Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53739 

satisfactory level ($14,303). The 

assessment rate of $0.95 per 

hundredweight of assessable dates was 

then determined by applying the 

following formula where: 

A = 2004–05 reserve on 10/1/05 

($1,000). 

B = 2005–06 reserve on 9/30/06 

($14,303). 

C = 2005–06 expenses ($169,197). 

D = Cull Surplus Fund ($2,000). 

E = 2005–06 expected shipments 

(190,000 hundredweight). (B ¥ A + C ¥ 

D) E ÷ $0.95 per hundredweight. 

Estimated shipments should provide 

$180,500 in assessment income. Income 

derived from handler assessments and 

$2,000 from the cull surplus fund would 

be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. 

Funds in the administrative reserve are 

expected to total about $14,303 by 

September 30, 2006, and therefore 

would be less than the maximum 

permitted by the order (not to exceed 50 

percent of the average of expenses 

incurred during the most recent five 

preceding crop years as required under 

§ 987.72(c)). 

A review of historical information and 

preliminary information pertaining to 

the upcoming crop year indicates that 

the grower price for the 2005–06 season 

could range between $45 and $50 per 

hundredweight of dates. Therefore, the 

estimated assessment revenue for the 

2005–06 crop year as a percentage of 

total grower revenue is approximately 2 

percent. 

This action would increase the 

assessment obligation imposed on 

handlers under the Federal marketing 

order. While assessments impose some 

additional costs on handlers, the costs 

are minimal and uniform on all 

handlers. Some of the additional costs 

may be passed on to producers. 

However, these costs would be offset by 

the benefits derived by the operation of 

the marketing order. In addition, the 

committee’s meeting was widely 

publicized throughout the California 

date industry and all interested persons 

were invited to attend the meeting and 

participate in committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all committee 

meetings, the June 16, 2005, meeting 

was a public meeting and all entities, 

both large and small, were able to 

express views on this issue. Finally, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

information on the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

This proposed rule would impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

California date handlers. As with all 

Federal marketing order programs, 

reports and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the 

compliance guide should be sent to Jay 

Guerber at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Thirty days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2005–06 crop year begins on October 1, 

2005, and the marketing order requires 

that the rate of assessment for each crop 

year apply to all assessable dates 

handled during such crop year; (2) the 

committee needs to have sufficient 

funds to pay its expenses which are 

incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) 

handlers are aware of this action which 

was unanimously recommended by the 

committee at a public meeting and is 

similar to other assessment rate actions 

issued in past years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 987 

Dates, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 987 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 987—DOMESTIC DATES 

PRODUCED OR PACKED IN 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 987 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 987.339 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 987.339 Assessment rate. 

On and after October 1, 2005, an 

assessment rate of $0.95 per 

hundredweight is established for 

California dates. 

Dated: September 6, 2005. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–17963 Filed 9–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22384; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–131–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A300 B2 Series Airplanes, Model A300 

B4 Series Airplanes, Model A310–200 

Series Airplanes, Model A310–300 

Series Airplanes, and Model A300 B4–

600, B4–600R, and F4–600R Series 

Airplanes, and Model C4–605R Variant 

F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300–

600 Series Airplanes) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Airbus transport category 

airplanes. This proposed AD would 

require repetitive eddy current 

inspections for cracks of the stiffener 

fittings of the fuselage at frame (FR) 

12A, and corrective actions if necessary. 

This proposed AD also provides a 

terminating action for the inspections. 

This proposed AD results from reports 

of cracks on the upper attachment fitting 

of the stiffener fitting at FR12A. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent failure of 

the stiffener fittings, which could result 

in the reduced structural integrity of the 

floor and rods around FR12A. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 12, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Jacques Leborgne, Airbus 

Customer Service Directorate, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

53740 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Cedex, France, fax (+33) 5 61 93 36 14, 

for service information identified in this 

proposed AD for Model A300 B2 series 

airplanes and Model A300 B4 series 

airplanes. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point 

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, 

France, for service information 

identified in this proposed AD for 

Model A310–200 series airplanes, 

Model A310–300 series airplanes, and 

Model A300–600 series airplanes. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Include the 

docket number ‘‘FAA–2005–22384; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–131–

AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. 

We specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the 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 DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation 

Civile (DGAC), which is the 

airworthiness authority for France, 

notified us that an unsafe condition may 

exist on certain Airbus Model A300 B2 

and A300 B4 series airplanes, Model 

A310–200 and –300 series airplanes, 

and Model A300–600 series airplanes. 

