Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54253 

2005–19–04 Airbus: Amendment 39–14269. 

Docket No. FAA–2005–20405; 

Directorate Identifier 2002–NM–243–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective September 

29, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability: (c) This AD applies to Airbus 

Model A340–211, –212, and –213, and Model 

A340–311, –312, and –313 airplanes, 

certificated in any category; modified by 

Airbus modification 40647. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a report that a 

software error could result in a 

miscalculation (underestimation) of the 

runway length necessary for takeoff in the 

case of a ferry flight with one engine not 

operating. The FAA is issuing this AD to 

prevent this miscalculation, which, if 

combined with high takeoff weight, too-short 

runway length, and high altitude and 

temperature of the airport, could result in 

inability of the flightcrew to abort the takeoff 

in a safe manner, reduced controllability of 

the airplane, and runway overrun. 

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. 

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision 

(f) Within 10 days after the effective date 

of this AD: Revise the Limitations section of 

the Airbus A340 AFM to include the 

information in Airbus Temporary Revision 

(TR) 6.03.02/05, dated August 8, 2002, as 

specified in the TR. The TR includes 

procedures for the flightcrew to follow to 

correct miscalculation of the takeoff and 

accelerating or stopping distance of the 

airplane during a ferry flight with one engine 

not operating. 

Note 1: This may be done by inserting a 

copy of Airbus TR 6.03.02/05 in the AFM. 

When the TR has been included in the 

general revisions of the AFM, the general 

revisions may be inserted in the AFM 

provided the relevant information in the 

general revision is identical to that in Airbus 

TR 6.03.02/05. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested in accordance with 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(h) French airworthiness directive 2002–

436(B), dated August 21, 2002, also addresses 

the subject of this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(i) You must use Airbus Temporary 

Revision 6.03.02/05, dated August 8, 2002, to 

the Airbus A340 Airplane Flight Manual, to 

perform the actions that are required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The 

Director of the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of this document 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point 

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, 

France, for a copy of this service information. 

You may review copies at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

room PL–401, Nassif Building, Washington, 

DC; on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at the NARA, 

call (202) 741–6030, or go to http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 6, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18060 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19750; Directorate 

Identifier 2003–NM–192–AD; Amendment 

39–14264; AD 2005–18–23] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, and 

–900 Series 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 all Boeing Model 737–

600, –700, –700C, –800, and –900 series 

airplanes. That AD currently requires 

either determining exposure to runway 

deicing fluids containing potassium 

formate, or performing repetitive 

inspections of certain electrical 

connectors in the wheel well of the 

main landing gear (MLG) for corrosion, 

and follow-on actions. This new AD 

adds a new inspection requirement and 

related corrective actions. This AD is 

prompted by additional reports 

indicating that significant corrosion of 

the electrical connectors in the wheel 

well of the MLG has also been found on 

airplanes that land on runways treated 

with deicing fluids containing 

potassium acetate. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent corrosion and subsequent 

moisture ingress into the electrical 

connectors, which could result in an 

electrical short and consequent 

incorrect functioning of critical airplane 

systems essential to safe flight and 

landing of the airplane, including fire 

warning systems. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

October 19, 2005. 

The incorporation by reference of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

24A1148, Revision 1, dated July 10, 

2003; as listed in the AD; is approved 

by the Director of the Federal Register 

as of October 19, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 

98124–2207. 

Docket: The AD docket contains the 

proposed AD, comments, and any final 

disposition. You can examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility office between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

Docket Management Facility office 

(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building at 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. This docket number is 

FAA–2004–19750; the directorate 

identifier for this docket is 2003–NM–

192–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Binh Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems 

and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6485; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

proposed to amend part 39 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 39) with an AD to supersede AD 

2002–16–03, amendment 39–12842 (67 

FR 52396, August 12, 2002). The 

existing AD applies to all Boeing Model 

737–600, –700, –700C, –800, and –900 

series airplanes. The proposed AD was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 1, 2004 (69 FR 69832), to 

require either determining exposure to 

runway deicing fluids containing 

potassium formate or performing 

repetitive inspections of certain 

electrical connectors in the wheel well 

of the main landing gear (MLG) for 

corrosion, and follow-on actions. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments that have 

been submitted on the proposed AD. 

