the authority 

to approve an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) for any repair 

required by this AD to the Authorized 

Representative for the Boeing DOA 

Organization rather than the Designated 

Engineering Representative (DER). 

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 Issue a Supplemental 

NPRM 

One commenter requests that we issue 

a supplemental NPRM after Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–54A2182, Revision 

1, dated January 8, 2004, is published. 

The commenter states that changes to 

the service bulletin will have a direct 

impact on the requirements of the 

proposed AD, and that ‘‘if this AD is 

deemed necessary, the AD should not be 

released until it incorporates that 

revision.’’ The commenter also states 

that since Revision 1 has not yet been 

published, the commenter does not fully 

understand the changes made to the 

service bulletin. 

We do not agree with the request to 

issue a supplemental NPRM. As 

discussed previously, we have reviewed 

Revision 1 of the service bulletin, which 

was published after issuance of the 

NPRM. We agree that Revision 1 of the 

service bulletin is acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of 

this AD and have added Revision 1 to 

this final rule as an option for 

accomplishing the requirements of 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this AD. 

Therefore, it is not necessary to reopen 

the comment period by issuing an 

supplemental NPRM. No other change 

to the final rule is necessary in this 

regard. 

Request To Include Changes to Revision 

1 in This Final Rule 

Another commenter requests that we 

include all changes to Revision 1 of the 

service bulletin in this final rule, since 

the changes significantly affect fleet 

maintenance and operations. The 

commenter states that the changes in 

Revision 1 are based on comments 

received from operators through telex 

traffic and meetings, and that the Boeing 

Designated Engineer Representative 

(DER) has recommended that the FAA 

approve Revision 1. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter. For the reasons discussed 

previously, we have added Revision 1 of 

the service bulletin to this final rule as 

an option for accomplishing the 

requirements of paragraphs (b) through 

(e) of this AD. No other change to the 

final rule is necessary in this regard. 

Request To Remove Detailed Inspection 

One commenter considers 

unwarranted the detailed inspection ‘‘to 

verify correct installation anytime a fuse 

pin or secondary pin joint is 

disassembled within 1,200 flight-cycles 

or 18 months, whichever is earlier.’’ The 

commenter states that installation 

instructions ‘‘in the appropriate airplane 

maintenance manuals when followed 

and signed for by licensed maintenance 

personnel should not require a special 

subsequent inspection at future set time 

to verify correct installation.’’ The 

commenter also asserts that a required 

inspection item at the time of 

installation may be more effective and 

appropriate. We infer that the 

commenter requests that we remove the 

above-stated detailed inspection from 

the proposed AD.

We partially agree with the inferred 

request to remove the above-stated 

detailed inspection from this final rule. 

Although the original issue of the 

service bulletin recommends 

accomplishing that detailed inspection, 

Revision 1 does not recommend its 

accomplishment for compliance with 

this final rule. Therefore, the commenter 

may choose to accomplish Revision 1, 

which has been added as an alternative 

source of service information for this 

final rule as discussed previously. If the 

commenter chooses to accomplish the 

original issue of the service bulletin, 

under the provisions of paragraph (h) of 

this final rule, we may consider requests 

for approval of an AMOC if sufficient 

data are submitted to substantiate that 

such a design change would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. Therefore, no 

further change to the final rule is 

necessary in this regard. 

Request To Revise Corrective Action 

One commenter requests that we 

revise paragraph (e) of the proposed AD, 

so that defects found during the baseline 

inspections may be repaired in 

accordance with an FAA-acceptable 

method. The commenter states that, 

while Parts 1 through 9 of the service 

bulletin specify to contact Boeing for 

rework requirements and additional 

inspections if any damage is found or 

structural integrity is not verified, 

paragraph (e) of the proposed AD would 

require that these corrective actions be 

repaired per a method approved by the 

FAA, or per data approved by a Boeing 

DER. The commenter considers the 

method of repair specified in paragraph 

(e) of the proposed AD unnecessarily 

burdensome, especially for correcting 

relatively simple defects such as

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5363

missing or broken fasteners. 

Furthermore, the commenter believes 

that the corrective action for a defect 

found during a normal maintenance 

period should not require AMOC 

approval. 