The DGAC advises that there are 

reports of cracks on the upper 

attachment fitting of the stiffener fitting 

on the floor beam at frame (FR) 12A, 

right-hand and left-hand sides of the 

fuselage. The DGAC states that the 

cracks are due to a combined effect of 

the pressurization of the cabin and 

bending induced by thermal effects 

which generates a longitudinal force in 

the floor beam, causing a high level of 

fatigue in the fitting. This condition, if 

not corrected, could result in failure of 

the stiffener fittings, and consequent 

reduced structural integrity of the floor 

and rods around FR12A. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin 

A300–53–0365, Revision 01 (for Model 

A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes); 

Service Bulletin A300–53–6138, 

Revision 01 (for Model A300–600 series 

airplanes); and Service Bulletin A310–

53–2117, Revision 01 (for Model A310–

200 and A310–300 series airplane); all 

dated April 4, 2005. The service 

bulletins describe procedures for 

repetitive eddy current inspections for 

cracks of the stiffener fittings of the 

fuselage at FR12A, and corrective action 

if necessary. Doing the corrective action 

eliminates the need for the repetitive 

inspection. The corrective action 

includes replacing the existing fitting on 

FR12A with a FR12A crossbeam and 

installing a new web between FR12A 

and FR13 at stringer 26. 

The service bulletins refer to Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–53–0364, 

Revision 02, dated September 24, 2004 

(for Model A300 B2 and B4 series 

airplanes); Service Bulletin A300–53–

6137, Revision 03, dated April 4, 2005 

(for Model A300–600 series airplanes); 

and Service Bulletin A310–53–2116, 

Revision 02, dated September 24, 2004 

(for Model A310–200 and –300 series 

airplane); as the appropriate sources of 

service information for doing the 

corrective action. 

Accomplishing the actions specified 

in the service information is intended to 

adequately address the unsafe 

condition. The DGAC mandated the 

service information and issued French 

airworthiness directive F–2005–084, 

dated May 25, 2005, to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of these 

airplanes in France. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

These airplane models are 

manufactured in France and are type 

certificated for operation in the United 

States under the provisions of section 

21.29 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the 

applicable bilateral airworthiness 

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral 

airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has 

kept the FAA informed of the situation 

described above. We have examined the 

DGAC’s findings, evaluated all pertinent 

information, and determined that we 

need to issue an AD for airplanes of this 

type design that are certificated for 

operation in the United States. 

Therefore, we are proposing this AD, 

which would require accomplishing the 

actions specified in the service 

information described previously, 

except as discussed under ‘‘Differences 

Between the Proposed AD and Service 

Bulletins.’’

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Service Bulletins 

Unlike the procedures described in 

Airbus Service Bulletins A300–53–0365, 

Revision 01; A300–53–6138, Revision 

01; and A310–53–2117, Revision 01; 

this proposed AD would not permit 

further flight if cracks are detected in 

the stiffener fittings of the fuselage at 

FR12A. We have determined that, 

because of the safety implications and 

consequences associated with that 

cracking, any cracked fitting must be 

replaced before further flight. 

The service bulletins specify to 

contact the manufacturer for fastener 

requirements if stiffener fitting FR12A 

has been replaced, but this proposed AD 

would require contacting the FAA or the 

DGAC (or its delegated agent). In light 

of the type of repair that would be 

required to address the unsafe 

condition, and consistent with existing 

bilateral airworthiness agreements, we 

have determined that, for this proposed 

AD, requirements that we or the DGAC 

approve would be acceptable for 

compliance with this proposed AD. 

Operators should note that, although 

the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

referenced service bulletins describe 

procedures for reporting results, this 

proposed AD would not require those 

actions. We do not need this 

information from operators. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53741 

Difference Between French 

Airworthiness Directive and This 

Proposed AD 

The applicability of French 

airworthiness directive F–2005–084, 

dated May 25, 2005, excludes airplanes 

that accomplished Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–53–0364, dated 

December 1, 2003; Revision 01, dated 

May 5, 2004; or Revision 02, dated 

September 24, 2004; or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–53–6137, dated 

December 1, 2003; Revision 01, dated 

May 5, 2004; Revision 02, dated 

September 24, 2004; or Revision 03, 

dated April 4, 2005; or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A310–53–2116, dated 

December 1, 2003; Revision 01, dated 

May 5, 2004; or Revision 02, dated 

September 24, 2004; in service. 

However, we have not excluded those 

airplanes in the applicability of this 

proposed AD; rather, this proposed AD 

includes a requirement to accomplish 

the actions specified in the latest 

revision of the service bulletins, as 

applicable. This requirement would 

ensure that the actions specified in the 

service bulletins and required by this 

proposed AD are accomplished on all 

affected airplanes. Operators must 

continue to operate the airplane in the 

configuration required by this proposed 

AD unless an alternative method of 

compliance is approved. 

