Document ID: FAA-2008-0295-0017
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Model 757 Airplanes
Posted Date: 2011-01-12T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1979-1983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-371]

 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 1979]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0295; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-298-AD; 
Amendment 39-16576; AD 2011-02-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 757 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for 
Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. This AD 
requires an inspection of the two spring arms in the spin brake 
assemblies in the nose wheel well to determine if the spring arms are 
made of aluminum or composite material, and repetitive related 
investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides 
options for terminating the repetitive actions. This AD results from 
reports of cracked and broken aluminum springs. We are issuing this AD 
to detect and correct cracked or broken springs. A cracked or broken 
spring could separate from the airplane and result in potential hazard 
to persons or property on the ground, or ingestion into the engine with 
engine damage and potential shutdown, or damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 16, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 16, 
2011.

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 me.boecom@boeing.com; 
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: Steve Fox, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 
917-6425; fax (425) 917-6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Model 
757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. That supplemental 
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2009 (74 FR 
53430). The original NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the two 
spring arms in the spin brake assemblies in the nose wheel well to 
determine if the spring arms are made of aluminum or composite 
material, and repetitive related investigative/corrective actions if 
necessary. The original NPRM also would have provided for optional 
terminating actions for the repetitive inspections. The supplemental 
NPRM proposed to require revising the original NPRM to include a parts 
installation paragraph and to provide options for terminating the 
repetitive actions.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the 
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received on the 
supplemental NPRM. Continental Airlines had no additional comments 
beyond what was previously submitted in the supplemental NPRM.

Request To Revise Delegation of Authority

    Boeing requested that we revise the Delegation Option Authorization 
(DOA) holder to Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation 
Authorization (ODA) in paragraph (l)(3) of the supplemental NPRM.
    We agree with Boeing's request to revise the delegation of 
authority. Boeing Commercial Airplanes has received an ODA, which 
replaces the previous designation as a DOA holder. We have revised 
paragraph (m)(3) of this AD (paragraph (l)(3) of the supplemental NPRM) 
to add delegation of authority to Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA to 
approve an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for any repair 
required by this AD.

Request To Revise the AD To Permit the Accomplishment of Paragraph (k) 
of this AD in a Shop Environment

    American Airlines (AAL) requested that the supplemental NPRM permit 
the accomplishment of paragraph (j) of the supplemental NPRM, ``Parts 
Installation,'' in a shop environment. AAL stated that paragraph (j) of 
the supplemental NPRM (paragraph (k) of this AD) presents several 
issues that need resolution. AAL stated that the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, 
Revision 1, dated October 16, 2008, are applicable to an on-wing 
inspection with no provisions for shop instructions.
    AAL also stated that paragraph 3.B.5.a. of Boeing Special Attention 
Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 2008, 
contains multiple areas of concern. AAL stated that the service 
bulletin instructs operators to ``Replace the left or right (as 
applicable) aluminum spring with a new aluminum spring in accordance 
with FIGURE 4 * * *.'' However, AAL stated that this figure provides 
instructions to replace the spring on-wing. AAL stated that it has 
processes in place by which the spring assembly (141N0091-22) is 
reworked (to include any necessary spring replacement) in accordance 
with Boeing drawing data in a shop environment. AAL stated that the 
supplemental NPRM contains no

[[Page 1980]]

provisions for accomplishing this spring replacement in a shop 
environment. AAL requested that the final rule contain appropriate 
language to allow operators to accomplish the intent of Figure 4 of the 
service bulletin in a shop environment.
    We disagree with AAL's request to include language specifying that 
the accomplishment of paragraph (k) of this AD is permitted in a shop 
environment. Although the final installation of the spin brakes is 
required by this AD and installation may be accomplished in a shop 
environment, AD compliance is established for airplanes and not parts. 
AAL may perform shop maintenance provided that the AD is complied with 
and the airplane meets the requirements of this AD.
    In addition, the service bulletin does not provide for inspections 
and replacement of parts in a shop environment where the installation 
of the spin brake assemblies could be accomplished off the airplane. 
The commenter does not provide sufficient suggestions to demonstrate 
and ensure that the corrected assemblies could be installed such that 
each affected airplane could demonstrate compliance. An operator may 
request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in 
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (m) of this AD for brake 
assemblies that were re-worked off the airplane. No changes to the AD 
have been made in this regard.

