[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 174 (Friday, September 8, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52999-53003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14782]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-23873; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-110-AD; 
Amendment 39-14756; AD 2006-18-17]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 
747-400F 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 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-
400F series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires reviewing 
airplane maintenance records; inspecting the yaw damper actuator 
portion of the upper and lower rudder power control modules (PCMs) for 
cracking, and

[[Page 53000]]

replacing the PCMs if necessary; and reporting all airplane maintenance 
records review and inspection results to the manufacturer. This new AD 
expands the applicability and discontinues certain requirements of the 
existing AD. This AD adds repetitive inspections of the PCMs, and 
replacement of the PCMs if necessary. This AD results from manufacturer 
findings that the inspections required by the existing AD must be 
performed at regular intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and 
correct cracking in the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and 
lower rudder PCMs, which could result in an uncommanded left rudder 
hardover, consequent increased pilot workload, and possible runway 
departure upon landing.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 13, 2006.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 13, 
2006.

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: Douglas Tsuji, Aerospace Engineer, 
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone (425) 917-6487; fax (425) 917-6590.

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 supersedes AD 2003-23-01, amendment 
39-13364 (68 FR 64263, November 13, 2003). The existing AD applies to 
certain Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. 
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2006 
(71 FR 7446). That NPRM proposed to continue to require certain 
requirements of the existing AD. That NPRM also proposed to expand the 
applicability and discontinue certain requirements of the existing AD. 
That NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections of the power 
control modules (PCMs) and replacement of the PCMs 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.

Support for the NPRM

    One commenter, Northwest Airlines (NWA), expresses support for the 
NPRM, stating that the type of failure event addressed in the NPRM has 
occurred on a NWA airplane.

Request to Cite Revised Service Information

    Three commenters, Boeing, South African Airways, and NWA request 
that we revise the NPRM to refer to current service information. The 
commenters state that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, 
dated September 1, 2005, has been issued.
    We agree with this request. We have determined that Boeing Service 
Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, shows changes of operators in the 
effectivity and clarifies the compliance information, but does not add 
any further actions or increase the economic burden on operators. 
Therefore, we have revised the AD to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 
747-27A2397, Revision 2, as the appropriate source of service 
information for accomplishing the requirements of the AD. We have also 
revised paragraph (k) of the AD to indicate that actions done 
previously in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
27A2397, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005, are also acceptable for 
compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.

Request to Remove Certain Part Numbers (P/Ns)

    One commenter, Boeing, requests that two P/Ns be removed from the 
NPRM. Boeing states that P/Ns 332700-1009 and 333200-1009 are internal 
supplier P/Ns that are stamped on the PCM manifold and are not PCM top 
assembly P/Ns. Boeing states that these P/Ns are not referenced on the 
equipment identification plate for either the upper or lower PCM.
    We agree with this request. Though all revisions of the Boeing 
service bulletin specify P/Ns 332700-1009 and 333200-1009 as 
replacement P/Ns for cracked PCMs, we have determined that these P/Ns 
do not refer to PCM top assemblies; instead, these P/Ns refer only to 
the PCM manifolds. Only top assembly P/Ns of the upper or lower rudder 
PCMs should be identified in the AD; that is P/N 332700-1003, -1005, or 
-1007; or P/N 333200-1003, -1005, or -1007. Therefore, to prevent 
confusion on the part of operators attempting to track PCM 
installations, we have removed the reference to P/Ns 332700-1009 and 
333200-1009 as top assembly P/Ns from paragraph (l) of the AD.

Request to Revise Paragraph (j)(2) of the NPRM

    One commenter, Fortner Engineering, requests that we revise 
paragraph (j)(2) of the NPRM to read ``PCMs or manifolds'' rather than 
``PCMs'' only. Fortner Engineering states that certified repair 
stations in addition to Parker Hannifin, which is the PCM original 
equipment manufacturer (OEM), overhaul the valve (manifold) and that 
those repair stations should not be required to send the entire PCM to 
the OEM if a crack is discovered in the manifold. Fortner Engineering 
asserts that, as long as all information required by paragraph (j)(1) 
of the NPRM is included with the manifold, there is no need to send the 
entire PCM to the OEM.
    We agree with this request. The intent of paragraph (j)(2) of this 
AD is to return PCMs having cracked manifolds to the manufacturer for 
analysis of the cause of the cracking. If the PCM can be returned to 
service with a new or serviceable manifold, there is no need to send 
the entire assembly to the OEM. Therefore, we have revised paragraph 
(j)(2) of the AD to read ``PCMs or manifolds.''

