[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26884-26888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7003]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2003-NM-123-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes; A300 B4-
601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and 
C4-605R Variant F Series Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series 
Airplanes); and A310 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of 
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness 
directive (AD), applicable to all of the airplanes identified above. 
That proposed AD would have required repetitive inspections to detect 
breaks in the bottom flange fitting of the ram air turbine (RAT); and 
corrective actions, if necessary. This new action revises the proposed 
AD by proposing to remove the requirement to repeat the inspections 
and, instead, revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to include 
a new Airplane Maintenance Manual task that specifies a detailed 
inspection after each RAT extension. This new action also proposes to 
require, for certain airplanes, an adjustment of the ejection jack; 
and, for certain other airplanes, replacement of the aluminum part with 
an improved steel part; these actions would terminate the inspection 
requirements of the earlier proposed AD. The actions specified by this 
new proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the RAT yoke 
fitting, which could result in the

[[Page 26885]]

loss of RAT function and possible loss of critical flight control in 
the event of certain emergency situations. This action is intended to 
address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 5, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NM-123-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this 
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. 
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 
[email protected]. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must 
contain ``Docket No. 2003-NM-123-AD'' in the subject line and need not 
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached 
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or 
ASCII text.
    The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be 
obtained from Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 
Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport 
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 
227-2797; fax (425) 227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as 
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number 
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All 
communications received on or before the closing date for comments, 
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the 
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Submit comments using the following format:
     Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a 
request to change the compliance time and a request to change the 
service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
     For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed 
AD is being requested.
     Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each 
request.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All 
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing 
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested 
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with 
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Number 2003-NM-123-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped 
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules 
Docket No. 2003-NM-123-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to 
Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4; A300 B4-600, A300 B4-600R, A300 C4-
605R Variant F, A300 F4-600R (collectively called A300-600); and A310 
series airplanes, was published as a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) in the Federal Register on April 1, 2004 (69 FR 17115). That 
NPRM would have required repetitive inspections to detect breaks in the 
bottom flange fitting of the ram air turbine (RAT); and corrective 
actions, if necessary. That NPRM also would have required submission of 
an inspection report to the airplane manufacturer. That NPRM resulted 
from a report that the swivel coupling of the ram air turbine (RAT) 
yoke fitting was found broken on a Model A310 series airplane. That 
condition, if not corrected, could result in the loss of RAT function 
and possible loss of critical flight control in the event of certain 
emergency situations.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Proposal

    The preamble to the NPRM specified that we considered the 
requirements ``interim action'' and that the manufacturer was analyzing 
inspection reports in order to obtain better insight into the nature, 
cause, and extent of the damage, and eventually to develop a final 
action to address the unsafe condition. That NPRM explained that we may 
consider further rulemaking if a final action is developed, approved, 
and available.
    Since the issuance of that NPRM, Airbus has confirmed that the 
failure of the swivel yoke fitting is due to incorrect rigging of the 
RAT ejection jack, which leads to overstress of the bottom flange of 
the coupling yoke fitting. Airbus has developed an improved on-wing 
rigging procedure for airplanes equipped with certain Sundstrand RATs, 
which will prevent overload of the swivel coupling yoke fitting. Airbus 
has determined that, for airplanes equipped with Dowty Rotol RATs, an 
improved rigging procedure is not possible and, therefore, Airbus has 
developed a modification for replacing the aluminum part with an 
improved steel part.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    Since we issued the original NPRM, Airbus has issued A300-600 All 
Operators Telex (AOT) 57A6096, Revision 01; and A310 AOT 57A2085, 
Revision 01; both dated April 11, 2005. (The original issues of these 
AOTs, both dated March 6, 2003, were referenced as the appropriate 
source of service information for accomplishing the required actions in 
the original NPRM. The original issue of French airworthiness 
directive, 2003-149(B), dated April 16, 2003, was also referenced in 
the original NPRM.) These AOTs describe procedures for doing a one-time 
detailed inspection for breaks of the bottom flange fitting of the RAT; 
replacing it with a new aluminum or steel part, if necessary; and doing 
an adjustment of the ejection jack. The Direction 
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) classified these 
AOTs as mandatory.
    Airbus has also issued Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57-0244, dated 
March 4, 2005; A300-57-6099, dated February 23, 2005; and A310-57-2086, 
dated March 1, 2005. These service bulletins describe procedures for 
replacing the existing aluminum swivel coupling fork fitting with a new 
steel part. The procedures in Service Bulletin A300-57-0244 apply to 
airplanes equipped with Dowty Rotol RATs. The procedures in Airbus 
Service Bulletins A300-57-6099 and A310-57-2086 apply to airplanes with 
Dowty Rotol or Sundstrand RATs.