We do not agree with the request to 

revise paragraph (e) of this final rule 

because of the known, possible 

consequences of discrepancies found in 

the nacelle strut-to-wing attachment 

structure. We also do not agree with the 

request because the damage allowables 

and corrective action are undefined in 

the service bulletin. We retain approval 

authority for repair according to a 

method approved by the Manager, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA, or according to data 

meeting the certification basis of the 

airplane approved by an Authorized 

Representative for the Boeing Delegation 

Option Authorization Organization who 

has been authorized by the Manager, 

Seattle ACO, to make those findings. 

Therefore, no change to the final rule is 

necessary in this regard. 

Request for Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO) Approval 

One commenter requests that we 

revise the proposed AD to allow 

approval for changes in compliance 

time ‘‘through the operators Flight 

Standards District Office as per their 

established procedures,’’ rather than by 

the Manager of the Seattle ACO. The 

commenter states that the repetitive 

baseline inspections, and possibly the 

supplemental inspections, should be 

given the same flexibility as any other 

maintenance program requirement. The 

commenter also asserts that, in order for 

operators to integrate the proposed AD 

into their FAA-approved maintenance 

program, the approval of inspection 

escalation should be made through the 

operator’s Flight Standards District 

Offices. 

We do not agree. The inspection 

interval of the supplemental inspection 

is based on complex engineering 

analysis that meets the damage 

tolerance requirements of Section 

25.571 (‘‘Damage—tolerance and fatigue 

evaluation of structure’’) of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) as 

upgraded in the Type Certificate Data 

Sheet for Boeing Model 747 series 

airplanes. If that inspection interval is 

changed, the damage tolerance 

requirements may not be met. 

Separation of the strut and engine 

from the airplane prior to strut 

modification resulted in two accidents 

with fatalities on Model 747 series 

airplanes. In addition, there have been 

numerous structural issues even after 

strut modification. Under the provisions 

of paragraph (h) of this final rule, we 

may approve requests for adjustments to 

the compliance time if data are 

submitted to substantiate that such an 

adjustment would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. Therefore, no change to 

the final rule is necessary in this regard. 

Consideration for a Change to the 

Maintenance Program 

Two commenters consider the 

proposed AD an inappropriate use of an 

airworthiness directive. One commenter 

states that the recommendations 

specified in the original issue of the 

service bulletin appear better suited for 

implementation via Maintenance 

Review Board (MRB) and associated 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

documents, with the exception of the 

check for the part number of the side 

link fuse pins. 

Another commenter states that the 

service bulletin/AD process is an 

inappropriate method for enacting 

changes to the required maintenance 

programs. The commenter also states 

that the FAA should work together with 

manufacturers and operators to develop 

a better method of revising the 

maintenance, inspection, and overhaul 

requirements for large, transport 

category aircraft. Furthermore, the 

commenter believes ‘‘that appropriate 

revisions to the Maintenance Review 

Board Document, the Maintenance 

Planning Document and/or the Aircraft 

Limitation Instruction are warranted.’’

The commenter also notes that the 

proposed AD would be applicable to all 

future Model 747 series airplanes that 

are yet to be built with the current strut 

design. 

We do not agree that the proposed AD 

is an inappropriate use of an 

airworthiness directive. We are 

requiring the post strut modification 

inspections in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–54A2182, dated July 12, 

2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8, 

2004; to meet the upgraded certification 

basis of the strut-to-wing attachments as 

listed in the Type Certificate Data Sheet 

for Model 747 series airplanes. The 

certification basis was upgraded to a 

higher level of safety due to accidents 

involving the strut-to-wing attachments. 

To adequately address the unsafe 

condition, we are mandating the post 

strut modification inspections as 

recommended in the service bulletin by 

the airplane manufacturer to meet the 

new certification basis.

Furthermore, certain airplanes have 

been delivered with MPD documents 

that do not require accomplishing these 

inspections, so we are mandating the 

inspections with an AD. Note that an 

operator is only required to accomplish 

inspections included in the MPD 

delivered with the airplane; inspections 

added in subsequent revisions to the 

MPD are not mandatory until we 

mandate them with an AD. Therefore, 

we find that this final rule is the least 

complex and most timely method to 

mandate new inspections, if the 

inspections were not included in the 

MPD delivered with an airplane. For 

commonality, we have mandated the 

inspections for all Model 747 series 

airplanes through a service bulletin 

developed by the manufacturer. We may 

consider revising the applicability of the 

AD if the inspections in the service 

bulletin are incorporated in the 

airworthiness limitation section of the 

MPD, which is provided with the 

airplane upon delivery from the 

production line for future airplanes. 

