59644 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 30, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20265 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20137; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–96–AD; Amendment 39–

14338; AD 2005–20–41] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 757–200, –200PF, and –300 

Series Airplanes, Powered by Pratt & 

Whitney PW2000 Series Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Boeing Model 757–200, –200PF, and 

–300 series airplanes, powered by Pratt 

& Whitney PW2000 series engines. This 

AD requires repetitive inspections for 

loose or damaged components of the 

support brackets and associated 

fasteners for the hydraulic lines located 

in the nacelle struts, and any related 

investigative and corrective actions. 

This AD results from reports of damage 

and subsequent failure of the support 

brackets and associated fasteners for the 

hydraulic lines located internal to the 

upper fairing cavity of the nacelle struts. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent such 

failure, which, in conjunction with 

sparking of electrical wires, failure of 

seals that would allow flammable fluids 

to migrate to compartments with 

ignition sources, or overheating of the 

pneumatic ducts beyond auto-ignition 

temperatures, could result in an 

uncontained fire. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 17, 2005. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of November 17, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the 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., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207, for service 

information identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Thorson, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6508; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket 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 street 

address stated in the ADDRESSES section. 

This docket number is FAA–2005–

20137; the directorate identifier for this 

docket is 2004–NM–96–AD. 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain Boeing Model 757 

series airplanes. That NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 28, 2005 (70 FR 4052). That 

NPRM proposed to require repetitive 

inspections for loose or damaged 

components of the support brackets and 

associated fasteners for the hydraulic 

lines located in the nacelle struts, and 

any related investigative and corrective 

actions. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments on the NPRM 

that have been received. 

Support for Proposed AD 

Two commenters concur with the 

proposed AD as written. 

Requests To Extend Compliance Time 

Two commenters ask that the 

compliance time for the initial and 

repetitive inspections specified in the 

proposed AD be extended. 

One commenter asks that the 

compliance time for the initial and 

repetitive inspections be extended to 

6,000 flight hours or 24 months, 

whichever is first. The proposed AD 

specifies initial and repetitive 

inspections at intervals not to exceed 

6,000 flight hours or 18 months. The 

commenter adds that, based on access, 

labor hour requirements, and the nature 

of the detailed inspections, this type of 

work aligns with the airline’s heavy 

maintenance program, which is 

calendar-based and FAA-approved at 

24-month intervals. The commenter 

states that, because the proposed 

inspections are fatigue-related, an 

equivalent level of safety is maintained 

by extending the proposed calendar 

compliance time. 

A second commenter asks that the 

compliance time for the repetitive 

inspections be changed to 7,500 flight 

hours or 24 months. The commenter 

states that the proposed AD requires the 

initial inspection to be accomplished 

within 18 months or 6,000 flight hours, 

regardless of total flight cycles/hours on 

the airplane. The commenter adds that 

the safety concern addressed by the 

proposed AD appears to be age-related. 

Additionally, consideration should be 

given to whether or not, and when, the 

work described in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 757–29–0043, dated June 21, 

1990 (the concurrent service bulletin 

referenced in the proposed AD) was 

accomplished. The commenter also 

states that the initial and repetitive 

inspection interval in the proposed AD 

coincides with the published Material 

Review Board’s most conservative 

periodic check (PCK) interval; several 

operators, including the commenter, 

have escalated that PCK interval to 24 

months. The commenter concludes that 

attempting to accomplish the proposed 

actions within the proposed compliance 

time would be expensive; extending the 

compliance time would allow operators 

who have escalated the PCK interval to 

accomplish the inspections during 

maintenance checks. 

We agree to extend the compliance 

time for the initial and repetitive 

inspections to 6,000 flight hours or 24 

months, whichever is first. The fatiguerelated failures are a function of 

airplane flight hours and flight cycles, 

not a direct function of calendar time. 

Extending the compliance time will 

continue to provide an equivalent level 

of safety, as noted by the commenter. 

However, we do not agree to extend the 

compliance time to 7,500 flight hours or 

24 months; the 6,000-flight-hour 

compliance time was based on service 

history of part failures and an 

engineering fatigue analysis by the 

original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM). We have changed paragraph (f) 

of this AD to reflect the revised 

compliance time. 

Request To Change Costs of Compliance 

Section 

Two commenters ask for changes to 

the Costs of Compliance section. 

One commenter states that the 

estimate in the cost section in the 

proposed AD specifies that it would 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 59645 

take 35 work hours to accomplish the 

inspection required by paragraph (f) of 

the proposed AD, but the commenter 

estimates that it would take 47 work 

hours to accomplish that inspection. 