[[Page 26886]]

    Airbus has also issued Temporary Revision (TR) 29-015, dated April 
12, 2005, to the Airbus A300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Chapter 
29-25-00. Airbus has also issued revisions to the following AMM 
chapters: A300-600 AMM 29-25-00, and A310 AMM 29-25-00; each dated June 
1, 2005. The TR and AMM chapters specify an inspection for breaks of 
the bottom flange of the RAT swivel coupling yoke fitting after each 
RAT retraction; replacement of the RAT swivel coupling yoke fitting 
with a new part if necessary; adjustment of the RAT extension jack if 
necessary; and adjustment of the RAT mechanical control system.
    Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is 
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated 
the service information and issued the following French airworthiness 
directives to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in 
France: F-2003-149 R1, dated June 8, 2005 (which changes the repetitive 
inspection in the AOTs to a one-time inspection); F-2005-089, dated 
June 8, 2005; and F-2005-090 R1, dated July 6, 2005.

Comments

    We have given due consideration to the comments received in 
response to the original NPRM.

Request To Remove Repetitive Inspection Requirement

    FedEx states that it has inspected 90 airplanes of its affected 
fleet and has not found any cases of cracks in the flange fitting for 
the RAT. FedEx further states that it has incorporated Airbus's advice 
to prevent overstressing the fitting by performing a check for 
overfilling of the RAT jack fluid level. FedEx suggests that, based on 
its own experience with its own airplanes that range from 6,500 flight 
hours to 53,000 flight hours, the repetitive inspections proposed in 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the original NPRM may not be necessary. 
FedEx does not object to the one-time inspection proposed in paragraph 
(b) of the original NPRM.
    We partially agree. As discussed previously, Airbus has issued TRs 
to the A300, A300-600, and A310 AMMs to revise the maintenance 
programs. These TRs include the task of a detailed inspection of the 
fork fitting at each maintenance of the RAT, which includes an 
inspection after each RAT extension. This supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) 
proposes to require incorporating this new AMM task into the operator's 
FAA-approved maintenance program. We have determined that inspections 
accomplished at the interval of RAT maintenance actions are more 
appropriate than the 600 flight-hour interval proposed by the NPRM in 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2). We have removed the repetitive inspection 
requirements from paragraph (a) of the SNPRM (paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(b)(2) of the NPRM). We have replaced these repetitive inspection 
requirements with a proposal in paragraph (c) to require revising the 
FAA-approved maintenance program to include a new AMM task that 
specifies a detailed inspection after each RAT extension.

Request To Lengthen Repetitive Inspection Intervals

    UPS requests that we lengthen the repetitive inspection intervals 
from intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours, to an interval of every 
30 months. UPS states that this interval coincides with the existing 
mandatory checks of the RAT system.
    As noted above, we have removed the repetitive inspection 
requirements from the SNPRM. Also as stated above, the repetitive 
inspection requirements of paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the NPRM have 
been removed and therefore the SNPRM has been revised relative to the 
NPRM.

