AD 2001-09-01

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21855-21859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 01-10466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99-NM-124-AD; Amendment 39-12206; AD 2001-09-01]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200 and -300 Series 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to certain Boeing Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes, 
that requires repetitive clearing of the drain passage at the aft end 
of the main landing gear (MLG) truck beam to ensure moisture and 
contaminants within the truck beam can properly drain; and, for certain 
airplanes, an internal inspection of the truck beam to detect 
discrepancies, and follow-on actions. This amendment is prompted by 
reports of fracture of MLG truck beams. The actions specified by this 
AD are intended to prevent stress corrosion cracking, leading to 
fracture of a MLG truck beam during ground operations, which could 
result in either reduced controllability of the airplane or a fire.

DATES: Effective June 6, 2001.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of June 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules 
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of 
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 
Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 
227-2776; fax (425) 227-1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness 
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain 757-200 and -300 series 
airplanes was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) in the Federal Register on September 18, 2000 (65 FR 56268). 
That action proposed to require repetitive clearing of the drain 
passage at the aft end of the main landing gear (MLG) truck beam to 
ensure moisture and contaminants within the truck beam can properly 
drain. That action also proposed to expand the applicability, and, for 
certain airplanes, add a new inspection and follow-on actions.

Comments

    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
the comments received.

Reference Revised Service Bulletins

    One commenter asks that the FAA revise the supplemental NPRM to 
reference Revision 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 757-32A0135 and 
757-32A0138, both dated November 30, 2000. The proposed rule referenced 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 757-32A0135 (for Model 757-200 series 
airplanes) and 757-32A0138 (for Model 757-300 series airplanes), both 
dated June 8, 2000, as the appropriate sources of service information 
for certain proposed actions. The commenter states that the service 
bulletins have been revised for clarification, based on questions 
received from operators.
    We concur with the commenter's request. Since the issuance of the 
proposed rule, the FAA has reviewed and approved Revision 1 of the 
service bulletins. Revision 1 clarifies certain instructions and 
revises the effectivity listing to show changes in airplane operators. 
(No additional airplanes are added to the effectivity listing of 
Revision 1.) Therefore, we have revised the applicability statement and 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this final rule to reference Revision 1 of 
the service bulletins as the appropriate source of service information 
for the actions required by those paragraphs. We also have revised 
Notes 2 and 3 to state that accomplishment of the actions required by 
this AD in accordance with the original issue of the service bulletins 
is acceptable for compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this final 
rule.

Change Certain Wording in Paragraphs (a) and (b)

    Two commenters ask that the wording in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
the proposed rule, which specifies ``* * * since the date of 
manufacture of the MLG * * *,'' be changed to read ``* * * since the 
date of delivery of the airplane or since

[[Page 21856]]

date of installation for new replacement truck beams installed after 
airplane delivery * * *.'' The commenters state that exposure to a 
typical service environment does not occur until after the airplane is 
delivered. This is because the airplane is maintained in a controlled 
environment and the landing gear is not exposed to the harsh conditions 
of in-service landing gear, so no degradation of protective finishes 
would be expected prior to delivery.
    One commenter notes that the landing gear manufacturing date will 
normally precede airplane delivery by several months (and could be much 
longer for replacement truck beams), and the manufacturer does not 
typically provide the landing gear date of manufacture to the 
operators. If the date of manufacture is used as the basis for 
determining the inspection threshold, the manufacturer will be required 
to research and compile the data for distribution to operators. 
Operators could be required to comply months earlier than intended, as 
the service bulletins referenced in the proposed rule specify airplane 
age, which is normally based on delivery date. Specifying the airplane 
delivery date, or date of installation of new replacement truck beams 
as the basis for determining the compliance threshold will simplify 
determination of the threshold for each affected airplane. The 
operators will already have delivery or installation dates in their 
records, and will not have to rely on the manufacturer to provide 
additional information.
    We concur with the commenters' requests. We agree that exposure to 
a typical service environment does not occur until after the airplane 
is delivered to the original operator, because the airplane is 
maintained in a controlled environment and the landing gear is not 
exposed to the harsh conditions of in-service landing gear, as the 
commenter states. Additionally, specifying a compliance time of within 
a certain number of years since the date of airplane delivery or since 
the date of installation of new replacement truck beams will allow 
operators easy access to the data necessary for determining when the 
clearing procedure should be done. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the final 
rule have been changed accordingly.

