54486 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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. 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2005–22437; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–082–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) must receive comments on this AD 

action by October 31, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747–

400, 747–400D, and 747–400F series 

airplanes, certificated in any category; as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2505, dated March 17, 2005. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

skin corrosion on four Boeing Model 747 

series airplanes that were delivered between 

1995 and 1999. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct corrosion, which can 

penetrate the thickness of the skin and cause 

cracking, and result in rapid decompression 

of the airplane. 

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. 

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective 

Actions 

(f) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for 

damage (degraded finish; missing, lifted, 

peeling, or blistering paint; or signs of 

corrosion) of the interior skin in the forward 

and aft cargo compartments. Do any 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. Except as required by paragraphs (g) 

and (h) of this AD, do all actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2505, dated March 17, 2005. Repeat 

the inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 48 months until accomplishing task 

number C53–125–01 of Boeing Document 

Number D6–36022, ‘‘Aging Airplane 

Corrosion Prevention and Control Program—

Model 747,’’ Revision A, dated July 28, 1989, 

or until accomplishing tasks S53–520 and 

S53–550 of Boeing Document Number 

D621U400–MRB, ‘‘B747–400 Maintenance 

Review Board Report,’’ Revision E, dated 

May 2003. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

Damage that Exceeds Structural Repair 

Manual Limits 

(g) If any corrosion damage that exceeds 

the limits specified in the structural repair 

manual is found during any action required 

by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2505, dated March 17, 2005 

specifies to contact Boeing for repair 

instructions: Before further flight, repair the 

damage using a method approved in 

accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD. 

No Reporting Requirement 

(h) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2505, dated March 17, 2005, 

specifies to submit to the manufacturer a 

report of the inspection program and details 

of any corrosion damage and peeling paint 

primer, this AD does not include those 

actions. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(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) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 8, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18319 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19566; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–72–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A300 B2 and A300 B4 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: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier 

NPRM for an airworthiness directive 

(AD) that applies to certain Airbus 

airplanes as listed above. The original 

NPRM would have required repetitively 

inspecting for cracking in the web of 

nose rib 7 of the inner flap on the wings, 

and performing related investigative/ 

corrective actions if necessary. The 

original NPRM was prompted by reports 

of cracking in the web of nose rib 7 of 

the inner flap. This action revises the 

original NPRM by adding additional 

inspections for cracking in the web of 

nose rib 7 of the inner flap on the wings, 

and revising compliance times for 

certain airplanes. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct cracking in the web of nose rib 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54487 

7, which could result in rupture of the 

attachment fitting between the inner 

flap and flap track no. 2, and 

consequent reduced structural integrity 

of the flap. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by October 11, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

supplemental NPRM. 

• 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. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus, 1 

Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 

Blagnac Cedex, France. 

You can examine the contents of this 

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., room PL–401, on the plaza level of 

the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. 

This docket number is FAA–2004–

19566; the directorate identifier for this 

docket is 2004-NM–72–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2797; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this supplemental NPRM. 

Send your comments to an address 

listed under ADDRESSES. Include 

‘‘Docket No. FAA–2004–19566; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–72–AD’’

at the beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

this supplemental NPRM. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

supplemental NPRM in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments submitted, 

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 supplemental NPRM. Using the 

search function of our docket 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 can review the DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (65 FR 19477–78), or you can visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You can 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 in the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in ADDRESSES. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System (DMS) receives 

them. 

Discussion 

We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) for an airworthiness directive 

(AD) (the ‘‘original NPRM’’). The 

original NPRM applies to all Airbus 

Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 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). The original NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65097). The 

original NPRM proposed to require 

repetitively inspecting for cracking in 

the web of nose rib 7 of the inner flap 

on the wings, and performing related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. 

Since the original NPRM was issued, 

the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation 

Civile (DGAC), which is the 

airworthiness authority for France, has 

notified us of additional crack findings 

in the rib flange at the junction flange 

with the flap track. 

New Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins 

A300–57–0240 (for Model A300 B2 and 

B4 series airplanes) and A300–57–6095 

(for Model A300–600 series airplanes), 

both Revision 01, both dated December 

2, 2004. (The original NPRM refers to 

the original issues of those service 

bulletins, both including Appendix 01, 

and both dated April 7, 2003), as the 

acceptable sources of service 

information for the proposed actions.) 

These service bulletins describe 

procedures for performing the following 

repetitive inspections: 

• Using a borescope or endoscope to 

detect cracking in the vertical stiffeners, 

and the horizontal flanges between the 

stiffeners, of nose rib 7. 

• Using an eddy current method to 

detect cracking in the horizontal flanges 

of the attachment lug root of nose rib 7. 