Request To Lengthen Initial Inspection Threshold

    The Air Transportation Association and American Airlines request 
that we extend the compliance time for doing the initial inspection of 
the yoke fitting. The commenters propose that we extend the compliance 
time for doing the initial inspection from the earlier of 600 flight 
hours or 3 months, to 6 months. American Airlines explains that it did 
the initial inspection on its A300-600 fleet in 2003, but found no 
cracks during this initial inspection; however, American Airlines notes 
that it experienced delays in doing the initial inspection because 
replacement parts for the yoke fitting were not available. American 
Airlines points out that in order to avoid grounding airplanes, 
operators will need to establish inventories of yoke fittings at field 
and main base maintenance stations before they do the initial 
inspection. The commenters therefore suggest that the extended 
compliance time for the initial inspection would allow operators to 
acquire replacement parts. The commenters state that, given the lack of 
findings in 2003, the extension should not present significant 
additional risk.
    We agree. Since we issued the original NPRM, the DGAC and Airbus 
have re-assessed the risk based on fleet reports from the original 
inspections that the DGAC specified through its airworthiness directive 
F-2003-149(B), dated April 16, 2003, which was cited in the original 
NPRM. Extending the compliance time will not adversely affect safety. 
We have revised paragraph (a) of the SNPRM to propose a new compliance 
time of the earlier of 1,300 flight hours, or 6 months after the 
effective date of the proposed AD.

Request To Include Adjustment of Ejection Jack Length as Terminating 
Action for Inspections

    UPS proposes that removing the ejection jack from the airplane and 
returning it to a component shop for verification of proper length and 
adjustment if necessary, would be sufficient to provide terminating 
actions for the repetitive inspections. UPS states that preliminary 
indications show that an overlength ejection jack is at the root of the 
failed yoke fittings, and that by ensuring proper length, the 
conditions for yoke fitting failures would be eliminated.
    We partially agree. We agree that the root cause of the failed yoke 
fittings is overstress during the extension of an incorrectly adjusted 
RAT ejection jack. We disagree that sending the ejection jack to a 
component shop for verification and adjustment would eliminate the 
conditions for yoke fitting failures and thus eliminate the need for 
repetitive inspections. The RAT must be retracted after each extension 
using the AMM procedure that includes adjusting the ejection jack to 
ensure that the proper adjustment remains. Sending the jack away for 
adjustment and verification would not ensure that the correct length 
would still remain for subsequent RAT extensions. Repetitive 
inspections would still be specified in accordance with the revised AMM 
task after each RAT extension.

Explanation of Change to Applicability

    We have revised the applicability of this supplemental NPRM to be 
consistent with the effectivity of the French airworthiness directives 
listed in Note 5 of this supplemental NPRM.

Clarification of Inspection Terminology

    In this proposed AD, the ``inspection'' specified in the AMM 
chapters, and the ``detailed visual inspection'' specified in the AOTs, 
is referred to as a ``detailed inspection.'' We have included the 
definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the proposed AD.

[[Page 26887]]

Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph

    We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure 
for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on 
any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

Explanation of Removed Reporting Requirement

    We have removed the inspection report proposed in paragraph (c) of 
the NPRM. The preamble of the NPRM stated that the manufacturer was 
analyzing these inspection reports in order to obtain better insight 
into the nature, cause, and extent of the damage, and eventually to 
develop a final action to address the unsafe condition. This SNPRM 
addresses that final action.

Explanation of Change to Cost Impact

    After the existing AD was issued, we reviewed the figures we have 
used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To 
account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find 
it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from 
$65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The cost impact information, 
below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Conclusion

    Since this change expands the scope of the originally proposed 
rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment 
period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.

Cost Impact

    The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators 
to comply with this proposed AD. There are approximately 165 airplanes 
of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Average labor                     Cost per
                     Action                         Work hours     rate per hour       Parts         airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed Inspection.............................               1             $80              $0             $80
AMM Revision....................................               1              80               0              80
Replacement with Steel Fork Fitting.............               6              80             470             950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that 
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of 
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in 
the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures 
discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to 
perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures 
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to 
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other 
administrative actions.

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 Impact

    The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct 
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it 
is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 13132.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed 
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 
and (3) if promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft 
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the 
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules 
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

Airbus: Docket 2003-NM-123-AD.