54254 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Requests for Credit/Extension of 

Compliance Time for Previous 

Inspections 

Three commenters ask that the 

proposed AD be changed to allow credit 

for the repetitive inspections being 

accomplished per the existing AD. The 

first commenter states that it has been 

in compliance with the existing AD by 

performing the repetitive inspections of 

the electrical connectors, as specified in 

paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD, 

every 12 calendar months. The 

commenter notes that it chose to 

perform this inspection instead of 

determining exposure to runway deicing 

fluids containing potassium formate 

because it cannot establish whether 

airplanes that fly into unfamiliar 

airports have been exposed. The 

commenter adds that, based on the 

current language in the proposed AD, all 

of its airplanes would have to be reinspected before further flight if 

exposed to potassium formate. The 

commenter states that there is no safetyof-flight issue if the airplane is already 

being repetitively inspected per the 

existing AD; therefore, operations 

should be continued as long as the 

requirements in paragraph (f)(2) of the 

proposed AD (i.e., repetitive detailed 

inspections and follow-on actions) are 

met. The commenter concludes that 

airplanes on which the inspections have 

been performed in the last 12 months 

before issuance of the proposed AD 

should be exempt from performing 

another inspection before further flight. 

The second commenter states that the 

proposed AD does not clearly give 

credit for previous compliance with the 

existing AD. 

The third commenter asks that, if the 

FAA proceeds with issuance of the 

proposed AD, all aircraft that have 

previously complied with the existing 

AD via detailed inspection of the 

electrical connectors, or per an 

approved alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC), not be required to 

perform the inspection for at least 12 

months after performing the last 

inspection required by the existing AD. 

We agree that the commenters should 

get credit for the detailed inspections 

accomplished per the original issue of 

the service bulletin (which was 

referenced in the existing AD as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

detailed inspections of the electrical 

connectors). We have added a new 

paragraph (g) to this final rule to give 

such credit. Additionally, we have 

changed the final rule to specify that 

operators are allowed to do the actions 

specified in either paragraph (f)(1) or 

(f)(2) of the final rule at intervals not to 

exceed 12 months, regardless of airplane 

exposure. However, we have changed 

the compliance time for accomplishing 

the detailed inspection for airplanes that 

have been exposed to potassium formate 

or potassium acetate to 90 days after 

that determination is made (and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 

months). The proposed AD specified 

accomplishing the detailed inspection 

before further flight for airplanes that 

have been exposed to potassium formate 

or potassium acetate, but we have added 

a 90-day grace period before the detailed 

inspection on those airplanes must be 

accomplished. We have determined that 

accomplishing the detailed inspection 

within 90 days represents an acceptable 

interval of time wherein affected 

airplanes may be allowed to operate 

without jeopardizing safety. 

One commenter notes that paragraph 

(f)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD requires 

performing the inspection required by 

paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed AD 

before further flight, and that this 

compliance time is troublesome. The 

commenter states that it would ground 

some airplanes upon the effective date 

of the AD until the detailed inspection 

is accomplished. The commenter adds 

that operators have not previously been 

required to determine airplane exposure 

to potassium acetate, and no time is 

given to make such a determination in 

the proposed AD. The commenter states 

that this is further complicated by the 

fact that credit should be given for 

compliance with the existing AD. 

A second commenter states that, in 

order to comply with paragraph (f)(1) of 

the proposed AD, it would be necessary 

to have written evidence of the runway 

cleaning assessment from airport 

management when deicing fluids are 

used due to meteorological events. The 

commenter adds that to perform the 

inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) 

before further flight is very restrictive if 

the flight is made with intermediate 

legs, which could cause delays. The 

commenter notes that it would be better 

to have more time to accomplish this 

inspection. 