Change Various Sections

    One commenter asks for the following changes:
    1. Replace the term ``MLG,'' as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) 
of the proposed rule, with ``MLG truck beam'' throughout the proposed 
rule. The commenter states that this would specify the exact component 
affected by the proposal and allow additional compliance time for units 
having the MLG truck beam replaced with an overhauled unit separately 
from the MLG assembly.
    We concur. The term ``MLG'' has been changed throughout the final 
rule to the term, ``MLG truck beam.'' Specifying the component instead 
of the entire MLG assembly allows additional time for compliance when 
the existing MLG truck beam is replaced with a new or overhauled truck 
beam, apart from the MLG assembly.
    2. Replace the phrase ``Overhaul of the MLG truck beam prior to the 
effective date of this AD * * *,'' as specified in Note 3 of the 
proposed rule, with ``Overhaul of the MLG truck beam prior to the 
compliance time of this AD * * *.'' This is to allow credit to be taken 
for MLG assemblies overhauled and installed within the AD compliance 
time.
    We partially concur with the commenter. We do not concur that the 
phrase ``Overhaul of the MLG truck beam prior to the effective date of 
this AD,'' as specified in Note 3 of the final rule, be replaced with 
``Overhaul of the MLG truck beam prior to the compliance time of this 
AD.'' Note 3 gives operators credit for overhaul of the MLG truck beam 
prior to the effective date of the AD, in accordance with the original 
service bulletin. However, we do concur that the commenter be given 
credit for MLG assemblies overhauled and installed within the AD 
compliance time. However, the FAA notes that operators are always given 
credit for work accomplished previously if the work is performed in 
accordance with the existing AD by means of the phrase in the 
compliance section of the AD that states, ``Required as indicated, 
unless accomplished previously.''
    Another commenter asks that Note 3 of the proposed rule be removed 
or clarified to state that previously overhauled truck beams comply 
with the rule based on prior accomplishment of the applicable service 
bulletins. The commenter states that Note 3 could be interpreted as 
being applicable to all truck beams that were overhauled per Boeing 
Model 757 Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 32-11-56, which is 
specified in the service bulletins referenced in the proposed rule.
    We concur with the commenter that Note 3 of the final rule needs 
further clarification, however, including the original service bulletin 
in the note already gives credit for previously overhauled truck beams 
that comply with the rule based on prior accomplishment. Prior 
accomplishment of the overhaul of the MLG truck beam, as referenced in 
the note, does include overhaul of the truck beam per the CMM because 
it is referenced in the service bulletin as a source for doing the 
overhaul of the truck beam. Also, we have added the internal inspection 
specified in paragraph (b) of the final rule to further clarify the 
intent of Note 3.
    3. Remove the phrase ``* * * in accordance with Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 757-32A0135, dated June 8, 2000 * * *'' from Note 3 of 
the proposed rule to avoid confusion, since the referenced service 
bulletin does not specify any additional actions beyond the current 
overhaul procedures.
    We do not concur. As stated in issue 2. above, Note 3 gives 
operators credit for overhaul of the MLG truck beam prior to the 
effective date of the AD, in accordance with the original service 
bulletin. The actions required by this AD must be performed in 
accordance with FAA-approved procedures and the referenced service 
bulletin contains such procedures. We cannot leave the note open so 
that the operator can use any procedure they might have available 
because not all maintenance procedures are FAA-approved.
    4. Give credit for paragraph (b) of the proposed rule, within the 
referenced compliance time, if an airplane within Group 1 has an MLG 
assembly replaced with either a new MLG assembly or an overhauled MLG 
assembly incorporating a new MLG truck beam.
    We concur that if an airplane within Group 1 has a MLG assembly 
replaced with either a new MLG assembly or an overhauled MLG assembly 
incorporating a new MLG truck beam, that airplane is in compliance with 
this AD. As stated in our response to issue 1. above, the term ``MLG'' 
has been changed throughout the final rule to the term ``MLG truck 
beam,'' which clarifies this information.