    Applicability: Model A300 airplanes; A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-
620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant 
F series airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes); 
and A310 airplanes; certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent failure of the ram air turbine (RAT) yoke fitting, 
which could result in the loss of RAT function and possible loss of 
critical flight control in the event of certain emergency 
situations, accomplish the following:

Detailed Inspections and Replacement

    (a) Within 1,300 flight hours or 6 months after the effective 
date of this AD, whichever occurs first: For all airplanes, do a 
detailed inspection for breaks of the bottom flange fitting of the 
yoke fitting for the RAT swivel coupling in accordance with the 
applicable All Operators Telex (AOT) in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or 
(a)(3) of this AD. If the flange fitting is broken, before further 
flight, replace the flange fitting with a new flange fitting in 
accordance with the applicable AOT. For Model A300 airplanes, A300-
600 series airplanes, and A310 airplanes, equipped with Hamilton 
Sundstrand RATs, verify the adjustment of the ejection jack, and 
correct the adjustment as applicable.

[[Page 26888]]

    (1) For Model A300 airplanes: Airbus A300 AOT 57A0241, dated 
March 6, 2003.
    (2) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Airbus A300-600 AOT 
57A6096, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2005.
    (3) For Model A310 airplanes: Airbus A310 AOT 57A2085, Revision 
01, dated April 11, 2005.

    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.''


    (b) For Model A300 airplanes, A300-600 series airplanes, and 
A310 airplanes equipped with Dowty Rotol RATs, except airplanes on 
which Airbus Modification 12986 has been done: Within 12 months 
after the effective date of this AD, replace the RAT swivel coupling 
fork fitting with a new steel fitting, in accordance with the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0244, 
dated March 4, 2005 (for Model A300 series airplanes); A300-57-6099, 
dated February 23, 2005 (for Model A300-600 airplanes); or A310-57-
2086, dated March 1, 2005 (for Model A310 airplanes); as applicable.

Revisions

    (c) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: 
Incorporate the information in the applicable airplane maintenance 
manual (AMM) specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, 
and the Airbus temporary revision (TR) specified in paragraph (c)(3) 
of this AD, into the FAA-approved maintenance program to specify an 
inspection for breaks of the bottom flange of the RAT swivel 
coupling yoke fitting after each RAT extension; and replacement of 
the RAT swivel coupling yoke fitting with a new aluminum part as 
applicable; in accordance with method approved by either the 
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, FAA; or the Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de 
l'Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent). The page blocks 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, as applicable, 
are one approved method for the actions required by paragraph (c) of 
this AD. Thereafter, except as provided by paragraph (e) of this AD, 
no alternative inspection intervals may be approved for the bottom 
flange of the RAT swivel coupling yoke fitting.
    (1) Airbus A300-600 AMM, Chapter 29-25-00, Page Block 301, dated 
June 1, 2005.
    (2) Airbus A310 AMM, Chapter 29-25-00, Page Block 301, dated 
June 1, 2005.
    (3) Airbus TR 29-015, dated April 12, 2005, to the Airworthiness 
Limitations (AWL) section of the Airbus A300 AMM, Chapter 29-25-00.

    Note 2: After revising the maintenance program to include the 
required periodic inspections according to this paragraph, operators 
do not need to make a maintenance log entry to show compliance with 
this AD every time those inspections are accomplished thereafter.


    Note 3: The actions required by paragraph (c)(3) of this AD may 
be done by inserting a copy of TR 29-015 into the AWL section of the 
Airbus A300 AMM, Chapter 29-25-00. When this TR has been included in 
general revisions of the AMM, the general revisions may be inserted 
in the AMM, provided the relevant information in the general 
revision is identical to that in TR 29-015.


    Note 4: This AD requires revisions to certain operator 
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with 
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes 
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the 
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able 
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this 
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must 
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according 
to paragraph (e) of this AD. The request should include a 
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure 
the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA 
has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular 
(AC) 25-1529.

Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously

    (d) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with Airbus AOT 57A6096, dated March 6, 2003; or Airbus 
AOT 57A2085, dated March 6, 2003; are acceptable for compliance with 
the corresponding action in paragraph (a) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (e)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, 
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this 
AD.
    (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with Sec.  
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the 
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards 
Certificate Holding District Office.

    Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed in French 
airworthiness directives F-2005-089, dated June 8, 2005; F-2005-090 
R1, dated July 6, 2005; and F-2003-149 R1, dated June 8, 2005.


    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
 [FR Doc. E6-7003 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P