Request To Allow Replacement of the Existing Spin Brake Assembly With a 
Serviceable Spin Brake Assembly

    AAL stated that there is an omission from paragraph 3.B.5.a. of 
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, 
dated October 16, 2008. AAL stated that the paragraph allows 
replacement of the existing spin brake assembly with a new spin brake 
assembly in accordance with the Boeing 757 Airplane Maintenance Manual, 
but no provisions are made for installing a serviceable (used) spin 
brake.
    From these comments we infer that AAL is requesting that we revise 
the final rule to also allow replacement of an existing spin brake 
assembly with a serviceable assembly. We agree with AAL that a 
serviceable spin brake assembly is acceptable for compliance. We have 
added paragraph (j) of this AD to allow replacement with a serviceable 
spin brake assembly if the assembly is inspected and all applicable 
related investigative and corrective actions have been applied in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

Request To Use Part Substitutions

    AAL requested that we revise the supplemental NPRM to allow use of 
approved part substitutions for accomplishing the proposed actions. AAL 
stated that where common hardware such as washers, nuts, bolts, shims, 
sealants, and adhesives are specified in Boeing Special Attention 
Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 2008, 
operators with accepted processes may use approved substitutes 
determined to be equivalent in accordance with the operator parts 
management systems. AAL stated that this will eliminate a duplication 
of effort for all parties, including the operators, Boeing, and the 
engineering branch of the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office by 
avoiding unnecessary requests for AMOCs to allow equivalent hardware.
    AAL stated that many operators, including AAL, have an FAA-accepted 
process by which they combine certain parts that have been determined 
to be equivalent and are placed in inventory under a single company 
part number. AAL stated that this process is longstanding and is done 
to facilitate an efficient inventory system. AAL also stated that the 
parts disposition authority (PDA) for American Airlines is contained in 
the engineering procedures manual (EPM), which is incorporated into the 
general manual (GM). AAL stated that the GM is required by the FAA-
approved operations specification. AAL stated that Section 15-20 of the 
EPM defines the process by which part equivalency can be established. 
The basis for equivalency is found in source documents provided by the 
original equipment manufacturer (OEM), such as the Boeing Spec-2000, 
Boeing Document D-590, Boeing qualified product list (QPL), the 
applicable aircraft illustrated parts catalog (IPC), or industry 
standard specifications such as military specification (MS), National 
Aerospace Standards (NAS), Army Navy (AN), Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE), etc., or other qualified data provided by the OEM. AAL 
also stated that in any case where equivalency is clearly unambiguous, 
AAL engineering will use these and other FAA-approved sources such as 
OEM drawings, specifications, OEM correspondence, or parts manufacturer 
approval (PMA) authorizations to determine the interchangeability of 
parts. AAL stated that while some of the above documents have been 
included as notes in applicable service bulletins in order to provide 
equivalency, it has found a number of cases where, during 
accomplishment of an AD, there was not sufficient information provided 
to make that assessment.
    We disagree with AAL's request to use part substitutions for 
accomplishing the actions in this AD. The requested list of substitute 
parts and materials is extensive and uncontrolled--and, in many cases, 
not FAA approved. An operator may request approval of an AMOC in 
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (m) of this AD. We have not 
changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Revise the Phrase ``Investigative and Corrective Actions''

