[Federal Register: September 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 174)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52999-53003]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08se06-10]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.[fxsp0]gov/federal--
register/code--[fxsp0]of--federal--[fxsp0]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