A third commenter states that its 

partner airline must obtain a change or 

an AMOC to paragraph (f)(1)(ii), 

described previously. The commenter 

states that, if its partner airline cannot 

get the compliance time extended to 6 

months or so, it will be required to do 

the 8-hour inspection on the same day 

they determine exposure, which will 

ground those airplanes until the 

inspection is done. 

We partially agree with the 

commenters. We have already extended 

the compliance time for accomplishing 

the initial detailed inspection of 

airplanes that have been exposed to 

potassium formate or potassium acetate 

to 90 days, as specified above. 

Additionally, operators may incorporate 

a repetitive inspection program in lieu 

of determining exposure to runway 

deicing fluids; therefore, it is not 

necessary for us to obtain written 

evidence of the runway cleaning 

assessment from airport management. 

We have made no change to the final 

rule in this regard. 

One commenter states that paragraph 

(f)(2) of the proposed AD requires 

operators to perform an airplane 

exposure review every 12 months, per 

paragraph (f)(1) of the proposed AD. The 

commenter adds that this yearly review 

should not be required for operators that 

choose to inspect their airplanes every 

12 months, regardless of airplane 

exposure. The commenter asks that the 

last sentence of paragraph (f)(2) be 

changed to read ‘‘Repeat the actions 

required by paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of 

this AD thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 12 months.’’

We agree with the commenter. 

However, we have removed the 

repetitive interval specified in 

paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed AD and 

added the repetitive interval to 

paragraph (f) of this final rule. By 

adding the repetitive interval to the 

main paragraph, the actions for both 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of the final 

rule are covered. Paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and 

(f)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD identify 

airplanes that have not, and have, 

respectively, been exposed to potassium 

formate or potassium acetate. 

Request To Extend Repetitive 

Inspection Interval 

Two commenters ask that the 

repetitive inspection interval specified 

in the proposed AD be extended. 

One commenter states that it has 

completed three series of inspections 

per the existing AD, and at the time of 

its last inspection, its fleet had 

accumulated over 691,000 flight hours 

and 369,000 flight cycles with no 

findings. The commenter states that the 

manufacturer provided no technical 

objection to its request to extend the 

repetitive inspection interval in the 

existing AD from 12 to 24 months. The 

commenter asks that the repetitive 

inspection interval specified in the 

proposed AD be extended to 24 months. 

The second commenter states that the 

manufacturer has determined that the 

amount of corrosion to be expected is 

dependent on the number of landings 

on runways where potassium-based 

deicing fluids are used. The commenter 

notes that not all operators have the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54255 

same quantity of flights to affected 

runways, yet, as proposed, operators 

with little exposure are subject to the 

same restrictive interval as operators in 

highly exposed regions. The commenter 

operates the majority of the affected 

737NG (next generation) airplanes with 

flights mostly on eastern, western, and 

southern routes, and there is little 

exposure to deicing fluids on these 

routes; although the possibility of some 

exposure exists. The commenter asks 

that the repetitive interval be 12 months 

for airplanes with high exposure, and 

extended to 24 months for airplanes 

with medium exposure, and 36 months 

for airplanes with limited exposure. 

We do not agree with the commenters’

requests. We have not received any 

verification showing that the amount of 

corrosion on the connectors can last 

through two winters (24 months) 

without affecting safety of flight, or that 

airplanes with limited exposure can 

resist corrosion for longer periods of 

time when exposed to deicing fluids 

containing potassium formate and 

potassium acetate. In addition, no 

technical justification was provided that 

verifies extending the repetitive 

inspection interval will still maintain an 

appropriate level of safety. In 

developing an appropriate compliance 

time for this proposed AD, we 

considered safety issues as well as the 

recommendations of the manufacturer 

and the practical aspects of 

accomplishing the required inspections 

within an interval of time that 

corresponds to the normal maintenance 

schedules of most affected operators. 