If cracking is found that is within 

certain limits, the service bulletins 

specify replacing nose rib 7 with a new, 

reinforced rib in accordance with 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0242 

or A300–57–6097, both dated December 

18, 2003, as applicable. If cracking is 

found that is outside the limits, the 

service bulletins specify contacting 

Airbus. The procedures in Airbus 

Service Bulletins A300–57–0242 and 

A300–57–6097 include related 

investigative actions of performing highfrequency eddy current inspections or 

detailed visual inspections, as 

applicable, to detect cracking in fastener 

holes and in the upper radii of the skin 

flanges of the ribs and front spar. If any 

cracking is found during these 

inspections, Airbus Service Bulletins 

A300–57–0242 and A300–57–6097 

specify contacting Airbus. 

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–2005–022, 

dated February 2, 2005, to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of these 

airplanes in France. 

Comments 

We have considered the following 

comments on the original NPRM. 

Request To Revise Estimated Costs of 

Compliance 

One commenter requests that we 

increase, from 2 work hours to 5 work 

hours, our estimate of the time needed 

to perform the proposed inspection. The 

commenter states that this estimate is 

realistic based on its experience, and is 

also consistent with the estimate 

specified in Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6095. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter’s request. We note that the 

5-work-hour estimate specified in the 

original issue of Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–57–6095 includes time for getting 

access and closing up. The cost analysis 

54488 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

in AD rulemaking actions, however, 

typically does not include incidental 

costs such as the time required to gain 

access and close up, time necessary for 

planning, or time necessitated by other 

administrative actions. Those incidental 

costs, which may vary significantly 

among operators, are almost impossible 

to calculate. We note, though, that the 

estimated number of work hours for the 

inspections (not including time for 

gaining access and closing up) has been 

increased to 3 work hours in Revision 

01 of Airbus Service Bulletins A300–

57–0240 and A300–57–6095. We have 

revised the cost estimate in this 

supplemental NPRM accordingly. 

The same commenter also requests 

that we revise the estimated costs of 

compliance to include the estimated 

cost of replacing the nose rib. The 

commenter states that its experience 

shows that the likelihood of crack 

findings is high. The commenter also 

states that it has found that 65 work 

hours are necessary for replacing the rib, 

and that the replacement necessitates 

approximately 3 days’ out-of-service 

time. The commenter states that adding 

this information would more accurately 

reflect the economic burden imposed by 

this rule. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request to include an estimate of the 

time needed for replacing the nose rib. 

The economic analysis of an AD is 

limited to the cost of actions that are 

actually required. The economic 

analysis does not consider the costs of 

conditional actions, such as an action 

taken to address a crack found during a 

required inspection (‘‘repair, if 

necessary’’). Such conditional repairs 

would be required—regardless of AD 

direction—to correct an unsafe 

condition identified in an airplane and 

to ensure that the airplane is operated 

in an airworthy condition, as required 

by the Federal Aviation Regulations. We 

have not changed the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

We also do not agree with the 

commenter’s request to include the outof-service time that may result from 

replacing of the nose rib. Normally, 

compliance with the AD will not 

necessitate any additional out-of-service 

time beyond that of a regularly 

scheduled maintenance hold. Even if 

additional out-of-service time is 

necessary for some airplanes in some 

cases, we do not have sufficient 

information to evaluate the number of 

airplanes that may be so affected or the 

amount of additional down time that 

may be required. Therefore, attempting 

to estimate such costs would not be 

beneficial. We have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Allow Flight With Cracks 

One commenter requests that we 

revise the original NPRM to permit 

limited flight with a crack of a certain 

length, as allowed by the DGAC in the 

parallel French airworthiness directive 

and by Airbus in the referenced service 

bulletins. The commenter states that the 

approach taken by the DGAC and 

Airbus to allow limited flight with 

cracks is adequately conservative. The 

commenter’s experience shows that a 

crack will remain contained in the 

vertical stiffeners and will not result in 

any distress or signs of sudden fracture 

if flights are continued for a limited 

time. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request. The original NPRM specified 

that the proposed AD would not permit 

further flight if any crack is detected in 

nose rib 7 due to the safety implications 

and consequences associated with such 

cracking. This proposed requirement is 

in line with FAA policy. We would 

consider altering this policy only in rare 

cases of unusual need or hardship, 

which the commenter did not 

demonstrate. We have not changed the 

requirement in this supplemental 

NPRM. 