Extend Compliance Times

    One commenter asks that the repetitive interval for the clearing 
procedure of the aft drain hole, as specified in paragraph (a) of the 
proposed rule, be changed from 6 months to 18 months, even if the drain 
hole is found clogged. The commenter states that unless there is 
conclusive evidence that it is more likely that a blocked drain hole 
that is cleared will be more likely to block again, this requirement 
cannot be justified and should be reviewed.
    We do not concur. If the clogging of the drain passage was caused 
by incorrect application of corrosion inhibiting compound, the clogging 
is

[[Page 21857]]

likely to reoccur sooner than for a drain passage that is not blocked. 
The repetitive interval for the clearing procedure for an aft drain 
hole that is found clogged will remain at every 6 months.
    A second commenter asks that the compliance time specified in 
paragraph (b) of the proposed rule be extended. The commenter states 
that it is presently operating under an approved 24-month ``C'' check 
(heavy maintenance) program. The proposed rule specifies a compliance 
period of 6 months to inspect all affected MLG, if the date of 
manufacture is over 8 years. The commenter has 44 MLG (22 airplanes) 
which fall into this category and considers that compliance time to be 
overly aggressive. The commenter adds that the inspection is better 
performed in a heavy maintenance environment, and 6 months would not 
allow them the scheduling opportunity to perform internal inspections 
on all the affected MLG. The commenter also notes that, in the unlikely 
event that a truck assembly requires replacement, options for 
accomplishment of the replacement are extremely limited considering 
shipping, turn time, limited parts availability, and a compliance time 
of 6 months, to perform the internal inspections and any replacement 
necessary. These conditions cause an undue burden on the operators.
    We do not concur. In developing an appropriate compliance time for 
this action, we considered not only the degree of urgency associated 
with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's 
recommendation as to an appropriate compliance time, and the practical 
aspect of accomplishing the required inspection and corrective action 
within an interval of time that parallels the normal scheduled 
maintenance for the majority of affected operators. We have determined 
that within 8 years since the date of airplane delivery (for MLG truck 
beams that have not been overhauled), or since the date of installation 
of new truck beams (per response to a previous comment), or within 6 
months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs latest, 
represents an appropriate compliance time allowable for the inspection 
and corrective action to be accomplished during scheduled maintenance 
intervals. But under the provisions of paragraph (c) of the final rule, 
we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data 
are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an 
acceptable level of safety.
    A third commenter states that a time limit of 30 days for overhaul 
or replacement of the MLG truck beam should be allowed if any 
discrepancy is detected. The commenter notes that a small airline does 
not have the resources to perform an immediate overhaul or replacement 
of the affected part.
    We do not concur. As stated in the proposal, there have been 
several reports of fracture of the MLG truck beam due to stress 
corrosion cracking, which can lead to fracture of the truck beam. This 
unsafe condition could result in either reduced controllability of the 
airplane or a fire. In consideration of the end-level effect of the 
unsafe condition on the airplane, if not immediately addressed, the FAA 
has determined that the compliance time of prior to further flight for 
overhaul or replacement of the truck beam if any discrepancy is 
detected, as specified in paragraph (b) of the final rule, must remain. 
This compliance time is necessary to maintain an adequate level of 
safety within the transport airplane fleet.