We do not find it necessary to change 

this final rule in this regard. 

Request for Information/Clarification 

for Determining Airplane Exposure 

Two commenters ask that the phrase 

‘‘determine airplane exposure,’’ as 

specified in the proposed AD, be further 

clarified. 

One commenter notes that the 

proposed AD would require either 

determining exposure to runway deicing 

fluids containing potassium formate or 

potassium acetate, or performing 

repetitive inspections of certain 

electrical connectors. The commenter 

states that affected operators have no 

authority or control over airports, but 

the FAA has the authority to require 

airports to provide the information that 

would be necessary for determination of 

airplane exposure. The commenter cites 

Title 14, Aeronautical and Space, Part 

139—Certification of Airports—Subpart 

D—Operations, Federal Aviation 

Regulation (FAR) 139.310(c), Records, 

and FAR 139.313(a), Snow and Ice 

Control, and adds that snow and ice 

control plans for most U.S. airports are 

authorized by the FAA. The commenter 

asks that the data necessary to make this 

determination be provided to all 

affected operators by the FAA. 

Another commenter states that it 

would be very helpful if the FAA would 

provide a written definition of what 

constitutes airplane exposure. The 

commenter states that information it 

received from the FAA in late 2002 

defined exposure as ‘‘Landing at or 

taking off from an airport where subject 

runway deicing fluid or pelletized solid 

had been applied anytime during the 

previous 365 days.’’ The commenter 

believes, ‘‘as most of the airline industry 

does,’’ that this is far too broad an 

exposure window since the applied 

fluid will wash away, or will dry up and 

blow away, within a week or so after 

application. The commenter adds that 

testing of the pelletized forms of the 

subject deicers has shown to be less 

corrosive to airplanes. 

We partially agree with the 

commenters. The Airport Safety and 

Operations Division (AAS–300) of the 

FAA issued CertAlerts No. 01–04 and 

No. 02–02 to instruct airport operators 

to inform and coordinate the use of such 

chemicals with air carriers. The 

CertAlerts state that the airplane 

operators may contact airport operators 

to obtain information about deicing 

materials used on runways. We have 

made no change to the final rule in this 

regard. 

Request To Include Related Service 

Information 

One commenter states that, since 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–24–1149, 

Revision 2, dated August 14, 2003, also 

addresses corrosion protection of the 

electrical connectors in the main wheel 

well, and those connectors are specified 

in the service information referenced in 

the proposed AD, that service bulletin 

should be required in the final rule. The 

commenter adds that granular 

potassium nitrate is a commonly used 

deicing product on airport ramp and 

gate areas; when this product dissolves 

into a solution by the melted ice and 

snow, it could splatter into the wheel 

well areas during taxi and takeoff. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. The commenter did not provide 

supporting data regarding the effects of 

granular potassium nitrate. We have 

determined that further delay of this 

final rule is not appropriate; however, 

we are planning to review Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–24–1149 and may 

then consider further rulemaking action 

on the issue of deicing. We have made 

no change to the final rule in this 

regard. 

Request To Change Costs of Compliance 

Section 

Several commenters ask that the work 

hours and cost specified in the ‘‘Costs 

of Compliance’’ section be changed. 

The first commenter states that it 

estimates the time to accomplish the 

actions at 5 work hours; this adds 

aircraft out-of-service costs to the labor 

and materials estimated in the proposed 

AD. The commenter adds that, for a 

limited-exposure operator, the added 

out-of-service costs are not warranted, 

and additional operational costs to the 

airlines in this economic environment, 

based on the most exposed operator 

condition, adds an undue burden on the 

industry. 

The second commenter states that the 

estimated cost for the determination of 

airplane exposure is a poor labor cost 

estimate. The commenter adds that the 

estimate in the proposed AD is based on 

the number of airplanes operated and 

not on the number of airports being 

used by affected operators; the location 

and number of airports utilized by 

affected operators also need to be 

considered to more accurately 

determine the costs. The commenter 

notes that no estimated costs are 

specified for the required repetitive 

detailed inspections and any necessary 

corrective actions that will be required 

on a percentage of affected airplanes. 