Costs of Compliance 

This proposed AD would affect about 

202 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

proposed inspection would take 

between 57 and 64 work hours per 

airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 

per work hour. Based on these figures, 

the estimated cost of the proposed 

inspection for U.S. operators is between 

$748,410 and $840,320, or between 

$3,705 and $4,160 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 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the 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. 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 proposed 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, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2005–22384; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–131–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by October 12, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability: (c) This AD applies to Airbus 

Model A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, and 

B2–203 airplanes; Model A300 B4–2C, B4–

103, and B4–203 airplanes; Model A300 B4–

601, B4–603, B4–620, and B4–622 airplanes; 

Model A300 B4–605R and B4–622R 

airplanes; Model A300 F4–605R and F4–

622R airplanes; Model A300 C4–605R 

Variant F airplanes; Model A310–203, –204, 

–221, and –222 airplanes; and Model A310–

304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes; 

certificated in any category; except for 

airplanes on which AIRBUS Modification 

12662 has been done in production. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from reports of cracks 

on the upper attachment fitting of the 

stiffener fitting at frame (FR) 12A. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 

stiffener fittings, which could result in the 

reduced structural integrity of the floor and 

rods around FR12A. 

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. 

Inspections 

(f) At the applicable initial inspection 

threshold specified in Table 1 of this AD or 

within the applicable grace period specified 

in Table 2 of this AD, whichever occurs later: 

Do an eddy current inspection for cracks of 

the stiffener fittings of the fuselage at FR12A, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–

53–0365, Revision 01 (for Model A300 B2–

1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, and B2–203 airplanes, 

and Model A300 B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 

airplanes); Service Bulletin A300–53–6138, 

Revision 01 (for Model A300 B4–601, B4–

603, B4–620, and B4–622 airplanes, Model 

A300 B4–605R and B4–622R airplanes, 

Model A300 F4–605R and F4–622R 

airplanes, and Model A300 C4–605R Variant 

F airplanes); or Service Bulletin A310–53–

2117, Revision 01 (for Model A310–203, 

–204, –221, and –222 airplanes, and Model 

A310–304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes); 

all dated April 4, 2005; as applicable. 

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed the applicable compliance time 

specified in Table 1 of this AD until the 

actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD 

are done. 

53742 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—COMPLIANCE TIMES FOR INITIAL AND REPETITIVE INSPECTIONS

For airplanes identified as— Do the initial inspection prior 

to the accumulation of— 

And repeat at intervals 

not to exceed— 

Configuration 01 in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–0365, Revision 01, dated April 

4, 2005.

19,300 total flight cycles ........ 11,450 flight cycles. 

Configuration 02 in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–0365, Revision 01, dated April 

4, 2005.

15,500 total flight cycles ........ 9,200 flight cycles. 

Configuration 01 in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6138, Revision 01, dated April 

4, 2005.

19,300 total flight cycles ........ 11,450 flight cycles. 

Configuration 02 in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6138, Revision 01, dated April 

4, 2005.

17,600 total flight cycles ........ 11,450 flight cycles. 

Configuration 03 in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6138, Revision 01, dated April 

4, 2005.

12,700 total flight cycles ........ 8,000 flight cycles. 

Configuration 04 in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6138, Revision 01, dated April 

4, 2005.

10,200 total flight cycles ........ 6,400 flight cycles. 

Configuration 01 in Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2117, Revision 01, dated April 

4, 2005.

19,300 total flight cycles ........ 11,450 flight cycles. 

Configuration 02 in Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2117, Revision 01, dated April 

4, 2005.

17,600 total flight cycles ........ 11,450 flight cycles. 

Configuration 03 in Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2117, Revision 01, dated April 

4, 2005.

12,700 total flight cycles ........ 8,000 flight cycles. 

TABLE 2.—GRACE PERIOD FOR THE INITIAL INSPECTION

For Airbus model— Grace period is— 

A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, and B2–203 airplanes ........................... Within 2,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

A300 B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 airplanes; A300 B4–601, B4–603, 

B4–620, and B4–622 airplanes; A300 B4–605R and B4–622R airplanes; A300 F4–605R and F4–622R airplanes; A300 C4–605R Variant F airplanes; A310–203, –204, –221, and –222 airplanes; and 

A310–304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes.

Within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

Corrective Action 

(g) If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (f) of this 

AD, before further flight, do the replacement 

and installation specified in paragraph (h) of 

this AD. 