Therefore, no change to the final rule is 

necessary in this regard. 

Additional Change to This AD 

Operators should note that, although 

the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

referenced service bulletins specify to 

report damaged or cracked fuse pins to 

the manufacturer, this AD would not 

require those actions. We do not need 

this information from operators. 

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. 

Cost Impact 

There are approximately 991 

airplanes of the affected design in the 

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 

187 airplanes of U.S. registry will be 

affected by this AD. 

It will take approximately 280 work 

hours per airplane to accomplish the 

repetitive baseline, supplemental, and 

fuse pin inspections at an average labor 

rate of $65 per work hour. Based on 

these figures, the cost impact of the 

inspections, per inspection cycle, on 

U.S. operators is estimated to be 

$3,403,400 for the fleet, or $18,200 per 

airplane. 

It will take approximately 48 work 

hours per airplane to overhaul the 

diagonal brace, at an average labor rate 

of $65 per work hour. Based on these 

figures, the cost impact of the overhaul, 

per overhaul cycle, on U.S. operators is

5364 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

estimated to be $583,440 for the fleet, or 

$3,120 per airplane. 

It will take approximately 40 work 

hours per airplane overhaul the spring 

beam, at an average labor rate of $65 per 

work hour. Based on these figures, the 

cost impact of the overhaul, per 

overhaul cycle, on U.S. operators is 

estimated to be $486,200 for the fleet, or 

$2,600 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, 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 

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:

2005–03–01 Boeing: Amendment 39–13957. 

Docket 2001–NM–279–AD.

Applicability: All Model 747 series 

airplanes, certificated in any category. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

To ensure the structural integrity of the 

strut-to-wing load path and prevent 

separation of the strut and engine from the 

airplane, accomplish the following: 

Compliance Times 

(a) Where the compliance times for the 

initial and repetitive baseline and 

supplemental inspections in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–54A2182, dated July 12, 

2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2004; 

specify a compliance time interval calculated 

‘‘from the release of this service bulletin,’’

this AD requires compliance within the 

interval specified in the service bulletin 

‘‘after the effective date of this AD.’’

Inspections/Follow-On Actions 

(b) Do the initial and repetitive baseline 

and supplemental inspections of the nacelle 

strut-to-wing attachment structure for 

discrepancies (including cracks, corrosion, or 

damage; and loose, missing, or broken 

fasteners), and do the applicable follow-on 

actions; by doing all the actions in Part 1 

through Part 9 of the Work Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2182, 

dated July 12, 2001. Do the inspections 

(including inspections for correct installation 

of hardware and part numbers) and followon actions at the applicable times specified 

in Figure 1 of the service bulletin. 

(c) Do the initial and repetitive overhauls 

of the diagonal brace and spring beam load 

paths by doing all the actions in Part 10 and 

Part 11 of the Work Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2182, dated 

July 12, 2001. Do the initial and repetitive 

overhauls at the applicable times specified in 

Part 10 and Part 11 of the service bulletin. 

(d) Do the initial and repetitive inspections 

of the fuse pins and secondary pins of the 

strut-to-wing attachment by doing all the 

actions in Part 12 of the Work Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2182, 

dated July 12, 2001. Do the inspections at the 

times specified in Part 12 of the service 

bulletin. 

Corrective Actions 

(e) If any discrepancy is found during any 

inspection required by this AD: Before 

further flight, do all applicable corrective 

actions specified in Part 1 through Part 12 of 

the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–54A2182, dated July 12, 2001. 

Do the applicable corrective actions per the 

service bulletin. If the service bulletin 

specifies to contact the manufacturer for 

appropriate action: Before further flight, 

repair per a method approved by the 

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA, or per data meeting the type 

certification basis of the airplane approved 

by an Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing Delegation Option Authorization 

Organization who has been authorized by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such 

findings. 

Optional Service Bulletin 

(f) As an option, paragraphs (b) through (e) 

of this AD may be done in accordance with 

Part 1 through Part 12, as applicable, of the 

Work Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8, 

2004, at the applicable times specified in the 

service bulletin. If any action specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this AD is done 

in accordance with Revision 1 of the service 

bulletin, do all of the actions specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this AD and the 

additional actions specified in paragraph (g) 

of this AD, in accordance with Revision 1 of 

the service bulletin. If the service bulletin 

specifies to contact the manufacturer for 

appropriate action: Before further flight, 

repair per a method approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, or per data 

meeting the type certification basis of the 

airplane approved by an Authorized 

Representative for the Boeing Delegation 

Option Authorization Organization who has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make such findings. 