Request to Revise Paragraph (l) of the NPRM

    The same commenter requests that we delete the phrase, ``either by 
the operator or the supplier'' from paragraph (l), ``Parts 
Installation,'' of the NPRM. Fortner Engineering asserts that the 
operator should be free to determine whether the PCMs will be inspected 
by the operator, the supplier, or any other appropriately rated and 
equipped facility.
    We agree with this request. The intent of paragraph (l) of the AD 
is to ensure that all affected PCMs are inspected for cracks before any 
return to service. The primary concern is not which facility inspects 
the PCMs, but rather that the inspections are performed by properly

[[Page 53001]]

equipped and authorized facilities in accordance with the applicable 
service information. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (l) by 
deleting the phrase specified by Fortner Engineering.

Request to Include Alternative Method of Inspection

    The same commenter requests that we include an alternative method 
of inspecting for cracking of the manifolds of suspected PCMs. Fortner 
Engineering states that a dye penetrant inspection performed in 
accordance with ASTM-E474, Type 1, Method A, Sensitivity Level 4, will 
better ensure detection of any manifold defects. Further, Fortner 
Engineering asserts that the OEM, Parker Hannifin, has already received 
approval of this dye penetrant method as an alternative method of 
compliance (AMOC) with AD 2003-23-01.
    We agree that a dye penetrant inspection is an acceptable 
alternative to the ultrasonic inspection specified by the AD, because 
the dye penetrant technique provides a more thorough method for 
detecting cracking of the area of interest on the PCM manifold. 
However, we do not agree that ASTM-E474, Type 1, Method A, Sensitivity 
Level 4, has already been approved as an AMOC with AD 2003-23-01. In 
fact, the AMOC using dye penetrant inspection that was requested by 
Parker Hannifin and approved as of November 21, 2003, was in accordance 
with ASTM-E1417, Type 1, Method A, Sensitivity Level 4, and does not 
actually specify that it applies to the manifold. We are not aware of 
the dye penetrant inspection specification ASTM-E474, Type 1, Method A, 
Sensitivity Level 4; therefore, no change is necessary to the AD in 
this regard. However, as specified in paragraph (m) of the AD, a 
further AMOC may be requested if data are submitted to substantiate 
that ASTM-E474, Type 1, Method A, Sensitivity Level 4, specifies an 
acceptable method of inspection for compliance with the requirements of 
this AD.

Notification of Compliance Time Conflict

    The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member NWA, 
states that there are errors in a chronology described in the preamble 
of the NPRM. NWA points out an apparent conflict between the compliance 
times specified in different sections of the NPRM. NWA notes that the 
third paragraph of the ``Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued'' section 
of the preamble states, ``The compliance time for the initial 
inspection (for airplanes not previously inspected as required by AD 
2003-23-01) has been revised to the earlier of 56,000 total flight 
hours or 9,000 total flight cycles * * *.'' NWA then notes that 
paragraph (h) of the NPRM states, ``For airplanes not inspected prior 
to the effective date of this AD as specified in paragraph (g) of this 
AD: At the later of the times specified * * * prior to the accumulation 
of 56,000 total flight hours or 9,000 total flight cycles * * *.''
    We acknowledge NWA's concern; however, we do not agree that there 
is a conflict in the compliance time statements. Paragraph (h) of the 
AD more fully states, ``For airplanes not inspected prior to the 
effective date of this AD as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, At 
the later of the times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this 
AD * * *.'' Paragraph (h)(1) of the AD states, ``Prior to the 
accumulation of 56,000 total flight hours or 9,000 total flight cycles, 
whichever occurs first.'' Paragraph (h)(2) of the AD states, ``Within 
24 months after the effective date of this AD.'' The ``later of the 
times'' statement of paragraph (h) refers to the relationship between 
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2). In paragraph (h)(1), the statement, 
``whichever occurs first'' is consistent with the statement ``the 
earlier of'' that appears in the ``Actions Since Existing AD Was 
Issued'' section of the preamble. Paragraph (h)(2) is the grace period 
for airplanes not inspected prior to the effective date of the AD. No 
change is needed to the AD in this regard.