Revise Applicability

    One commenter asks that the applicability of the proposed rule be 
revised to specify the truck beam part number and serial number, 
instead of the airplane serial number. The commenter states that the 
only link between the components and the airplane that are affected by 
the proposal is the configuration of the airplane at delivery. The 
commenter adds that identification by the part number and serial number 
will eliminate the possibility that unsafe truck beams will not be 
included in the applicability of the rule.
    We do not concur. The applicability of this AD identifies Model 
757-200 and -300 series airplanes, as listed in the referenced service 
bulletins, which specify the airplane line numbers. The manufacturer 
has verified that the truck beams specified in this AD are installed on 
airplanes listed in the effectivity section of Revision 1 of the 
service bulletins, so no change to the applicability of this AD is 
necessary in this regard.

Clarify Terminating Action

    Two commenters ask for the following changes:
    One commenter asks that the installation of new or overhauled truck 
beams terminate the repetitive clearing of the drain hole specified in 
paragraph (a) of the proposed rule. The commenter states that the 
manufacturer considers overhaul of the truck beams to be sufficient for 
termination of the repetitive clearing procedures specified in the 
service bulletin. The commenter adds that while the requirements of an 
AD are binding, and the statements in a service bulletin are merely 
recommendations, the FAA should consider including the content of the 
manufacturer's recommendation in the final rule.
    The commenter also notes that this condition is a result of 
insufficient corrosion protection, which is due to improper plating of 
the parts during manufacture and/or improper application of primer, 
grease, or corrosion-preventive compounds during assembly. The 
potential for a corrosion problem on the truck beams that were 
improperly manufactured is increased as a result of the fact that the 
improperly applied grease or corrosion-preventive compounds may block 
the drain hole. But the commenter adds that the manufacturer and the 
suppliers have improved their processes and the unsafe condition has 
been eliminated in later deliveries, as indicated by the fact that the 
service bulletins referenced in the proposed rule are applicable to 
airplanes having line numbers 1 through 874 only.
    The FAA agrees that clarification is necessary. The current CMM 
referenced in the service bulletins contains an error that specifies 
the application of too much corrosion inhibiting compound on the 
interior of the MLG truck beam. If the CMM is used to apply the 
corrosion inhibiting compound, the unsafe condition may still exist on 
later deliveries of Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes.
    Another commenter asks that the FAA determine whether operators 
with truck beams that were overhauled and installed prior to the 
effective date of the proposed rule should do the repetitive drain hole 
clearing and detailed internal inspection per the proposed rule. A 
second commenter asks if the overhaul or replacement of the truck beams 
is terminating action for the repetitive clearing procedures of the aft 
drain hole, or if it is corrective action as specified in paragraph (b) 
of the proposed rule.
    We do not concur. For airplanes with truck beams that were 
overhauled and installed prior to the effective date of the final rule, 
as well as all other affected airplanes, the repetitive drain hole 
clearing and detailed internal inspection procedures must continue to 
be done indefinitely. The corrective action of either applying 
corrosion preventive compound, or overhaul or replacement of the truck 
beam, does not terminate the repetitive clearing procedures of the aft 
drain hole.

[[Page 21858]]

Reference Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)

    One commenter requests that the repetitive clearing procedure of 
the aft drain hole be addressed by an MPD revision because Boeing 
Service Letter 757-SL-32-060, dated March 31, 1999, specifies the 
possible addition of the clearing instructions for the drain hole to 
the MPD. The commenter notes that once the corrective actions have been 
accomplished per the service bulletins, the unsafe condition in the 
proposed rule is eliminated. The commenter adds that any further 
maintenance after the initial clearing of the drain hole should be 
limited to the procedures contained in the MPD, as the requirements in 
that document should be adequate to maintain all airplane systems.
    We do not concur. The repetitive clearing procedures of the aft 
drain hole are not specified in the MPD, so further maintenance cannot 
be done per that document.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the available data, including the comments 
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public 
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously 
described. We have determined that these changes will neither increase 
the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 874 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 350 Model 757-200 series 
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
    It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish 
the inspections, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based 
on these figures, the cost impact of the inspections required by this 
AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $21,000, or $60 per airplane, 
per inspection cycle.
    For Group 1 airplanes, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
757-32A0135: It will take approximately 28 work hours per airplane to 
accomplish the internal inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per 
work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection 
required by this AD is estimated to be $1,680 per airplane.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions 
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the 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.
    Currently, there are no Model 757-300 series airplanes on the U.S. 
Register. But should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the 
U.S. Register in the future, it will require approximately 1 work hour 
to accomplish the inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work 
hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this inspection will 
be $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action 
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained 
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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:

2001-09-01  Boeing: Amendment 39-12206. Docket 99-NM-124-AD.

    Applicability: Model 757-200 series airplanes as listed in 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-32A0135, Revision 1; and Model 
757-300 series airplanes as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
757-32A0138, Revision 1; both dated November 30, 2000; certificated 
in any category.

    Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the 
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the 
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, 
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of 
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an 
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of 
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of 
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition 
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been 
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to 
address it.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent stress corrosion cracking, leading to fracture of a 
main landing gear (MLG) truck beam during ground operations, which 
could result in either reduced controllability of the airplane or a 
fire, accomplish the following:

Repetitive Clearing Procedure

    (a) Within 4 years since the last overhaul of the MLG truck 
beam, since the date of airplane delivery (for MLG truck beams that 
have not been overhauled), or since the date of installation of new 
truck beams; or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD; 
whichever occurs latest: Insert a wooden probe, or similar non-
metallic object, into the aft drain hole of the MLG truck beam, to 
clear the drain passage and ensure it can properly drain, in 
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-32A0135, Revision 
1 (for Model 757-200 series airplanes), or 757-32A0138, Revision 1 
(for Model 757-300 series airplanes), both dated November 30, 2000, 
as applicable.
    (1) If the aft drain hole is found unclogged, repeat the 
clearing procedure thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months.
    (2) If the aft drain hole is found clogged, repeat the clearing 
procedure thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months.

    Note 2: Accomplishment of the clearance of the drain passage 
prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing 
Service Letter 757-SL-32-060, dated March 31, 1999; Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 757-32A0135 (for Model 757-200 series airplanes), 
or 757-32A0138 (for Model 757-300 series airplanes), both dated June 
8, 2000; as applicable; is considered acceptable for compliance with 
the requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this AD.


[[Page 21859]]



Internal Inspection

    (b) For Group 1 airplanes as listed in Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 757-32A0135, Revision 1, dated November 30, 2000: Within 8 
years since the date of airplane delivery (for MLG truck beams that 
have not been overhauled), or since the date of installation of new 
truck beams; or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD; 
whichever occurs latest: Perform an internal inspection of the truck 
beam protective finish (plating and primer) to detect discrepancies 
(flaked, cracked, missing finish, or corrosion), as illustrated in 
Figure 2 of the alert service bulletin.

Corrective Action

    (1) If no discrepancy is detected, prior to further flight, 
apply corrosion preventive compound in accordance with the 
Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.
    (2) If any discrepancy is detected, prior to further flight, 
overhaul or replace the truck beam, as applicable, in accordance 
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.

    Note 3: Accomplishment of the internal inspection and overhaul 
of the MLG truck beam, as applicable, prior to the effective date of 
this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
32A0135, dated June 8, 2000, is considered acceptable for compliance 
with the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the 
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification 
Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an 
appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add 
comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

    Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

    (d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where 
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

    (e) The actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin 757-32A0135, Revision 1, dated November 30, 2000; 
or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-32A0138, Revision 1, dated 
November 30, 2000; as applicable. This incorporation by reference 
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from 
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 
98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the 
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 
700, Washington, DC.

Effective Date

    (f) This amendment becomes effective on June 6, 2001.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 20, 2001.
Donald L. Riggin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-10466 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P