    Northwest Airlines (NWA) requested that we revise the phrase 
``investigative and corrective actions'' in the supplemental NPRM. NWA 
stated that the use of the phrase ``investigative and corrective 
actions'' in paragraphs (g) and (j) of the supplemental NPRM may lead 
to confusion as to what action(s) in the service instructions are 
required. NWA proposed that the phrase be changed to ``compliance 
action'' in paragraph (g) of the supplemental NPRM, and that the phrase 
should be removed from paragraph (j) of the supplemental NPRM. NWA 
stated that the term ``investigative and corrective actions'' is not 
used in the service instructions and is not defined in the supplemental 
NPRM. NWA stated that in the process task flow of the service 
instructions, the ``determination'' or ``investigation'' of spring 
material type was identified earlier in paragraph (g) of the 
supplemental NPRM, and the tasks that remain to be accomplished are 
compliance actions (inspect or replace), and not investigative actions.
    We disagree with NWA's request to revise the phrase ``investigative 
and corrective actions.'' This terminology was defined in the Relevant 
Service Information section of the original NPRM. The ``related 
investigative and corrective actions'' include repetitive detailed and 
high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the aluminum 
spring arm, and the corrective action is replacing the spring arm with 
a new spring arm made of either aluminum or composite material. We have 
not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Add a Note to the Supplemental NPRM

    NWA also requested that a note be added to the supplemental NPRM 
stating that Parts 1 and 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated 
October 16, 2008, are for operator use and

[[Page 1981]]

compliance documentation is not required.
    NWA stated that the FAA did not address its concern in a previous 
comment on the original NPRM. NWA stated that the FAA was clear on how 
operators perform access and restoration per the operators' normal 
maintenance, but the FAA may have missed the point that operators also 
have to retain technician sign-off of ADs as permanent records. NWA 
stated that if operators access and restore the area via other ``normal 
maintenance routine work cards,'' the operators do not desire to 
maintain those other work cards just to comply with the retention of 
records aspect of rulemaking policy. NWA stated that the access and 
restoration are not part of the service instruction safety aspect that 
the FAA is trying to mitigate with this rulemaking. NWA stated that by 
placing a note in the AD that states that access/restoration is not 
part of the safety aspect of the rulemaking and that retention of 
records is not required for access/restoration, operators would be 
permitted to not have separate access/restoration work cards.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request to delete Parts 1 
and 6 (access and close). As we clarified in the supplemental NPRM, 
Note 8 under paragraph 3.A. of the Accomplishment Instructions of 
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, 
dated October 16, 2008, gives provisions for operators to use accepted 
alternative procedures for actions specified in the Accomplishment 
Instructions when the words ``refer to'' are used. Those words are used 
in both Parts 1 and 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated 
October 16, 2008. In addition, although these actions are necessary to 
accomplish the inspections, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 
757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 2008, provides alternative 
methods for access and close-up, as defined in Notes 5 and 6 under 
paragraph 3.A. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special 
Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 
2008. Since the suggested note is already contained in the 
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, no additional 
notes are necessary in this AD.
    We have changed paragraph (g) of this AD to limit the required 
actions to those specified only in Parts 2 through 5 of Boeing Special 
Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 
2008.

Request To Revise the Initial Compliance Time

    One commenter, Jennifer Owens, requested that we revise the initial 
compliance time. The commenter stated that the issue of cracked and 
broken aluminum springs has been known to the FAA since at least 
September 2007 (when the original Boeing ``paperwork''--i.e., service 
information--was released). The commenter stated that under the 
original docket, published in March 2008, multiple parties requested 
that the rule be amended to refer to a later revision of ``the Boeing 
paperwork.'' The commenter stated that this later revision of the 
``paperwork,'' according to the current proposed rule, was released on 
October 16, 2008. The commenter also stated that the new proposed rule 
was published on October 19, 2009, just over a year since Boeing 
revised its ``paperwork.''
    The commenter suggested that the annual utilization rate of about 
1,050 flight cycles is representative of how many Model 757 airplanes 
are used. The commenter stated that given this delay, and based on this 
utilization, operators have had the opportunity to skip three or four 
of the required 300-cycle inspections and are approaching the point 
where they may skip the first of the 1,500-cycle inspections. The 
commenter stated that because of this delay, and the fact that the FAA 
chose instead to re-open the comment period, it further delayed the 
release of the final rule by another 18 months. The commenter stated 
that if a delay of approximately 3 years is acceptable, then the 
inspection intervals of approximately 2-3 months and 18 months (based 
on the utilization contained above) are unnecessarily short. The 
commenter stated that if neither is true, then initial compliance times 
should be shortened to account for the delay in releasing the final 
rule.
    We assume the commenter is referring to Boeing Special Attention 
Service Bulletin, 757-32-0176, dated September 10, 2007, as ``the 
original Boeing paperwork,'' and Boeing Special Attention Service 
Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 2008, as ``the 
later revision of the Boeing paperwork.'' We disagree with the 
commenter's request to revise the initial compliance time. We have 
determined that having a terminating modification for the required 
inspections provides a higher level of safety than the reliance on 
continued re-inspection. Also, in developing an appropriate compliance 
time for this action, we considered the safety implications, parts 
availability, and normal maintenance schedules for the timely 
accomplishment of the modification. We have determined that the 
compliance time as proposed will ensure an acceptable level of safety 
and allow the modifications to be done during scheduled maintenance 
intervals for most affected operators. We have not changed this AD in 
this regard.

