This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

54484 

Vol. 70, No. 178 

Thursday, September 15, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22437; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–082–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–400, 747–400D, and 747– 

400F Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Boeing Model 747–400, 747– 

400D, and 747–400F series airplanes. 

This proposed AD would require 

repetitive detailed inspections for 

damage (degraded finish; missing, lifted, 

peeling, or blistering paint; or signs of 

corrosion) of the interior skin in the 

forward and aft cargo compartments, 

and corrective actions if necessary. This 

proposed AD is prompted by reports of 

skin corrosion on four Boeing Model 

747 series airplanes that were delivered 

between 1995 and 1999. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

corrosion, which can penetrate the 

thickness of the skin and cause 

cracking, and result in rapid 

decompression of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 31, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• By fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

You can examine the contents of this 

AD docket on the Internet at http:// 

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

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., room PL–401, on the plaza level of 

the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. 

This docket number is FAA–2005– 

22437; the directorate identifier for this 

docket is 2005–NM–082–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Kusz, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6432; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2005–22437; Directorate Identifier 

2005–NM–082–AD’’ in the subject line 

of your comments. We specifically 

invite comments on the overall 

regulatory, economic, environmental, 

and energy aspects of the proposed AD. 

We will consider all comments 

submitted by the closing date and may 

amend the proposed AD in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You can 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you can visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

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 DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System (DMS) receives 

them. 

Discussion 

In April 1988, a high-cycle transport 

category airplane (specifically, a Boeing 

Model 737) was involved in an accident 

in which the airplane suffered major 

structural damage during flight. 

Investigation of this accident revealed 

that the airplane had numerous fatigue 

cracks and a great deal of corrosion. 

Subsequent inspections conducted by 

the operator on other high-cycle 

transport category airplanes in its fleet 

revealed that other airplanes had 

extensive fatigue cracking and 

corrosion. 

Prompted by the data gained from this 

accident, we sponsored a conference on 

aging airplanes in June 1988, which was 

attended by representatives from the 

aviation industry and airworthiness 

authorities from around the world. It 

became obvious that, because of the 

tremendous increase in air travel, the 

relatively slow pace of new airplane 

production, and the apparent economic 

feasibility of operating older technology 

airplanes rather than retiring them, 

increased attention needed to be 

focused on the aging airplane fleet and 

maintaining its continued operational 

safety. 

The Air Transport Association (ATA) 

of America and the Aerospace 

Industries Association (AIA) of America 

agreed to undertake the task of 

identifying and implementing 

procedures to ensure the continued 

structural airworthiness of aging 

transport category airplanes. An 

Airworthiness Assurance Working 

Group (AAWG) was established in 

August 1988, with members 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54485 

representing aircraft manufacturers, 

operators, regulatory authorities, and 

other aviation industry representatives 

worldwide. The objective of the AAWG 

was to sponsor ‘‘Task Groups’’ to: 

1. Select service bulletins, applicable 

to each airplane model in the transport 

fleet, to be recommended for mandatory 

modification of aging airplanes; 

2. Develop corrosion-directed 

inspections and prevention programs; 

3. Review the adequacy of each 

operator’s structural maintenance 

program; 

4. Review and update the 

Supplemental Inspection Documents 

(SID); and 

5. Assess repair quality. 

The Working Group assigned to 

review Boeing Model 747 series 

airplanes completed its work on Item (2) 

in 1989 and developed a baseline 

program for controlling corrosion 

problems that may jeopardize the 

continued airworthiness of the Boeing 

Model 747 fleet. This program is 

contained in Boeing Document Number 

D6–36022, ‘‘Aging Airplane Corrosion 

Prevention and Control Program—

Model 747,’’ Revision A, dated July 28, 

1989. On November 5, 1990, we issued 

AD 90–25–05, amendment 39–6790 (55 

FR 49268, November 27, 1990). That AD 

mandates Boeing Document Number 

D6–36022, and requires that operators of 

Boeing Model 747 series airplanes 

implement a Corrosion Prevention and 

Control Program (CPCP). 

Since we issued AD 90–25–05, two 

operators found skin corrosion on four 

Boeing Model 747 series airplanes that 

were delivered between 1995 and 1999. 

The corrosion happened when primer 

peeled off in some areas of the skin and 

left the aluminum unprotected against 

moisture and corrosive elements. The 

operators repaired three of the airplanes 

by trimming-out the damaged skin, and 

one of the airplanes by blending to 

remove the damage. One other operator 

reported finding peeling primer, but no 

corrosion, on the interior skin surface of 

one airplane, below the cargo bay. The 

manufacturer investigated these 

incidents and found that the 

manufacturing process for the skins 

resulted in inadequate adhesion of the 

primer to the skin. The interior surface 

of the skin below the cargo bay is 

susceptible to corrosion because of the 

presence of moisture. If areas of 

corrosion are not repaired, the corrosion 

can penetrate the thickness of the skin 

and cause cracking. This condition, if 

not corrected, could result in rapid 

decompression of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2505, dated 

March 17, 2005. The service bulletin 

describes procedures for doing a 

detailed inspection for damage of the 

interior skin in the forward and aft cargo 

compartments. Damage includes a 

degraded finish; missing, lifted, peeling, 

or blistering paint; or signs of corrosion. 

