[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30919-30922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15085]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1071; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-093-AD; 
Amendment 39-15951; AD 2009-14-02]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 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 airplanes. That AD 
currently requires repetitive inspections to detect evidence of wear 
damage in the area at the interface between the vertical stabilizer 
seal and fuselage skin, and corrective actions, if necessary. The 
existing AD also provides for an optional terminating action for the 
repetitive inspections. For all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, this new AD requires 
repetitive inspections for wear damage and cracks of the fuselage skin 
in the interface area of the vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage 
skin, a detailed inspection for wear damage and cracks of the surface 
of any skin repair doubler in the area, and corrective actions if 
necessary. For airplanes on which the fuselage skin has been blended to 
remove wear damage, this new AD requires repetitive external detailed 
inspections or high frequency eddy current inspections for cracks of 
the blended area of the fuselage skin, and corrective actions if 
necessary. This AD results from reports of wear damage on airplanes 
with fewer than 8,000 total flight cycles. In addition, there have been 
three reports of skin wear damage on airplanes that applied Boeing 
Material Specifications 10-86 Teflon-filled coating (terminating action 
per the existing AD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear 
damage and cracks of the fuselage skin in the interface area of the 
vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin in sections 46 and 48, which 
could cause in-flight depressurization of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 3, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 3, 
2009.
    On February 10, 2003 (68 FR 476, January 6, 2003), the Director of 
the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cba6aee5a9a4aea8a4a68ba9a4aea2a5ace5a8a4a6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="412c246f232e24222e2c01232e24282f266f222e2c">[email protected]</span></a>; 
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, 
any comments received, and other information. The address for the 
Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 
West Building Ground Floor, Room, W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6437; 
fax (425) 917-6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2002-26-15, amendment 
39-13003 (68 FR 476, January 6, 2003). The existing AD applies to 
certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in 
the Federal Register on October 8, 2008 (73 FR 58903). That NPRM 
proposed to require, for all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B 
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, repetitive inspections for 
wear damage and cracks of the fuselage skin in the interface area of 
the vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, a detailed inspection 
for wear damage and cracks of the surface of any skin repair doubler in 
the area, and corrective actions if necessary. For airplanes on which 
the fuselage skin has been blended to remove wear damage, that NPRM 
proposed to require repetitive external detailed inspections or high 
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracks of the blended 
area of the fuselage skin, and 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 for Change in Applicability

    Boeing requests that the second paragraph under ``Relevant Service 
Information'' of the NPRM be revised to list the specific Boeing Model 
747 series airplanes affected by this rule. The commenter states that 
Boeing Model 747-8 series airplanes, which are not yet FAA type-
certificated, should be excluded because they are equipped with 
corrosion-resistant steel rubstrips on the affected skins, which are a 
baseline configuration on these airplanes.
    We find that clarification is necessary. The applicability in 
paragraph (c) of the AD identifies specifically affected Boeing Model 
747 airplanes. However, the ``Relevant Service Information'' section is 
not restated in the final rule. Therefore, for clarity, we have 
specified in the Discussion section of this AD the specific Boeing 
Model 747 airplanes identified in the AD applicability (paragraph (c)) 
of this AD.

Request To Delay Issuance of the AD

    Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we delay the issuance of the AD 
until the service bulletin is revised and the repair doubler wear 
limits can be incorporated into the final rule. JAL states that the 
NPRM and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 1, dated 
March 27, 2008, do not provide any wear limits for the repair doublers. 
JAL also states that operators would have to contact Boeing for repair 
instructions, replace the repair, or replace the repair doubler even if 
minor blending is found.
    We disagree with the request to delay issuance of this AD. The wear 
limits provided in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 1,

[[Page 30920]]

dated March 27, 2008, are also applicable to skin repair doublers since 
the skin repair doublers have the same function as the fuselage skin. 
Because of the degree of urgency associated with addressing the 
identified unsafe condition, we have determined that further delay of 
this final rule is not appropriate. We have not changed this final rule 
regarding this issue.