The commenter gives an example, based 

on its experience, of labor costs for the 

inspection, corrective actions, parts cost 

for new connectors, cost for corrosioninhibiting compound, and parts cost for 

consumables utilized during 

maintenance. 

The third commenter estimates that it 

takes at least 8 elapsed work hours and 

24 work hours per airplane to comply 

with the actions in both the proposed 

and existing AD. The commenter adds 

that the proposed AD is presently 

costing over $230,000 annually for its 

139 affected airplanes, and not the 

$9,035 annual total specified in the 

proposed AD. 

We partially agree with the 

commenters. 

We agree that the cost for the detailed 

inspection should be added to the final 

rule because we have changed the 

actions in the final rule to give operators 

the option of performing either the 

determination of exposure or the 

detailed inspection of the electrical 

connectors. The ‘‘Costs of Compliance’’

section has been changed accordingly. 

We do not agree to add to the final 

rule the cost for estimated time or for 

corrective actions if any discrepancy is 

found. The actions in this final rule 

reflect only the direct costs of the 

54256 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

specific required actions based on the 

best data available from the 

manufacturer. We recognize that 

operators may incur incidental costs 

(such as the time for planning, access 

and close, and associated administrative 

actions) in addition to the direct costs. 

The cost analysis in ADs, however, 

typically does not include incidental 

costs or the cost for on-condition 

corrective actions. The compliance 

times in this AD should allow ample 

time for operators to do the required 

actions at the same time as scheduled 

major airplane inspection and 

maintenance activities, which would 

reduce the additional time and costs 

associated with special scheduling. 

Additionally, we do not agree that the 

location and number of airports utilized 

should be considered to more accurately 

determine the costs. The operational 

cost of airports utilized may vary 

significantly from operator to operator; 

therefore, individual costs for the 

location and number of airports utilized 

is almost impossible to calculate. 

Request for Credit for AMOCs 

Approved for Existing AD 

Two commenters ask that previously 

issued AMOCs for the existing AD 

continue to be approved for the 

proposed AD. 

The first commenter asks that two 

specific approved AMOCs be acceptable 

for compliance with the proposed AD. 

One AMOC extended the compliance 

time to 90 days for accomplishing the 

procedures described in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) and (b) of the existing AD 

(which are not restated in the proposed 

AD). The other AMOC defined an 

acceptable corrosion area as 10% of the 

total area of the backshell of the 

connectors. The commenter adds that 

the second AMOC also allows connector 

replacement when the total amount of 

corrosion is between 10% and 30%. The 

commenter recommends that these 

AMOCs remain valid. 

The second commenter notes that it is 

already in compliance with the 

proposed AD and requires no change in 

its current method of compliance. The 

commenter adds that it was granted six 

AMOC approvals by the Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office for accomplishing 

the existing AD’s annual repetitive 

inspections (which currently are 

required on 139 airplanes). The 

commenter states that there should be 

no technical or operational reason that 

existing AMOCs cannot be applied to 

the proposed AD, because Revision 1 of 

the service bulletin, which was 

referenced in the proposed AD as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

actions, contains the same actions as the 

original issue. The commenter 

concludes that, if necessary, it will resubmit the original and approved 

AMOC request letters to the FAA 

requesting the same or parallel AMOCs 

for the proposed AD. 