Request to Withdraw NPRM

    ATA, on behalf of its member United Airlines (UAL), states that it 
is opposed to the NPRM. UAL states that, based on the original AD 2003-
23-01, there have been no further reports of cracked PCM manifolds. UAL 
asserts that the original incident of a cracked PCM manifold airplane 
failure was an isolated event, and further asserts that the event was 
controllable. Although UAL made no specific statement to this effect, 
we infer that UAL considers the AD to be unnecessary and requests us to 
withdraw the NPRM.
    We do not agree with this request. Although UAL correctly states 
that no other cracked PCM manifolds have been discovered since the 
release of AD 2003-23-01, the root cause for the premature fatigue 
failure of the lower rudder PCM on the event airplane has yet to be 
determined; and although analysis of the results of accomplishing AD 
2003-23-01 did not yield that root cause, that analysis highlighted a 
previously unidentified single point failure of the PCMs. This new AD 
is intended to protect against such a single point failure occurring on 
the upper rudder PCM. Without the on-going inspections required by this 
AD, a developing crack of either the upper or lower PCM could remain 
latent and grow to the point of failure, which, under certain phases of 
flight, could be catastrophic. For these reasons, we have determined 
that this AD is necessary to maintain safety of the fleet and will not 
be withdrawn. Further, the inspection reports required by this AD will 
enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the nature, 
cause, and extent of the cracking, and to possibly develop final action 
to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, 
we may consider further rulemaking.

Recommendation to Develop In-Flight Procedures to Deal with a Failed 
PCM

    Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) recommends that procedures to 
deal with an in-flight situation of a failed rudder PCM be developed 
and provided to the flightcrews. ALPA states that this procedure would 
aid pilot workload in the event of a failed rudder PCM. ALPA submitted 
the same comment to the docket for AD 2003-23-01, asserting that 
``industry must develop a set of operational procedures to allow 
flightcrews to deal with such an in-flight situation.'' ALPA states 
that no such procedures have yet been provided and reiterates its 
recommendation that industry supply such procedures.
    We acknowledge ALPA's concern. We understand that any such 
procedures would be provided by industry; in this case, Boeing. 
However, we have concluded, and Boeing concurs, that the repetitive 
inspections required by this AD will detect any cracking or potential 
cracking of the PCM before any PCM failure. Therefore, non-normal 
operational procedures are not needed to maintain fleet safety in this 
regard. As ALPA did not request any specific change to the NPRM, we 
have not changed the AD as regards this comment.

Request to Reduce Compliance Time

    The same commenter, ALPA, requests that we change the compliance 
time of the NPRM from 24 months to 12 months. ALPA states that the 
potential hazard for an ``uncommanded rudder hardover, consequent 
increased pilot workload, and possible runway departure upon landing'' 
warrants a more conservative initial inspection period. ALPA asserts 
that allowing a longer initial time period may allow failed yaw damper 
actuators to remain in operation much longer than necessary and put may 
aircraft at risk of experiencing a failure similar to the one on the 
incident airplane.

[[Page 53002]]

    We do not agree. AD 2003-23-01 has already required the inspection 
of Model 747-400 airplanes with suspected high usage rudder PCMs, and 
the compliance period to complete the original inspections has passed 
with no additional failures detected. This, along with the knowledge 
the rudder PCMs have undergone extensive investigation, provides us 
with a degree of confidence that there are no imminent failures 
predicted. Instead, we have determined that on-going inspections are 
needed because the root cause for the premature fatigue failure on the 
incident airplane has not been determined. Further, this AD is intended 
to protect against a failure condition not previously analyzed: failure 
of the upper rudder PCM. The existing initial compliance time of 24 
months provides a balance between further possible failures due to the 
unknown cause of the failed part and the additional burden of on-going 
inspections. No revision is needed to the AD in this matter.

Clarification of Parts Installation Paragraph

    The clear intent of this AD is that PCMs having cracked manifolds 
must be removed from service and replaced with serviceable PCMs having 
manifolds without cracks. To prevent confusion and ensure conformity 
with the intent of the AD, we have added the phrase ``and found to be 
without cracks'' to paragraph (l) of the AD.

Conclusion

    We have 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.

Interim Action

    Because the root cause of the cracking addressed in AD 2003-23-01 
has not yet been determined, we consider this AD to be interim action 
and have continued the requirement to return cracked PCMs or manifolds 
to Parker Hannifin in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. If final action is 
later identified, we may consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    There are approximately 636 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. We estimate that 86 airplanes of U.S. registry will be 
affected by this AD, and that it will take approximately 4 work hours 
per airplane to accomplish the ultrasonic inspection, at an average 
labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost 
impact of the inspection is estimated to be $22,360, or $260 per 
airplane, per inspection cycle.