Request for an Alternative Inspection Plan

    Cargolux Airlines International S.A. (CLX) and Royal Dutch Airlines 
(KLM) request an alternative inspection plan for paragraph (i)(1) of 
the NPRM. The commenters request that we increase the grace period from 
6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD to 12,000 flight 
hours after the effective date of this AD (for those airplanes over the 
threshold); and change the repetitive interval for the detailed 
inspection from 7,500 flight hours to 12,000 flight hours (or 24 
months) after the effective date of this AD, combining the detailed 
inspection and a surface HFEC inspection. CLX states that the higher 
sensitivity of the HFEC inspection would justify the increase in the 
inspection interval. KLM and CLX also state that a 12,000-flight-hour 
interval will allow for inspections to be done at regular ``C-check'' 
maintenance intervals. KLM also adds that there is a large economic 
impact due to its airplanes having passed the threshold and being the 
subject to the low repetitive interval of 7,500 flight hours.
    We disagree with the request to include an alternative inspection 
plan. The service and analytical data from the airplane manufacturer do 
not support this request because significant wear damage has been found 
on an airplane with the Teflon-filled coating at 21,371 flight hours. 
Also, one commenter's proposed surface HFEC inspection does not detect 
wear damage to the skin; a surface HFEC inspection is used to detect 
cracks.
    In developing the compliance times for this AD, we considered not 
only the safety implications of the identified unsafe condition, but 
the average utilization rate of the affected fleet and the practical 
aspects of an orderly inspection, repair, and modification of the fleet 
during regular maintenance periods. We have considered the commenters' 
requests, and we have concluded that the proposed compliance times 
remain appropriate. However, under the provisions of paragraph (m) of 
this AD, we may consider requests for approval of an alternative method 
of compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that an 
alternative inspection plan would provide an acceptable level of 
safety. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Revise the Compliance Times in Paragraph (i) of This AD

    Northwest Airlines (NWA) requests a change in the initial 
inspection threshold and repetitive inspection interval specified in 
paragraph (i) of the NPRM. The commenter requests that we change the 
compliance time to:

20,000 total flight hours from delivery, or to 20,000 flight hours 
after the last application of Teflon-filled coating, or within 9,000 
flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 
later.

    NWA states that the threshold fails to recognize an equivalent 
effectiveness of a subsequent Teflon application after delivery. NWA 
believes that a grace period of 9,000 flight hours after the effective 
date of this AD would enable the proposed actions to occur during a 
heavy maintenance check visit in a suitable and safer environment. The 
commenter also recommends a repetitive inspection interval of up to 
20,000 flight hours from the last Teflon application.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. The service and 
analytical data from the airplane manufacturer do not support the 
request to change the initial inspection threshold because significant 
wear damage has been found on an airplane with the Teflon-filled 
coating at 21,371 total flight hours. In addition, we do not agree that 
a repetitive inspection interval of 20,000 flight hours from the last 
Teflon application is appropriate because the affected skins are more 
likely to have suffered damage from the accumulated debris and other 
sources after prolonged usage since delivery.
    We consider that the compliance times remain appropriate. However, 
under the provisions of paragraph (m) of this AD, we may consider 
requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to 
substantiate that an alternative inspection plan would provide an 
acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule 
regarding this issue.

Explanation of Restatement of Optional Terminating Action

    We have restated paragraph (b) of AD 2002-26-15 as paragraph (g) of 
this AD. We have added the phrase ``prior to the effective date of this 
AD'' to paragraph (g) of this AD. If operators complied with the 
optional terminating action prior to the effective date of this AD, the 
repetitive inspections in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD are terminated. 
However, after the effective date of this AD, the repetitive 
inspections cannot be terminated until the inspections in paragraph (i) 
of this AD are done.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that 
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or 
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 917 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for 
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Number of
                                               Average                                             U.S.-
            Action               Work hours   labor rate        Parts        Cost per airplane   registered                   Fleet cost
                                               per hour                                          airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (required by AD               12          $80  None.............  $960, per                  253  $242,880, per inspection cycle.
 2002-26-15).                                                                 inspection cycle.
Inspection and application of             8          $80  None.............  $640, per                  165  $105,600, per inspection cycle.
 BMS 10-86 Teflon-filled                                                      inspection cycle.
 coating (new action).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 30921]]

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

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by 
removing amendment 39-13003 (68 FR 476, January 6, 2003) and by adding 
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2009-14-02 Boeing: Amendment 39-15951. Docket No. FAA-2008-1071; 
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-093-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective August 3, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2002-26-15.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B 
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any 
category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of skin wear damage on 
airplanes with fewer than 8,000 total flight cycles. In addition, 
there have been three reports of skin wear damage on airplanes on 
which Boeing Material Specifications (BMS) 10-86 Teflon-filled 
coating was applied (terminating action per AD 2002-26-15). We are 
issuing this AD to detect and correct wear damage and cracks of the 
fuselage skin in the interface area of the vertical stabilizer seal 
and fuselage skin in sections 46 and 48, which could cause in-flight 
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.

Requirements of AD 2002-26-15

Inspections for Damage/Corrective Actions

    (f) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002: Prior to the accumulation of 
15,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,200 flight cycles after 
February 10, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2002-26-15), whichever 
occurs later, perform a detailed inspection to detect evidence of 
wear damage of the fuselage skin at the interface area of the 
vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, per Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002.
    (1) If no wear damage of the fuselage skin is detected or any 
existing blendout is within the structural repair manual (SRM) 
allowable damage limits: Repeat the detailed inspection at intervals 
not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles.
    (2) If any wear damage of the fuselage skin is detected or any 
existing blendout exceeds the allowable damage limits specified in 
the SRM: Before further flight, repair the vertical stabilizer seal 
interface and refinish the skin with BMS 10-86 Teflon-filled 
coating, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, dated 
February 7, 2002. Accomplishment of the repair and refinishing is 
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by 
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

    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.''