If any damage is found, the service 

bulletin describes procedures for 

corrective actions. The corrective 

actions are restoring the finish if only 

damage to the finish is found; or 

repairing the affected area and restoring 

the protective finish if the finish is 

damaged and any corrosion is found. If 

any corrosion damage exceeds limits in 

the structural repair manual (SRM), the 

service bulletin states that operators 

should contact Boeing for repair 

instructions. If no damage or corrosion 

is found, the service bulletin states that 

no further action is necessary until the 

next inspection. The service bulletin 

recommends repeating the detailed 

inspection every four years until the 

initial inspection threshold for the 

applicable CPCP task in Boeing 

Document Number D6–36022 is 

reached. The service bulletin also 

requests that operators send reports of 

the inspection program and details of 

any corrosion damage and peeling 

primer to the manufacturer. 

Accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service bulletin is intended to 

adequately address the unsafe 

condition. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on other airplanes of this same 

type design. Therefore, we are 

proposing this AD, which would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Bulletin.’’

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Bulletin 

Although the service bulletin 

referenced in this proposed AD specifies 

to submit to the manufacturer a report 

of the inspection program and details of 

any corrosion damage and peeling paint 

primer, this proposed AD does not 

include those actions. 

The service bulletin specifies that you 

may contact the manufacturer for 

instructions on how to repair corrosion 

damage that exceeds limits in the SRM, 

but this proposed AD would require you 

to repair those conditions in one of the 

following ways: 

• Using a method that we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Delegation Option Authorization 

Organization whom we have authorized 

to make those findings. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 260 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this proposed AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Average labor 

rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Detailed inspection, per 

inspection cycle.

10 $65 N/A $650, per inspection 

cycle.

36 $23,400, 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 

54486 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

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 proposed AD. 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, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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 adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2005–22437; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–082–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) must receive comments on this AD 

action by October 31, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747–

400, 747–400D, and 747–400F series 

airplanes, certificated in any category; as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2505, dated March 17, 2005. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

skin corrosion on four Boeing Model 747 

series airplanes that were delivered between 

1995 and 1999. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct corrosion, which can 

penetrate the thickness of the skin and cause 

cracking, and result in rapid decompression 

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. 

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective 

Actions 

(f) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for 

damage (degraded finish; missing, lifted, 

peeling, or blistering paint; or signs of 

corrosion) of the interior skin in the forward 

and aft cargo compartments. Do any 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. Except as required by paragraphs (g) 

and (h) of this AD, do all actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2505, dated March 17, 2005. Repeat 

the inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 48 months until accomplishing task 

number C53–125–01 of Boeing Document 

Number D6–36022, ‘‘Aging Airplane 

Corrosion Prevention and Control Program—

Model 747,’’ Revision A, dated July 28, 1989, 

or until accomplishing tasks S53–520 and 

S53–550 of Boeing Document Number 

D621U400–MRB, ‘‘B747–400 Maintenance 

Review Board Report,’’ Revision E, dated 

May 2003. 

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.’’

Damage that Exceeds Structural Repair 

Manual Limits 

(g) If any corrosion damage that exceeds 

the limits specified in the structural repair 

manual is found during any action required 

by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2505, dated March 17, 2005 

specifies to contact Boeing for repair 

instructions: Before further flight, repair the 

damage using a method approved in 

accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD. 

No Reporting Requirement 

(h) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2505, dated March 17, 2005, 

specifies to submit to the manufacturer a 

report of the inspection program and details 

of any corrosion damage and peeling paint 

primer, this AD does not include those 

actions. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by 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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 8, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18319 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19566; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–72–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A300 B2 and A300 B4 Series Airplanes; 

and Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and 

F4–600R Series Airplanes, and Model 

C4–605R Variant F Airplanes 

(Collectively Called A300–600 Series 

Airplanes) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier 

NPRM for an airworthiness directive 

(AD) that applies to certain Airbus 

airplanes as listed above. The original 

NPRM would have required repetitively 

inspecting for cracking in the web of 

nose rib 7 of the inner flap on the wings, 

and performing related investigative/ 

corrective actions if necessary. The 

original NPRM was prompted by reports 

of cracking in the web of nose rib 7 of 

the inner flap. This action revises the 

original NPRM by adding additional 

inspections for cracking in the web of 

nose rib 7 of the inner flap on the wings, 

and revising compliance times for 

certain airplanes. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct cracking in the web of nose rib