We do not agree with the commenters’

requests. As specified in the proposed 

AD, AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2002–16–03, 

amendment 39–12842, are not approved 

as AMOCs with this AD because of the 

addition of a new requirement to 

determine airplane exposure to 

potassium acetate. Additionally, 

although certain AMOCs extended the 

compliance time for corrective actions, 

the corrective actions are normally 

performed before further flight, so that 

the extension was an exception to 

normal procedures. The actions in this 

final rule have been changed, as stated 

previously, to allow 12 months for 

repeating either the determination of 

airplane exposure or the detailed 

inspection of the electrical connectors, 

as well as to allow 90 days to perform 

the detailed inspection for airplanes that 

have been exposed to potassium formate 

and/or potassium acetate. However, any 

additional corrective actions must be 

performed before further flight. The 

approval for replacement of the 

connectors if the area of corrosion is 

greater than ten percent of the total 

backshell surface area has been 

incorporated into the revised service 

information referenced in this final rule. 

We have made no change to the final 

rule in this regard. 

Request To Change Certain 

Requirements 

One commenter reiterates the 

requirements in paragraph (f)(2) of the 

proposed AD and states that this 

paragraph would require all affected 

airplanes that were not inspected per 

Part 1, but were inspected per Part 2, of 

the original issue of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–24A1148 (referenced in 

the existing AD for accomplishing 

certain actions), to be re-inspected per 

Part 1 of Revision 1 of the service 

bulletin, because of the wording ‘‘by 

doing all the actions.’’ The commenter 

adds that, since airplanes that were 

inspected per Part 2 of the original issue 

meet the full intent of the existing AD, 

the requirement to accomplish Part 1 of 

Revision 1 should not be mandated. 

We agree with the commenter. The 

intent of this final rule is essentially the 

same as that of the existing AD, but the 

proposed AD adds an inspection for 

potassium acetate. The requirements in 

this AD are based on the latest 

information provided by the 

manufacturer; therefore, the 

Accomplishment Instructions of 

Revision 1 of the service bulletin should 

be followed. As stated previously, we 

have added a credit paragraph for 

inspections already done per the 

existing AD using the original issue of 

the service bulletin, and that when the 

inspections are repeated, Revision 1 of 

the service bulletin must be used. 

Request To Provide Terminating Action 

Several commenters ask that a 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections specified in the proposed 

AD be developed. 

One commenter states that operators 

need the manufacturer and the FAA to 

aggressively address the development of 

a terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections. The commenter adds that, 

because there have been no electrical 

connector problems, as well as limited 

and declining corrosion findings fleetwide during two annual inspections, it 

formally requested from the 

manufacturer that it extend the 

repetitive inspection interval from 12 to 

18 or 24 months, during the time they 

are developing a terminating action for 

the proposed AD. The commenter is 

awaiting new information from the 

manufacturer regarding newly designed 

thrust reverser (TR) cascades and 

electrical connectors made of improved 

stainless steel and anodized aluminum, 

which would be installed in all ten 

positions. The commenter suggests that 

the combination of installing improved 

TR cascades, replacing the existing 

connectors with new connectors, and 

applying corrosion inhibiting 

compound, by following the new 

service information to be issued by the 

manufacturer (depending on FAA 

analysis and acceptance) be designated 

as a terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections. The commenter adds that 

the cost for the terminating action could 

be considerable, but if this action 

terminates the repetitive inspections, it 

would save the commenter over 

$230,000 annually, as the present cost 

for the inspection is about $3.3 million. 

The second commenter states that the 

manufacturer is collecting data from 

operators to propose a more convenient 

maintenance interval for the mandated 

inspections. The commenter asks that 

the FAA consider both a maintenance 

interval based on operations on affected 

runways, and possible terminating 

action, prior to publishing the final rule. 

We agree that a terminating action for 

the repetitive inspections would benefit 

operators. The airplane manufacturer is 

currently developing a terminating 

action. Once the proposed terminating 

action has been submitted to us for 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54257 

review, and we have approved the 

proposed action as terminating action 

for the requirements of the AD, anyone 

may apply for approval to use that 

terminating action as an AMOC under 

the provisions of paragraph (h)(1) of this 

final rule. 

The third commenter states that 

terminating action is possible and 

requests that the FAA implement all of 

the following solutions. The FAA’s 

response follows each comment. 