Explanation of Change Made to This AD

    We have revised this AD to identify the legal name of the 
manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data 
sheet for the affected airplane models.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the 
comments 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.

Explanation of Changes To Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have increased the labor rate used 
in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour. 
The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in 
the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD would affect 668 airplanes of U.S. 
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per 
product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD 
for U.S. operators to be $56,780, or $85 per product.

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

[[Page 1982]]

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 
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2011-02-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16576. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0295; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-298-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective February 16, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -
200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any 
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing 
Gear.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of cracked and broken aluminum 
springs. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked or 
broken springs. A cracked or broken spring could separate from the 
airplane and result in potential hazard to persons or property on 
the ground, or ingestion into the engine with engine damage and 
potential shutdown, or damage to the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (g) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., 
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-
0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 2008, except that where Boeing 
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated 
October 16, 2008, specifies a compliance time after the date ``on 
this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the 
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD: Do a 
general visual inspection to determine the material (aluminum or 
composite) of the two springs in the spin brake assemblies in the 
nose wheel well. A review of airplane maintenance records is 
acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the material can be 
conclusively determined from that review. At the applicable time 
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special 
Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated October 
16, 2008, do all applicable related investigative and corrective 
actions, and all repetitive inspections thereafter in accordance 
with Parts 2 through 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, dated 
October 16, 2008; except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.

Optional Terminating Actions

    (h) Replacing an aluminum spin brake assembly with a spin brake 
assembly made of composite material in accordance with Figure 5 of 
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, 
dated October 16, 2008, ends the repetitive inspections required by 
paragraph (g) of this AD for that spring.
    (i) Replacing an aluminum spring with a spring made of 
corrosion-resistant steel (CRES), in accordance with Figure 6 of 
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, 
dated October 16, 2008, ends the repetitive inspections required by 
paragraph (g) of this AD for that spring.

Exception to the Service Bulletin: Using a Serviceable Spin Brake 
Assembly

    (j) A serviceable spin brake assembly may be used to replace a 
cracked part, provided that it has been inspected and all applicable 
related investigative and corrective actions have been applied in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

Parts Installation

    (k) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install 
an aluminum spring on any airplane unless it has been inspected and 
all applicable related investigative and corrective actions have 
been applied in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of 
this AD.

Credit for Previous Revision of Service Bulletin

    (l) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-
0176, dated September 10, 2007, are acceptable for compliance with 
the corresponding requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 
ATTN: Steve Fox, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, 
Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; 
telephone (425) 917-6425; fax (425) 917-6590; Or, e-mail information 
to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
    (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 principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or 
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a 
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. 
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (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 the 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization 
(ODA) that 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 Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-
32-0176, Revision 1, dated October 16, 2008, to do the actions 
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. If you 
accomplish the optional actions specified in this AD, you must use 
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, Revision 1, 
dated October 16, 2008, to perform those actions, unless the AD 
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

[[Page 1983]]

    (2) 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 
me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) 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.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that 
is 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 December 30, 2010.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-371 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P