Terminating Action 

(h) Replacing the existing fitting on FR12A 

with a FR12A crossbeam and installing a new 

web between FR12A and FR13 at stringer 26 

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–53–0364, Revision 02, dated 

September 24, 2004 (for Model A300 B2–1A, 

B2–1C, B2K–3C, and B2–203 airplanes, and 

Model A300 B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 

airplanes); Service Bulletin A300–53–6137, 

Revision 03, dated April 4, 2005 (for Model 

A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, and B4–622 

airplanes, Model A300 B4–605R and B4–

622R airplanes, Model A300 F4–605R and 

F4–622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4–

605R Variant F airplanes); or Service Bulletin 

A310–53–2116, Revision 02, dated 

September 24, 2004 (for Model A310–203, 

–204, –221, and –222 airplanes, and Model 

A310–304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes); 

as applicable; and except as required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD; constitutes 

terminating action for the requirements of 

this AD. 

(i) Where the service bulletins specify to 

contact the manufacturer for certain 

information, before further flight, do the 

terminating action according to a method 

approved by either the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate; or the DGAC 

(or its delegated agent). 

Actions Accomplished According to 

Previous Issue of Service Bulletin 

(j) Actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD according to the 

Airbus service bulletins specified in Table 3 

of this AD are considered acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding actions 

specified in this AD. 

TABLE 3.—PREVIOUS ISSUES OF SERVICE BULLETINS

Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level Date 

A300–53–0364 .................................................................................................................................. Original .................. December 1, 2003. 

A300–53–0364 .................................................................................................................................. 01 ........................... May 5, 2004. 

A300–53–0365 .................................................................................................................................. Original .................. December 1, 2003. 

A300–53–6137 .................................................................................................................................. Original .................. December 1, 2003. 

A300–53–6137 .................................................................................................................................. 01 ........................... May 5, 2004. 

A300–53–6137 .................................................................................................................................. 02 ........................... September 24, 2004. 

A300–53–6138 .................................................................................................................................. Original .................. December 1, 2003. 

A310–53–2116 .................................................................................................................................. Original .................. December 1, 2003. 

A310–53–2116 .................................................................................................................................. 01 ........................... May 5, 2004. 

A310–53–2117 .................................................................................................................................. Original .................. December 1, 2003. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53743 

No Reporting Required 

(k) Although the service bulletins 

referenced in this AD specify to submit 

certain information to the manufacturer, 

this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(l) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(m) French airworthiness directive F–

2005–084, dated May 25, 2005, also 

addresses the subject of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

24, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–17980 Filed 9–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22383; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–102–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–

300, 747–400, and 747–400D Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Boeing Model 747–100B SUD, 

747–300, 747–400, and 747–400D series 

airplanes; and Model 747–200B series 

airplanes having a stretched upper deck. 

This proposed AD would require 

repetitively inspecting for cracking or 

discrepancies of the fasteners in the 

tension ties, shear webs, and frames at 

body stations 1120 through 1220, and 

related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. This proposed AD 

results from new reports of severed 

tension ties, as well as numerous reports 

of cracked tension ties, broken fasteners, 

and cracks in the frame, shear web, and 

shear ties adjacent to tension ties for the 

upper deck. We are proposing this AD 

to detect and correct cracking of the 

tension ties, shear webs, and frames of 

the upper deck, which could result in 

rapid decompression of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 27, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207, for the service 

information identified in this proposed 

AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan 

Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 917–6437; 

fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Include the 

docket number ‘‘FAA–2005–22383; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–102–

AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. 

We specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the 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 DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

We previously issued AD 2005–05–

08, amendment 39–13997 (70 FR 12113, 

March 11, 2005). That AD applies to 

certain Boeing Model 747–100B SUD, 

–300, –400, and –400D series airplanes. 

That AD requires a one-time inspection 

for discrepancies of the fuselage frame 

to tension tie joints at body stations (BS) 

1120 through 1220, and to determine if 

steel splice plates are installed on the 

fuselage frames, and related 

investigative and corrective actions. 

That AD was prompted by reports of 

severed tension ties found at the 

fuselage frame joints at BS 1120 and 

1140. These severed tension ties 

resulted from fatigue cracking due to an 

incorrect configuration (installation of 

aluminum splice plates instead of steel 

splice plates during the manufacturing 

process). 

Since we issued AD 2005–05–08, we 

have received additional reports of 

severed tension ties. While these 

severed tension ties were also attributed 

to fatigue, the tension ties in these cases 

were properly configured according to 

the applicable Boeing Engineering 

Drawings. We have also received 

numerous reports of fatigue cracking of 

tension ties, as well as broken fasteners 

and cracks in the frame and shear ties 

adjacent to tension ties for the upper 

deck between BS 1120 and 1220. Also, 

we have received reports of cracking in 

the shear web between the BS 1120 and 

BS 1140 tension ties. Cracking of the 

tension ties, shear webs, and frames of 

the upper deck; if not corrected; could 

result in rapid decompression of the 

airplane. 

Certain Boeing 747–200B series 

airplanes have been modified under a 

certain Boeing-owned supplemental 

type certificate to include a stretched 

upper deck (SUD). These airplanes