The commenter adds that the proposed 

AD also requires accomplishing the 

concurrent actions specified in 

paragraph (g) of the proposed AD and 

referenced in Boeing Service Bulletin 

757–29–0043, dated June 21, 1990; 

however, the cost for those actions is 

not included in the Costs of Compliance 

section. The commenter concludes that 

the cost for the inspections was 

underestimated and the cost for the 

concurrent actions was omitted. 

A second commenter asks that we 

change the Costs of Compliance section 

in the proposed AD to specify that the 

number of work hours necessary to 

accomplish the proposed inspection and 

the concurrent actions would be 

determined by operators on a case-bycase basis. 

We do not agree to change the work 

hours in this AD or specify that 

operators will determine the number of 

work hours necessary for accomplishing 

the actions. The number of work hours 

represent the time necessary to perform 

only the actions actually required by the 

AD. The actions in an AD normally 

reflect only the costs of the specific 

required action (inspection) based on 

the best data available from the 

manufacturer; however, this AD also 

includes the time required to gain 

access and close up. The cost analysis 

in AD rulemaking actions typically does 

not include incidental costs such as the 

time necessary for planning, or time 

necessitated by other administrative 

actions. Those incidental costs, which 

may vary significantly among operators, 

are almost impossible to calculate. We 

have made no change to the AD in this 

regard. 

We do agree to add the cost for the 

concurrent actions since those actions 

were inadvertently omitted from the 

NPRM. We have added a new paragraph 

to the Costs of Compliance section 

which estimates the work hours and 

cost per airplane for accomplishing the 

concurrent actions. 

Request To Change Statement of Unsafe 

Condition 

One commenter, the OEM, asks that 

we change the statement of unsafe 

condition specified in the proposed AD. 

The statement of unsafe condition is as 

follows: ‘‘We are proposing this AD to 

prevent flammable fluids from leaking 

into the interior compartment of the 

nacelle struts where ignition sources 

exist, which could result in the ignition 

of flammable fluids and an uncontained 

fire.’’ The commenter states that the 

damage to the Pratt & Whitney strut has 

not caused any damage to barriers 

between the upper strut compartment 

and any other compartment; the 

hydraulic tube is clamped to frames, not 

to a vapor barrier. The commenter adds 

that the upper strut compartment is 

designated as a flammable leakage zone, 

and therefore, to the greatest extent 

possible, all ignition sources have been 

eliminated. The commenter notes that 

the unsafe condition addressed by the 

referenced service information does not 

result in any zone barriers being 

damaged. The commenter concludes 

that any leakage of flammable fluids 

will not come in contact with ignition 

sources; additionally, the upper strut 

compartment has drainage provisions to 

prevent the accumulation of flammable 

fluids. 

We agree to change the description of 

the unsafe condition. The commenter is 

accurate in the statement that any 

leakage of flammable fluids will not 

come in contact with ignition sources 

because the upper strut compartment 

has drainage provisions to prevent the 

accumulation of flammable fluids. Due 

to the design of the system installations 

in the strut compartments, an additional 

failure would have to occur to result in 

the ignition of flammable fluids. 

Additional failures include shorting and 

sparking of electrical wires in either the 

strut upper fairing cavity or torque box, 

failure of seals that would allow 

flammable fluids to migrate to 

compartments with ignition sources, or 

overheating of the pneumatic ducts 

beyond auto-ignition temperatures. The 

description of the unsafe condition has 

been changed throughout the AD. 

Request To Clarify Acceptable Part 

Numbers 

One commenter states that the 

proposed AD requires accomplishing 

the actions specified in two different 

service bulletins, which are referenced 

in paragraphs (f) and (g) of the proposed 

AD. The commenter is concerned 

because the part numbers specified in 

those two bulletins are different. The 

commenter recommends that the 

proposed AD be revised to specify that 

the part numbers listed in either service 

bulletin are acceptable configurations 

and fully comply with the actions 

specified in the proposed AD. 

We acknowledge and provide 

clarification for the commenter’s 

concern. The OEM verified with us that 

the different part numbers specified in 

the referenced service bulletins are due 

to one series of parts having pilot holes 

and the other series not having pilot 

holes. Therefore, the part numbers 

identified in either service bulletin are 

acceptable configurations and fully 

comply with the AD requirements for 

the modifications. We have added a 

note to the AD for clarification. In 

addition, once a revision to the service 

bulletins has been issued by the 

manufacturer, and reviewed and 

accepted by us, we will approve the use 

of either series of part numbers as an 

acceptable alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) according to 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

Request To Clarify the Repair Approval 

Specified in Paragraph (i) 

One commenter asks that paragraph 

(i) of the proposed AD, titled ‘‘Repair 

Information,’’ be clarified concerning 

the requirement to obtain repair 

approval per the Manager, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). The 

commenter questions if this approval is 

required for all Boeing-assisted repairs 

to the engine strut frames, or if the 

approval is only required for Boeingassisted repairs found during the 

inspections required by the proposed 

AD. 

We interpret the commenter’s 

question to be whether damage found 

inside the strut that is not found during 

the inspection required by the AD 

requires Seattle ACO approval of the 

repair method. Our response is that only 

repairs of hardware damage found 

during the inspection required by the 

AD for which the service bulletin 

specifies a Boeing-assisted repair per the 

referenced service information need be 

submitted to the Seattle ACO for 

approval. If specific cases develop and 

the repair method is not apparent to the 

operator, contact the Seattle ACO for 

guidance. We have not changed the AD 

in this regard. 

Request To Resolve Parts Issues 

One commenter states that the 

following parts issues represent an 

undue burden on operators by 

needlessly restricting operator action, 

and asks that these issues be resolved. 

Those issues and our responses are as 

follows: 

1. The commenter asks that the 

proposed AD be changed to allow 

dimensional drawings or provisions for 

operators to fabricate acceptable 

substitute brackets. The commenter 

states that, since parts are not available 

from the OEM, operators must fabricate 

the brackets and re-use the fasteners and 

rubber blocks, as necessary. 

We do not agree that operators can be 

allowed to fabricate their own parts. 

Operators would be required to fabricate 

parts by using an approved design, and 

we cannot authorize this without 

59646 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

reviewing the operators’ design data. 

The manufacturer has indicated that the 

parts required are readily available; 

therefore, obtaining them should not be 

a problem. However, should parts not be 

available in a timely manner, operators 

may provide the design data to us and 

request approval of an AMOC per 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

2. The commenter asks that we revise 

Section II of Boeing Service Bulletin 

757–29–0064 (referenced in the 

proposed AD as the appropriate source 

of service information for accomplishing 

the inspections for Model 757–200 and 

–200PF series airplanes) to add a 

provision for providing brackets and 

hardware for all stations. The 

commenter states that Section II of the 

service bulletin contains material 

information that is inadequate. The 

commenter has found that only parts 

necessary for station 149.5 are included 

in that section; however, the service 

bulletin specifies inspecting and 

replacing parts at stations 102.1, 128.0, 

149.5, 161.35, and 180.0 on the left and 

right sides of the airplane. In addition, 

the commenter found damaged/worn 

parts at other stations. 

3. The commenter asks that we 

require brackets and hardware to be 

stocked and provided by Boeing until 

terminating action is developed. The 

commenter states that parts for all 

stations are not readily available from 

the OEM or other suppliers. 

We do not agree to advise Boeing to 

revise Section II of the referenced 

service bulletin, or to require that 

Boeing provide parts until terminating 

action is developed. The technical 

content of the referenced service 

bulletin is correct and contains adequate 

information and procedures to 

accomplish the repetitive inspections. 

Therefore, we have determined that it is 

not necessary for the manufacturer to 

revise the service bulletin before 

issuance of this AD. In addition, we 

have no regulatory basis to require the 

type certificate holder to provide the 

parts necessary to comply with the 

corrective action specified in the AD. 

The manufacturer has indicated that the 

parts required are readily available; 

therefore, obtaining them should not be 

a problem. However, under the 

provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, 

affected operators may request approval 

of an AMOC. 

Request To Approve Future Service 

Information 

One commenter, the OEM, asks that 

the appropriate sections in the proposed 

AD be changed to reference Revision 1 

of Boeing Service Bulletins 757–29–

0064 and 757–29–0065. (Boeing Service 

Bulletins 757–29–0064 and 757–29–

0065, both dated February 29, 2004, are 

referenced in the NPRM as the 

appropriate sources of service 

information for accomplishing the 

repetitive inspections.) The commenter 

states that those service bulletins are 

currently being revised and are expected 

to be released soon. 

We cannot accept as-yet unpublished 

service documents for compliance with 

the requirements of an AD. Referring to 

an unavailable service bulletin in an AD 

violates Office of the Federal Register 

regulations for approving materials that 

are incorporated by reference. We have 

not changed the AD regarding this issue 

because the service bulletins have not 

been revised and we cannot delay the 

final rule to wait for revisions to be 

issued. However, under the provisions 

of paragraph (j) of this AD, affected 

operators may request approval to use a 

later revision of the referenced service 

bulletin as an AMOC. 

Clarification of Alternative Method of 

Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph 

We have changed this AD to clarify 

the appropriate procedure for notifying 

the principal inspector before using any 

approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

that we received, and determined that 

air safety and the public interest require 

adopting the AD with the changes 

described previously. 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 432 airplanes 

worldwide and 377 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. 

The inspection/test takes about 35 

work hours per airplane (including 

access and close-up), at an average labor 

rate of $65 per work hour. Based on 

these figures, the estimated cost of the 

inspection/test for U.S. operators is 

$857,675, or $2,275 per airplane, per 

inspection/test cycle. 

The concurrent actions would take 

about 38 work hours per airplane, at an 

average labor rate of $65 per work hour. 

Required parts cost is minimal. Based 

on these figures, the estimated cost of 

the concurrent actions is $2,470 per 

airplane. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in subtitle VII, 

part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

(3) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

See the ADDRESSES section for a location 

to examine the regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 59647 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

2005–20–41 Boeing: Amendment 39–14338. 

Docket No. FAA–2005–20137; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–96–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective November 

17, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757–

200, –200PF, and –300 series airplanes; 

certificated in any category; powered by Pratt 

& Whitney PW2000 series engines. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

damage and subsequent failure of the support 

brackets and associated fasteners for the 

hydraulic lines located internal to the upper 

fairing cavity of the nacelle struts. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent such failure, 

which, in conjunction with sparking of 

electrical wires, failure of seals that would 

allow flammable fluids to migrate to 

compartments with ignition sources, or 

overheating of the pneumatic ducts beyond 

auto-ignition temperatures, could result in an 

uncontained fire. 

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 

(f) Within 6,000 flight hours or 24 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is first: Do a detailed inspection for loose or 

damaged components of the support brackets 

and associated fasteners for the hydraulic 

lines located in the nacelle struts by 

accomplishing all of the actions specified in 

Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 757–29–0064 (for Model 

757–200 and –200PF series airplanes) or 

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–29–0065 (for 

Model 757–300 series airplanes), both dated 

February 29, 2004; as applicable. Repeat the 

inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, 

whichever is first. 

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.’’

Concurrent Service Bulletin 

(g) Prior to or concurrently with the 

accomplishment of paragraph (f) of this AD: 

Accomplish all of the actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 757–29–0043, dated June 21, 

1990. 

Note 2: The part numbers identified in 

Boeing Service Bulletins 757–29–0064 or 

757–29–0065, both dated February 29, 2004; 

or Boeing Service Bulletin 757–29–0043, 

dated June 21, 1990; are acceptable 

configurations and fully comply with the AD 

requirements for the actions required by 

paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD. 

Related Investigative and Corrective Actions 

(h) Except as required by paragraph (i) of 

this AD: If any loose or damaged part is 

found during any inspection required by 

paragraph (f) of this AD, before further flight, 

do all of the related investigative and 

corrective actions specified in Part 1 and Part 

2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–29–0064, or 

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–29–0065, both 

dated February 29, 2004; as applicable. 

Repair Information 

(i) If any damage is found during any 

inspection required by this AD, and the 

service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing 

for appropriate action: Before further flight, 

repair per a method approved by the 

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be 

approved, the approval letter must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

Note 3: There is no terminating action 

currently available for the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (f) of this 

AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(k) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 

757–29–0064, dated February 29, 2004, or 

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–29–0065, dated 

February 29, 2004; and Boeing Service 

Bulletin 757–29–0043, dated June 21, 1990; 

as applicable, 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 these documents in accordance 

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

Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. 

Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207, 

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/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 30, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20264 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2001–NE–50–AD; Amendment 

39–14306; AD 2005–20–12] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Dowty 

Aerospace Propellers Type R321/4–82–

F/8, R324/4–82–F/9, R333/4–82–F/12, 

and R334/4–82–F/13 Propeller 

Assemblies 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Type R321/4–82–F/8, R324/4–82–F/9, 

R333/4–82–F/12, and R334/4–82–F/13 

propeller assemblies. That AD currently 

requires initial and repetitive ultrasonic 

inspections of propeller hubs, part 

number (P/N) 660709201. This AD 

requires the same initial and repetitive 

ultrasonic inspections, but reduces the 

initial and repetitive compliance times 

for Type R334/4–82–F/13 propeller 

assemblies when used on 

Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A. 

(CASA) 212 airplanes. This AD results 

from a report of a hub separation on a 

CASA 212 airplane. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent propeller hub failure due 

to cracks in the hub, which could result 

in loss of control of the airplane. 

DATES: Effective October 28, 2005. The 

Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the 

regulations as of October 28, 2005. The 

Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation 

by reference of certain publications as 

listed in the regulations as of July 27, 

2004 (69 FR 34560, June 22, 2004). 

We must receive any comments on 

this AD by December 12, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: 

Use one of the following addresses to 

comment on this AD: 

• By mail: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), New England