• Withdraw the proposed AD. 

We do not agree that we should 

withdraw the proposed AD until a 

terminating action is developed. We do 

not consider it appropriate to delay the 

issuance of this final rule in light of the 

identified unsafe condition. 

Additionally, we do not have any 

technical justification to withdraw the 

proposed AD, and the repetitive 

inspections are required for continued 

safe flight of the airplane. Therefore, we 

have made no change to the final rule 

in this regard. 

• Determine changes that need to be 

made to the specifications for deicing 

materials used at airports under FAA 

authority and control to eliminate the 

subject corrosion. Ensure adequate 

improvements are made to the deicing 

material specifications, and then 

mandate to airports under FAA 

authority and control that only these 

improved deicing materials be used as 

part of FAA-authorized snow and ice 

removal plans under FAA regulations. 

The specifications for deicing fluids 

are determined by the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE) G–12 

Aircraft Ground Deicing Fluids 

Subcommittee, and the FAA enforces 

those deicing specifications under FAA 

regulations. We are working with the 

SAE subcommittee (we participate in 

this committee) to ensure that adequate 

improvements are made to the deicing 

material specifications. 

• Direct Boeing to determine which 

design changes need to be made to the 

737NG airplanes in order to eliminate 

unique susceptibility to the corrosive 

effects of runway deicing materials. 

Promulgate an AD requiring 

incorporation of the design changes 

determined to be necessary for the 

737NG airplanes, in order to eliminate 

the subject corrosion problem within its 

MLG wheel wells. 

We have determined that the 

repetitive inspections required by this 

final rule will maintain an adequate 

level of safety for all affected airplanes 

until a terminating action is developed. 

As specified previously, the 

manufacturer is currently developing a 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections. After terminating action is 

developed, approved, and available, we 

may consider further rulemaking action. 

The terminating action should provide a 

solution to both the corrosive effects of 

runway deicing materials and corrosion 

in the MLG wheel wells. 

Request To Address Technical 

Objection 

One commenter states that it has 

previously objected to the manufacturer 

and the FAA * * * * and still stands 

by this objection in principle * * * 

regarding the unwarranted detailed 

inspection of the electrical connectors. 

The commenter notes that the subject 

inspection is an imprudent practice, 

since routinely opening cannon-plug 

connectors on so many airplanes 

without any indication of problems 

could create a risk of pushing back or 

bending connector pins. This would 

leave a less secure seal that could allow 

the ingress of moisture in the future. 

We infer that the commenter wants 

the requirement for repetitive detailed 

inspections removed from the final rule. 

As explained in the preamble of the 

proposed AD, we have received reports 

of significant corrosion of the electrical 

connectors located in the wheel well of 

the MLG on Model 737 series airplanes 

that land on runways treated with 

deicing fluids containing potassium 

acetate. We have determined that the 

detailed inspections required by the 

existing AD do not account for exposure 

to deicing fluids containing potassium 

acetate. Therefore, we find that 

repetitive detailed inspections are 

necessary to prevent corrosion and 

subsequent moisture ingress into the 

electrical connectors, which could 

result in an electrical short and 

consequent incorrect functioning of 

critical airplane systems essential to safe 

flight and landing of the airplane, 

including fire warning systems. We 

have made no change to the final rule 

in this regard. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

that have been submitted, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We have determined that these changes 

will neither increase the economic 

burden on any operator nor increase the 

scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

This AD affects about 587 airplanes of 

U.S. registry. 

The new determination of airplane 

exposure takes about 1work hour per 

airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 

per work hour. Based on these figures, 

the estimated cost of the determination 

of airplane exposure specified in this 

AD for U.S. operators is $38,155, or $65 

per airplane, per cycle. 

The detailed inspection takes about 

1work hour per airplane, at an average 

labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based 

on these figures, the estimated cost of 

the detailed inspection specified in this 

AD for U.S. operators is $65 per 

airplane, per inspection cycle. 