Optional Terminating Action for Paragraph (f) of This AD

    (g) Refinishing the fuselage skin with BMS 10-86 Teflon-filled 
coating, prior to the effective date of this AD, per Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002, terminates the 
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

Previously Accomplished Inspections and Terminating Action

    (h) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002: Inspections and terminating 
action done before February 10, 2003, per Boeing Service Bulletin 
747-53-2192, dated July 21, 1981, are acceptable for compliance with 
the corresponding actions required by paragraph (f) of this AD, 
provided BMS 10-86 Teflon-filled coating was used, and the new 
allowable damage limits specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002, are met.

New Requirements of This AD

New Repetitive Inspections

    (i) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD: At the 
applicable times specified in Table 1 of this AD, do the actions 
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable. 
Accomplishing the initial inspection specified in paragraph (i) 
terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (1) For all airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs 
(i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) Do repetitive external detailed inspections for wear damage 
and cracks of the fuselage skin in the interface area of the 
vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, in accordance with the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008.
    (ii) Where a skin repair doubler is present in the interface 
area of the vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, do a 
detailed inspection for wear damage and cracks of the surface of the 
repair doubler.
    (2) For airplanes that have reduced skin thickness in section 46 
due to blending without reinforcement: Do repetitive external 
detailed inspections or high frequency eddy (HFEC) current 
inspections for cracks of the

[[Page 30922]]

blended area of the fuselage skin, in accordance with the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008.

                                            Table 1--Compliance Times
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Compliance time (whichever occurs
                                               later)
            Action            ---------------------------------------      Repeat interval  (Not to exceed)
                                     Threshold         Grace Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For actions required by        Prior to the          Within 6,000     7,500 flight hours.
 paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.   accumulation of       flight hours
                                20,000 total flight   after the
                                hours since the       effective date
                                date of issuance of   of this AD.
                                the original
                                airworthiness
                                certificate or the
                                date of issuance of
                                the original export
                                certificate of
                                airworthiness, or
                                within 7,500 flight
                                hours after the
                                last inspection of
                                this AD, whichever
                                occurs later.
For actions required by        Prior to the          Within 1,000     1,200 flight cycles for external detailed
 paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.   accumulation of       flight cycles    inspection, or 6,000 flight cycles for
                                20,000 total flight   after the        HFEC inspection.
                                cycles since the      effective date
                                date of issuance of   of this AD.
                                the original
                                airworthiness
                                certificate or the
                                date of issuance of
                                the original export
                                certificate of
                                airworthiness, or
                                within 6,000 flight
                                cycles after the
                                initial blend,
                                whichever occurs
                                later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exception to the Repetitive Inspections

    (j) If corrosion-resistant steel rubstrips are installed in the 
interface area of the vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin: 
Within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph (i) of 
this AD, inspect the fuselage skin using a method approved in 
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this 
AD.

For No Wear Damage or Cracks Found: Apply Teflon

    (k) If no wear damage or crack is found in the fuselage skin (or 
skin repair doubler) during any inspection required by paragraph (i) 
of this AD: Before further flight, apply Boeing Material 
Specifications (BMS) 10-86 Teflon-filled coating in accordance with 
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
747-53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008.

For Any Wear Damage or Crack Found: Applicable Corrective Actions

    (l) If any wear damage or crack is found in the fuselage skin 
(or skin repair doubler) during any inspections required by 
paragraph (i) of this AD: Before further flight, after the 
inspection required by paragraph (i), do the actions specified in 
paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD, in accordance with 
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
747-53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008.
    (1) Measure the depth of the wear and record the location.
    (2) Repair any wear damage and any crack.
    (3) Apply BMS 10-86 Teflon-filled coating.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, ATTN: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, 
FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone (425) 917-6437; fax (425) 917-6590; has the 
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different 
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. 
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC 
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA 
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 
FSDO.
    (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.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, 
dated February 7, 2002; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008; as applicable; to do the 
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008, under 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-
53A2478, dated February 7, 2002, on February 10, 2003 (68 FR 476, 
January 6, 2003).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86ebe3a8e4e9e3e5e9ebc6e4e9e3efe8e1a8e5e9eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e48981ca868b81878b89a4868b818d8a83ca878b89">[email protected]</span></a>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at 
the FAA, call 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information 
incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 2009.
Dorr M. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-15085 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>