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 39-13364 (68 FR 64263, November 13, 2003) and adding 
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2006-18-17 Boeing: Amendment 39-14756. Docket No. FAA-2006-23873; 
Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-110-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective October 13, 2006.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-23-01.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 
747-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from manufacturer findings that the 
inspections required by AD 2003-23-01 must be performed at regular 
intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct potential 
cracking in the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and lower 
rudder power control modules (PCMs), which could result in an 
uncommanded left rudder hardover, consequent increased pilot 
workload, and possible runway departure upon landing.

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.

Verification of Rudder PCM/Main Manifold Time-in-Service

    (f) For any affected airplane, if it can be positively verified 
that any rudder PCM or PCM main manifold installed on that airplane 
has accumulated a different total of flight hours or flight cycles 
than the totals accumulated by that airplane, the flight cycles or 
flight hours accumulated by the rudder PCM or PCM main manifold will 
be acceptable as valid starting points for meeting the compliance 
times required by this AD.

Inspection Accomplished Prior to the Issuance of This AD

    (g) For airplanes which, prior to the effective date of this AD, 
have received an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the yaw 
damper actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder PCM, in 
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, dated 
July 24, 2003, as required by AD 2003-23-01: Do paragraphs (g)(1), 
(g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance 
with the Accomplishment Instructions of

[[Page 53003]]

Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1, 
2005.
    (1) Perform the ultrasonic inspection described in paragraph (g) 
of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraph 
(g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, then do paragraph (g)(2) or 
(g)(3) of this AD, as applicable; and paragraph (g)(4) of this AD.
    (i) Within 28,000 flight hours or 4,500 flight cycles after the 
date of the prior inspection, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) If no cracking is found during any inspection required by 
paragraph (g)(1) or (h) of this AD: Apply sealant and a torque 
stripe and install a lockwire on the rudder PCM in accordance with 
the Accomplishment Instructions and Figure 1 or Figure 2, as 
applicable, of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, 
dated September 1, 2005.
    (3) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by 
paragraph (g)(1) or (h) of this AD: Before further flight, replace 
the affected PCM with a new or serviceable PCM and submit the report 
required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (4) Repeat the ultrasonic inspection described in paragraph (g) 
of this AD at intervals not to exceed 28,000 flight hours or 4,500 
flight cycles, whichever occurs first, and repeat the actions in 
paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

Initial Inspection

    (h) For airplanes not inspected prior to the effective date of 
this AD as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: At the later of 
the times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, 
perform an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the yaw damper 
actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder PCM main manifold; 
and do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this 
AD, as applicable; in accordance with the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, 
dated September 1, 2005. Repeat the inspection thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 28,000 flight hours or 4,500 flight cycles, 
whichever occurs first.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 56,000 total flight hours or 
9,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

Reporting Requirements and Damaged Parts Disposition

    (i) For all airplanes: At the applicable time specified in 
paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, accomplish the actions in 
paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (1) If the inspection was done after the effective date of this 
AD: Submit the report and part, if applicable, within 30 days after 
the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this 
AD: Submit the report and part, if applicable, within 30 days after 
the effective date of this AD.
    (j) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i) of this 
AD: Do the requirements of paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. 
Information collection requirements contained in this regulation 
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.
    (1) If any inspection required by this AD reveals any indication 
of a cracked or broken part, submit a report to: The Boeing Company, 
Service Engineering--Mechanical Systems. The report must contain the 
airplane and rudder PCM serial numbers, the total flight hours and 
flight cycles for each rudder PCM (and rudder PCM main manifold, if 
known), and a description of any damage found. Submission of the 
Inspection Report Form (Figure 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005) is one acceptable 
method of complying with this requirement.
    (2) Send any cracked or broken PCMs or manifolds to Parker 
Hannifin Corporation in accordance with the shipping instructions 
specified in Appendix A of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005.

Prior Accomplishment of Requirements

    (k) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, dated 
July 24, 2003; or Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005; are considered 
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of 
this AD.

Parts Installation

    (l) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install 
on any airplane a rudder PCM having a top assembly part number (P/N) 
332700-1003, -1005, or -1007; or P/N 333200-1003, -1005, or -1007; 
unless the PCM has been ultrasonically inspected and found to be 
without cracks; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions 
of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 
1, 2005.

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 in 
accordance with 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) AMOCs approved previously according to AD 2003-23-01 are 
approved as AMOCs with this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 
2, dated September 1, 2005, to perform the actions that are required 
by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the 
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this 
document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 
Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You 
may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif 
Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call 
(202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 30, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
 [FR Doc. E6-14782 Filed 9-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P