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. See the ADDRESSES section for 

a location to examine the regulatory 

evaluation. 

54258 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing amendment 39–12842 (67 FR 

52396, August 12, 2002), and by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2005–18–23 Boeing: Amendment 39–14264. 

Docket No. FAA–2004–19750; 

Directorate Identifier 2003–NM–192–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective October 19, 

2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2002–16–03, 

amendment 39–12842. 

Applicability: (c) This AD applies to all 

Boeing Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

and –900 series airplanes; certificated in any 

category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by additional 

reports indicating that significant corrosion 

of the electrical connectors in the wheel well 

of the MLG has also been found on airplanes 

that land on runways treated with deicing 

fluids containing potassium acetate. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent corrosion and 

subsequent moisture ingress into the 

electrical connectors, which could result in 

an electrical short and consequent incorrect 

functioning of critical airplane systems 

essential to safe flight and landing of the 

airplane, including fire warning systems. 

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. 

Determine Airplane Exposure/Significant & 

Corrective Actions 

(f) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Perform the actions required 

by either paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Determine airplane exposure to runway 

deicing fluids containing potassium formate 

or potassium acetate by reviewing airport 

data on the type of components in the 

deicing fluid used at airports that support 

airplane operations. 

(i) If the airplane has not been exposed, 

repeat the requirements specified in 

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

intervals not to exceed 12 months. 

(ii) If the airplane has been exposed, within 

90 days after that determination is made, do 

the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of 

this AD; and repeat the inspection thereafter 

at intervals not to exceed 12 months. 

(2) Do a detailed inspection of the 

electrical connectors, including the contacts 

and backshells, of the line replaceable unit 

(LRU) in the wheel well of the MLG for 

corrosion by doing all the actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–24A1148, Revision 1, dated July 10, 

2003. Do any significant/corrective actions 

before further flight in accordance with the 

service bulletin. 

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.’’

Inspections Accomplished Previously 

(g) Inspections accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–24A1148, dated 

December 6, 2001, are acceptable for 

compliance with the inspections required by 

paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(2) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2002–16–03, 

amendment 39–12842, are not approved as 

AMOCs with this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(i) You must use Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–24A1148, Revision 1, dated July 

10, 2003, to perform the actions that are 

required by this AD, unless the AD specifies 

otherwise. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves the incorporation by 

reference of this document in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To 

get copies of the service information, contact 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 

3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. To 

view the AD docket, go to the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW, room 

PL–401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC. To 

review copies of the service information, go 

to the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at the 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 

September 2, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–17984 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

31 CFR Part 575 

Iraqi Debt Unblocked 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (‘‘OFAC’’) of the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury is amending 

the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 

part 575, to unblock debt in which the 

Government of Iraq has an interest. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

9, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chief of Policy Planning and Program 

Management, tel. 202/622–2500, or 

Chief Counsel, tel.: 202/622–2410, 

Office of Foreign Assets Control, 

Department of the Treasury, 

Washington, DC 20220 (not toll free 

numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 2, 1990, upon Iraq’s 

invasion of Kuwait, the President issued 

Executive Order 12722 declaring a 

national emergency with respect to Iraq. 

This order, issued under the authority 

of, inter alia, the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National 

Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et 

seq.), and section 301 of title 3 of the 

U.S. Code, imposed economic sanctions 

against Iraq, including a complete trade 

embargo and a freeze of Government of 

Iraq property and interests in property, 

including any debt owed by the 

Government of Iraq (‘‘Iraqi debt’’). In 

keeping with United Nations Security 

Council Resolution 661 of August 6, 

1990, and under the United Nations 

Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287c), the 

President also issued Executive Order 

12724 of August 9, 1990, which 

imposed additional restrictions. The 

Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 

575 (the ‘‘Regulations’’), implement 

Executive Orders 12722 and 12724 and 

are administered by the Treasury 

Department’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (‘‘OFAC’’).