Additional Actions for Optional Service 

Bulletin 

(g) If, as an option, any action specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this AD is done 

in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 8, 

2004, of the service bulletin, do a detailed 

inspection of all strut-to-wing attach joints to 

determine the part number of any dual side 

link fuse pin; and install the correct fuse pin

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5365

if any incorrect fuse pin is found; by doing 

all of the actions specified in the ‘‘Initial Base 

Line Inspection Requirements’’ of the Work 

Instructions of Revision 1 of the service 

bulletin. Do these actions at the applicable 

times specified in Revision 1 of the service 

bulletin.

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

No Reporting Requirement 

(h) Although the service bulletins 

referenced in this AD specify to submit 

certain information to the manufacturer, this 

AD does not include that requirement. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) 

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

Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, is authorized to 

approve AMOCs for this AD. 

(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for a repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Delegation Option Authorization 

Organization who has been authorized by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such 

findings. 

Incorporation by Reference 

(j) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, 

the actions shall be done in accordance with 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2182, 

dated July 12, 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 

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.

Effective Date 

(k) This amendment becomes effective on 

March 9, 2005.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

18, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 05–1724 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19444; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–CE–33–AD; Amendment 39–

13960; AD 2005–03–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific 

Aerospace Corporation, Ltd. Model 

750XL Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd. 

(Pacific Aerospace) Model 750XL 

airplanes. This AD requires you to 

replace any type TLP–D or TLED rivets 

on the aileron pushrod ends and 

elevator control pushrod ends. This AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by the airworthiness authority for 

New Zealand. We are issuing this AD to 

replace the above identified rivets on 

the aileron pushrod ends and elevator 

control pushrod ends, which, if not 

replaced, could result in loose 

mechanical elements in the control 

systems. This could lead to control 

anomalies and loss of airplane control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on 

March 21, 2005. 

As of March 21, 2005, the Director of 

the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the regulation.

ADDRESSES: To get the service 

information identified in this AD, 

contact Pacific Aerospace Corporation, 

Ltd., Hamilton Airport, Private Bag HN 

3027, Hamilton, New Zealand; 

telephone: 64 7 843 6144; facsimile: 64 

7 843 6134. To review this service 

information, go to the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

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

www.archives.gov/federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html or call (202) 741–

6030. 

To view the AD docket, go to the 

Docket Management Facility; U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001 or on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov. The docket number is 

FAA–2004–19444.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl 

Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 302, Kansas City, MO 64106; 

telephone: 816–329–4146; facsimile: 

816–329–4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

What events have caused this AD?

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), 

which is the airworthiness authority for 

New Zealand, recently notified FAA 

that an unsafe condition may exist on 

all Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd. 

(Pacific Aerospace) Model 750XL 

airplanes. The CAA reports occurrences 

of loose type TLP–D or TLED rivets on 

the aileron pushrod ends and elevator 

control pushrod ends on Model 750XL 

airplanes in service in New Zealand. 

What is the potential impact if FAA 

took no action? Any type TLP–D or 

TLED rivets on the aileron pushrod ends 

and elevator control pushrod ends could 

result in loose mechanical elements in 

the control systems. This could lead to 

control anomalies and loss of airplane 

control. 

Has FAA taken any action to this 

point? We issued a proposal to amend 

part 39 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include 

an AD that would apply to all Pacific 

Aerospace Corporation, Ltd. (Pacific 

Aerospace) Model 750XL airplanes. 

This proposal was published in the 

Federal Register as a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) on November 22, 

2004 (69 FR 67864). The NPRM 

proposed to require you to replace any 

type TLP–D or TLED rivets on the 

aileron pushrod ends and elevator 

control pushrod ends. 

Comments 

Was the public invited to comment?

We provided the public the opportunity 

to participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the proposal 

or on the determination of the cost to 

the public. 

Conclusion 

What is FAA’s final determination on 

this issue? We have carefully reviewed 

the available data and determined that 

air safety and the public interest require 

adopting the AD as proposed except for 

minor editorial corrections. We have 

determined that these minor 

corrections:

—Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

—Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM.