59252 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding actions required by this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) 

(s)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

the appropriate principal inspector in the 

FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding 

District Office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) Alternative methods of compliance and 

FAA-approved repairs, approved previously 

in accordance with AD 2002–10–10 are 

approved as AMOCs for the corresponding 

actions required by this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(t) You must use the service bulletins 

specified in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable, 

to perform the actions that are required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approves the incorporation by reference of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, 

Revision 2, dated April 3, 2003; and Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2452, dated 

April 3, 2003; in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) The Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation by 

reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 

2000, as of June 27, 2002 (67 FR 36081, May 

23, 2002). 

(3) The Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation by 

reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–

2349, dated June 27, 1991, as of June 11, 1993 

(58 FR 27927, May 12, 1993). 

(4) 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. 

TABLE 1.—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Service bulletin Revision 

level Date 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2349 ................................................................................................ 1 ............... October 12, 2000 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2452 ................................................................................................ Original .... April 3, 2003. 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2349 ......................................................................................................... Original .... June 27, 1991. 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2349 ........................................................................................................ 2 .............. April 3, 2003. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 28, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20071 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20880; Directorate 

Identifier 2003–NM–229–AD; Amendment 

39–14327; AD 2005–20–30] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B 

SUD, 747–200B, 747–300, 747SP, and 

747SR 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 certain Boeing Model 

747 series airplanes. That AD currently 

requires repetitive inspections to detect 

cracks in various areas of the fuselage 

internal structure, and repair if 

necessary. This new AD requires 

repetitive inspections of additional 

areas of the fuselage internal structure, 

and related investigative/corrective 

actions if necessary. This new AD also 

removes certain requirements from the 

existing AD. This AD results from 

fatigue testing of the fuselage structure 

of a Boeing Model 747SR series 

airplane. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent the loss of the structural 

integrity of the fuselage, which could 

result in rapid depressurization of the 

airplane. 

DATES: Effective November 16, 2005. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

53A2349, Revision 2, dated April 3, 

2003, as of November 16, 2005. 

On June 27, 2002 (67 FR 36081, May 

23, 2002), the Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2349, Revision 1, 

dated October 12, 2000. 

On June 11, 1993 (58 FR 27927, May 

12, 1993), the Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–53–2349, dated June 27, 1991. 

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: Ivan 

Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 917–6437; 

fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may 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 street 

address stated in the ADDRESSES section. 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that 

supersedes AD 2002–10–10, amendment 

39–12756 (67 FR 36081, May 23, 2002). 

The existing AD applies to certain 

Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on April 11, 2005 (70 FR 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 59253 

18332). That NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive inspections to detect cracks in 

various areas of the fuselage internal 

structure, and related investigative/ 

corrective actions if necessary. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments that have 

been received on the NPRM. 

Request To Clarify Paragraph (b) of the 

NPRM 

One commenter, the manufacturer, 

requests that paragraph (b) of the NPRM 

be revised to indicate that the NPRM 

does not address the upper deck floor 

beams, one subject of AD 2002–10–10. 

The commenter suggests that paragraph 

(b) be revised to read, ‘‘This AD 

supersedes AD 2002–10–10, amendment 

39–12756 (67 FR 36081, May 23, 2002), 

except AD 2002–10–10, paragraphs 

(a)(1), (d), (e), and (g), are not addressed 

by this AD.’’

We do not agree. In the ‘‘Other 

Related Rulemaking’’ section of the 

NPRM, we clarified that all 

requirements from AD 2002–10–10 

related to the upper deck floor beams 

are included in a separate rulemaking 

action. Consequently, on April 1, 2005, 

we issued an NPRM, Docket No. FAA–

2005–20879, to propose to address 

cracking in the upper chords of the 

upper deck floor beams. That NPRM 

was published in the Federal Register 

on April 11, 2005 (70 FR 18327). We 

have not revised the final rule in this 

regard. 

Request To Revise Paragraph (i) of the 

NPRM 

The same commenter requests that 

paragraph (i) of the NPRM be revised to 

indicate that the inspection for the areas 

specified in paragraph (i)(5) of the 

NPRM consists of internal and external 

detailed inspections. The commenter 

notes that the revision should be made 

to agree with Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–53A2349, Revision 2, dated April 3, 

2003 (which is referenced as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

proposed actions). 

We agree with the commenter. The 

inspections of the nose wheel well 

bulkheads and floor beams specified in 

paragraph (i)(5) of the final rule are 

internal and external inspections. We 

have revised paragraph (i) of the final 

rule accordingly. 

Request To Move Grace Period From 

Paragraph (j)(2) to Paragraph (j)(1) 

The same commenter requests that the 

grace period ‘‘within 1,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD,’’ be 

removed from the compliance time in 

paragraph (j)(2) of the NPRM and be 

added to the compliance time in 

paragraph (j)(1) of the NPRM. The 

commenter believes moving the grace 

period will convey the true intent of the 

service bulletin. The commenter states 

that the grace period can be removed 

from paragraph (j)(2) because the 

paragraph applies to operators that have 

already performed the inspections 

specified in paragraphs (i)(5) and (i)(7) 

of the NPRM. The commenter explains 

that these operators therefore are using 

Revision 2 of the service bulletin and 

would continue the inspections at the 

3,000-flight-cycle repetitive interval. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter. We agree with the 

commenter that the grace period 

‘‘within 1,000 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD’’ should be 

added to the compliance time in 

paragraph (j)(1) of the final rule and 

have revised paragraph (j)(1) 

accordingly. We find that the grace 

period will keep airplanes from being 

grounded unnecessarily and will 

provide an acceptable level of safety. 

However, we do not agree to remove the 

grace period from paragraph (j)(2) of the 

final rule. Operators that have 

voluntarily accomplished the 

inspections specified in paragraphs 

(i)(5) and (i)(7) of the final rule before 

the effective date of the final rule should 

be given the same grace period for the 

new inspections as operators that have 

not done the inspections specified in 

paragraphs (i)(5) and (i)(7). We also note 

that this grace period is for the new 

inspections specified in paragraphs 

(i)(5) and (i)(7) and that operators are 

still required to do the inspections 

specified in paragraph (f) of the final 

rule at intervals not to exceed 3,000 

flight cycles until all the inspections 

required by paragraph (i) of the final 

rule are done. 

Request To Revise Compliance Time in 

Paragraph (j)(3) 

The same commenter requests that the 

compliance time specified in paragraph 

(j)(3) of the NPRM be revised to clarify 

that the grace period is limited to the 

‘‘new work’’ specified in paragraphs 

(i)(5) and (i)(7) of the NPRM. The 

commenter states that the existing 

compliance time would allow deferral 

of all the inspections until 23,000 total 

flight cycles. The commenter 

recommends that the compliance time 

read as follows: ‘‘Accomplish the 

inspections required by paragraphs 

(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(4), (f)(5), and (i)(6) 

of this AD prior to the accumulation of 

22,000 flight cycles. Accomplish the 

inspections required by paragraphs (i)(5) 

and (i)(7) of this AD prior to the 

accumulation of 22,000 flight cycles, or 

within 1,000 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever is 

later.’’

We acknowledge that the only new 

inspections required by the final rule 

are the inspections specified in 

paragraphs (i)(5) and (i)(7) of the final 

rule. However, we do not agree that the 

compliance time specified in paragraph 

(j)(3) of the final rule allows for deferral 

of the other inspections specified in 

paragraph (i) of the final rule. Although 

an operator may delay doing the 

inspections specified in paragraphs 

(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(4), and (i)(6) of the 

final rule until the end of the grace 

period, the operator is still required to 

do the equivalent inspections specified 

in paragraph (f) of the final rule. Thus 

the existing inspections required by 

paragraph (f) of the final rule must be 

done at the compliance times specified 

in paragraph (f) until all the inspections 

required by paragraph (i) are done. We 

have not changed the final rule in this 

regard. 

Request To Clarify Repair Reference 

The same commenter requests that 

paragraphs (h) and (k) of the NPRM be 

revised to clarify that the Boeing 

Structural Repair Manuals (SRMs) meet 

the intent of the NPRM for repairs. The 

commenter contends that the SRMs 

contain the appropriate repairs and are 

referenced in Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–53–2349. The commenter believes 

that the phrase ‘‘For a repair method to 

be approved, the approval must 

specifically reference this AD’’ in the 

second part of paragraph (k) should 

apply only to the second part of the 

paragraph that says to ‘‘contact Boeing.’’

The commenter notes that some 

operators may have already done the 

repair per the SRM and suggests it 

would be best to state that the SRMs 

meet the intent of the AD. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter. We agree with the 

commenter that the SRM procedures 

referenced in the service bulletin are an 

appropriate source of service 

information for doing the repairs 

required by the final rule. We have 

revised paragraph (h) of the final rule to 

allow operators to do repairs in 

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–53A2349, Revision 2, as specified 

in paragraph (k) of the final rule. 

59254 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

However, we do not agree to revise 

paragraph (k) of the final rule to state 

that the SRM meets the intent of the 

final rule because paragraph (k) 

specifies to do the repair in accordance 

with Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

53A2349, Revision 2, which references 

the SRM. Therefore, operators that do 

the repair in accordance with the 

applicable SRM referenced in the 

service bulletin meet the repair 

requirement of the final rule and do not 

need further FAA approval. Paragraph 

(k) of the final rule specifies to repair in 

accordance with FAA approval only 

where the service bulletin specifies to 

contact Boeing for repair. Thus, 

operators are required to obtain FAA 

approval only for repairs that are 

beyond the scope of the service bulletin 

or SRM. As the commenter noted, the 

phrase, ‘‘For a repair method to be 

approved, the approval must 

specifically reference this AD,’’ applies 

only to operators that are required to 

obtain FAA approval. We have not 

revised the final rule in this regard. 

Request To Include Effect of AD 2004–

07–22 on the NPRM 

Two commenters request that the 

NPRM include the effect of AD 2004–

07–22, amendment 39–13566 (69 FR 

18250, April 7, 2004), which mandates 

Boeing Document No. D6–35022, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document,’’ (SSID) for Model 747 

Airplanes, Revision G, dated December 

2000. One commenter states that it has 

done the SSID inspections required by 

AD 2004–07–22 and that the NPRM may 

include inspections already covered by 

the SSID inspections. The commenter 

suggests that, to prevent duplicate work, 

the NPRM should identify the 

paragraphs for which SSID inspections 

are acceptable as an alternative method 

of compliance (AMOC). The other 

commenter, the manufacturer, notes that 

the SSID includes statements that allow 

the use of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

53–2349 inspections in lieu of SSID 

inspections. The commenter notes that, 

because of the NPRM, there will be a 

requirement to perform the SSID 

inspections and the Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–53–2349 inspections 

without an allowance to use the service 

bulletin inspections as a substitute for 

the SSID inspections. The commenter 

contends that it is better to have an 

operator use the service bulletin 

inspections due to the improved level of 

detailed instructions. 

We acknowledge that certain 

inspections done in accordance with 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2349 

may be acceptable as a substitute for 

corresponding SSID inspections and 

vice versa, because inspections done in 

accordance with both documents cover 

common areas. However, operators must 

identify the inspections and substantiate 

that any substitutions would provide an 

acceptable level of safety, and we must 

approve any substitutions. In order to 

avoid further delay to the inspections 

required by this final rule, we have not 

revised the final rule in this regard. 

Operators may request approval for 

AMOCs according to paragraph (m) of 

this final rule. For AD 2004–07–22, 

operators may request approval for 

AMOCs according to paragraph (g) of 

that AD. 

Explanation of Change Made to This 

Final Rule 

We have simplified paragraphs (h)(1), 

(h)(2), and (k) of this AD by referring to 

the ‘‘Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs)’’ paragraph (m) of this final 

rule for repair methods. 

Clarification of AMOC Paragraph 

We have revised this final rule 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 have been received, 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 will affect about 489 

airplanes worldwide, and 155 airplanes 

of U.S. registry. The following table 

provides the estimated costs for U.S. 

operators to comply with this AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work 

hours 

Average 

labor 

rate per 

hour 

Parts 

Cost per 

airplane, 

per inspection cycle 

Number 

of U.S.- 

registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Inspections, excluding upper deck floor beams, per inspection cycle (required by AD 2002–10–10).145 $65 None $9,425 155 $1,460,875 

Inspections (new AD) ........................................................................................ 130 65 None 8,450 155 1,309,750 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 59255 

this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

See the ADDRESSES section for a location 

to examine the regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by removing amendment 39–12756 (67 

FR 36081, May 23, 2002) and by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2005–20–30 Boeing: Amendment 39–14327. 

Docket No. FAA–2005–20880; 

Directorate Identifier 2003–NM–229–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective November 

16, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2002–10–10. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747–

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

747–300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes; 

certificated in any category; identified in 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, 

Revision 2, dated April 3, 2003. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by the results 

of fatigue testing of the fuselage structure of 

a Boeing Model 747SR series airplane. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of the 

structural integrity of the fuselage, which 

could result in rapid depressurization of the 

airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2002–

10–10 (Excluding Upper Deck Floor Beams) 

Repetitive Inspections 

(f) Prior to the accumulation of 22,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after June 11, 1993 (the effective date of AD 

93–08–12, amendment 39–8559), whichever 

occurs later, unless accomplished previously 

within the last 2,000 flight cycles; and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 

flight cycles: Perform an internal detailed 

inspection to detect cracks in the areas of the 

fuselage internal structure specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this AD; in 

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–53–2349, dated June 27, 1991; Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, 

Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000; or Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, Revision 2, 

dated April 3, 2003. After the effective date 

of this AD, only Revision 2 of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2349 may be used. 

Continue doing the inspections until the 

inspections required by paragraph (i) of this 

AD are done. 

(1) Section 42 upper lobe frames. 

(2) Section 46 lower lobe frames. 

(3) Section 42 lower lobe frames. 

(4) Main entry door cutouts. 

(5) Section 41 body station 260, 340, and 

400 bulkheads. 

(6) Main entry doors. 

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.’’

(g) Prior to the accumulation of 25,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after June 11, 1993, whichever is later, unless 

already done within the last 2,000 flight 

cycles; and thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 3,000 flight cycles: Do an internal 

detailed inspection to detect cracks in the 

Section 46 upper lobe frames, in accordance 

with Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2349, 

dated June 27, 1991; Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2349, Revision 1, dated 

October 12, 2000; or Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–53A2349, Revision 2, dated April 3, 

2003. After the effective date of this AD, only 

Revision 2 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

53A2349 may be used. 

Repair of Cracks Detected During Paragraph 

(f) or (g) Inspections 

(h) Before further flight, repair any cracks 

detected during the inspections done per 

paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD by doing the 

actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) 

of this AD, as applicable. 

(1) Repair in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or using a 

method approved in accordance with 

paragraph (m) of this AD. 

(2) Repair in accordance with Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, Revision 2, 

dated April 3, 2003. Where the service 

bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for repair 

instructions, repair in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO; or using a method approved in 

accordance with paragraph (m) of this AD. 

New Requirements of This AD 

Repetitive Inspections 

(i) Do an internal detailed inspection to 

detect cracking in the areas of the fuselage 

internal structure specified in paragraphs 

(i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, and internal 

and external detailed inspections of the areas 

specified in paragraphs (i)(4), (i)(5), (i)(6), 

and (i)(7) of this AD. Do the inspections in 

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–53A2349, Revision 2, dated April 3, 

2003. Do the inspections at the applicable 

time specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. 

Accomplishment of these inspections 

terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) 

of this AD. 

(1) Section 42 upper lobe frames. 

(2) Section 46 lower lobe frames. 

(3) Section 42 lower lobe frames. 

(4) Main entry door cutouts. 

(5) Nose wheel well bulkheads, sidewall 

panels, and the STA 360 and 380 floor 

beams. These areas include the Section 41 

body station 260, 340, and 400 bulkheads. 

(6) Main entry doors. 

(7) Main electronics bay access door 

cutout. 

(j) Do the inspections required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD at the applicable 

time specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or 

(j)(3) of this AD. Repeat the inspections 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 

flight cycles. 

(1) For airplanes on which the inspections 

required by paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), 

(f)(4), and (f)(6) of this AD have been done 

before the effective date of this AD, but the 

inspections required by paragraphs (i)(5) and 

(i)(7) of this AD have not been done: Within 

3,000 flight cycles since accomplishment of 

the most recent inspection required by 

paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(6) 

of this AD, except the inspections specified 

in paragraphs (i)(5) and (i)(7) of this AD may 

be done within 3,000 flight cycles since 

accomplishment of the most recent 

inspection required by paragraphs (f)(1), 

(f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(6) of this AD, or 

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever is later. 

(2) For airplanes on which the inspections 

required by paragraphs (i)(5) and (i)(7) have 

been done before the effective date of this 

AD: Within 3,000 flight cycles since 

accomplishment of the most recent 

inspection required by paragraphs (i)(5) and 

(i)(7) of this AD, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is later. 

(3) For airplanes on which the inspections 

required by paragraph (f) of this AD have not 

been done before the effective date of this 

AD: Prior to the accumulation of 22,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is later. 

Repair of Cracks Detected During Paragraph 

(i) Inspection 

(k) Before further flight, repair any cracking 

found during any inspection required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD in accordance with 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, 

Revision 2, dated April 3, 2003. Where the 

service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing 

for repair instructions, repair in accordance 

with a method approved by the Manager, 

Seattle ACO; or using a method approved in 

accordance with paragraph (m) of this AD. 

59256 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Actions Previously Accomplished 

(l) Inspections required by paragraph (i) of 

this AD, accomplished before the effective 

date of this AD, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53–2349, dated June 27, 

1991; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000; 

are acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding action required by paragraph 

(i) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(m)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

the appropriate principal inspector in the 

FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding 

District Office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) Alternative methods of compliance and 

FAA-approved repairs, approved previously 

in accordance with AD 2002–10–10 or AD 

93–08–12, are approved as alternative 

methods of compliance with the 

corresponding requirements of this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(n) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–53–2349, dated June 27, 1991; Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, 

Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000; or Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, Revision 2, 

dated April 3, 2003; to perform the actions 

that are required by this AD, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approves the incorporation by reference of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, 

Revision 2, dated April 3, 2003, in 

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

part 51. 

(2) The Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation by 

reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 

2000, as of June 27, 2002 (67 FR 36081, May 

23, 2002). 

(3) The Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation by 

reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–

2349, dated June 27, 1991, as of June 11, 1993 

(58 FR 27927, May 12, 1993). 

(4) To get copies of the service information, 

contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. 

Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

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 26, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20072 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20687; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–171–AD; Amendment 

39–14325; AD 2005–20–28] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A319–100 Series Airplanes; Model 

A320–111 Airplanes; Model A320–200 

Series Airplanes, and Model A321–100 

and –200 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Airbus airplane models, as specified 

above. This AD requires modifying the 

floor proximity emergency escape path 

marking system. This AD results from 

information that the existing system 

design for interconnection of the 

emergency power supply units of the 

floor proximity emergency escape path 

marking system does not provide 

adequate floor path lighting and 

marking for safe evacuation of the 

airplane in the event of an emergency. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent 

inadequate lighting and marking of the 

escape path, which could delay or 

impede the flightcrew and passengers 

when exiting the airplane during an 

emergency landing. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 16, 2005. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of November 16, 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 Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the airworthiness 

directive (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 street address stated in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

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 Airbus Model A319, 

A320, and A321 series airplanes. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on March 23, 2005 (70 FR 

14597). That NPRM proposed to require 

modifying the floor proximity 

emergency escape path marking system 

(FPEEPMS). 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Request To Clarify Certain Sections in 

the Preamble 

One commenter disagrees with the 

implication that Bruce Industries 

equipment is the root cause of the 

unsafe condition. The commenter states 

that the language in the Discussion 

section of the NPRM indicates that the 

root cause of the unsafe condition is the 

design of the Bruce power supply. The 

commenter adds that this is not the 

case, and notes that the problem is not 

with the design but with the method of 

installing that component on the 

airplane. The commenter states that it 

contacted Airbus regarding this 

problem, and Airbus responded by 

identifying the source of the problem as 

the incorrect installation of the Bruce 

power supply and the wiring on the 

airplane. Airbus and Bruce Industries 

have since developed a resolution. The