The same commenter also infers that, 

because the original NPRM does not 

contain information on ferry flights, 

ferry flights are not allowed. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

inference that ferry flights would not be 

allowed. On July 10, 2002, the FAA 

issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 

(67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which 

governs the FAA’s airworthiness 

directives system. The regulation now 

includes material that relates to special 

flight permits (e.g., ferry flights), as well 

as altered products and alternative 

methods of compliance (AMOCs). Since 

this information is now included in 14 

CFR part 39, information on special 

flight permits is not included in each 

individual AD unless there are 

limitations on special flight permits for 

an individual AD. 

Explanation of Change to Applicability 

We have revised the applicability of 

this supplemental NPRM to identify 

model designations as published in the 

most recent type certificate data sheet 

for the affected models. 

FAA’s Determination and Proposed 

Requirements of the Supplemental 

NPRM 

Certain changes discussed above 

expand the scope of the original NPRM; 

therefore, we have determined that it is 

necessary to reopen the comment period 

to provide additional opportunity for 

public comment on this supplemental 

NPRM. 

Differences Among the Supplemental 

NPRM, French Airworthiness Directive, 

and New Relevant Service Information 

For airplanes on which Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–0242 or 

A300–57–6097 has not been 

accomplished, French airworthiness 

directive F–2005–022 specifies a 

compliance time for the initial 

inspection of the later of 5,000 total 

flight cycles, or 1,000 flight cycles after 

the effective date of the French 

airworthiness directive. This 

supplemental NPRM would base the 

compliance time for the initial 

inspection of these airplanes on the total 

number of flight cycles accumulated as 

of the effective date of the AD: 

• For airplanes with 18,599 or fewer 

total flight cycles as of the effective date 

of the AD: the initial inspection would 

be required before the accumulation of 

5,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 

flight cycles after the effective date of 

the AD, whichever is later. 

• For airplanes with 18,600 or more 

total flight cycles as of the effective date 

of this AD: the initial inspection would 

be required within 500 flight cycles after 

the effective date of the AD. 

The compliance time in this 

supplemental NPRM is similar to the 

one proposed in the original NPRM, 

which was consistent with the 

compliance time specified in French 

airworthiness directive 2003–410, dated 

October 29, 2003 (the parallel French 

airworthiness directive referenced in the 

original NPRM, which was superseded 

by French airworthiness directive F–

2005–022, described previously). 

However, the more restrictive grace 

period of 500 flight cycles for airplanes 

with 18,600 total flight cycles or more 

was not included in French 

airworthiness directive F–2005–022. We 

have coordinated this issue with the 

DGAC and Airbus, and they have 

informed us that the more restrictive 

grace period was not included in French 

airworthiness directive F–2005–022 

because the affected airplanes were 

previously inspected in accordance with 

French airworthiness directive 2003–

410. The DGAC and Airbus agree with 

our decision to use a compliance time 

similar to that specified in French 

airworthiness directive 2003–410. 

Also, the service information specifies 

that you may contact the manufacturer 

for instructions on how to repair certain 

conditions, but this supplemental 

NPRM would require you to repair those 

conditions using a method that we or 

the DGAC (or its delegated agent) 

approve. In light of the type of repair 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54489 

that would be required to address the 

unsafe condition, and consistent with 

existing bilateral airworthiness 

agreements, we have determined that, 

for this proposed AD, a repair that we 

or the DGAC approve would be 

acceptable for compliance with this 

proposed AD. 

Also, the service information and the 

French airworthiness directive specify 

reporting inspection findings to Airbus. 

This supplemental NPRM would not 

require that action. 

Clarification of Inspection Terminology 

In this proposed AD, the ‘‘detailed 

visual inspection’’ specified in Airbus 

Service Bulletins A300–57–0242 and 

A300–57–6097 is referred to as a 

‘‘detailed inspection.’’ We have 

included the definition for a detailed 

inspection in a note in this 

supplemental NPRM. 

Interim Action 

We consider this proposed AD 

interim action. The manufacturer is 

currently developing a modification that 

will address the unsafe condition 

identified in this AD. Once this 

modification is developed, approved, 

and available, we may consider 

additional rulemaking. 

Costs of Compliance 

This supplemental NPRM would 

affect about 143 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. The proposed inspections 

would take about 3 work hours per 

airplane, per inspection cycle, at an 

average labor rate of $65 per work hour. 

Based on these figures, the estimated 

cost of this supplemental NPRM on U.S. 

operators is $27,885, or $195 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 supplemental NPRM. 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2004–19566; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–72–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

must receive comments on this AD action by 

October 11, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model 

A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, B2–203, B4–

2C, B4–103, B4–203, B4–601, B4–603, B4–

605R, B4–620, B4–622, B4–622R, F4–605R, 

F4–622R, and C4–605R Variant F airplanes; 

certificated in any category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracking in the web of nose rib 7 of the inner 

flap. We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct cracking in the web of nose rib 7, 

which could result in rupture of the 

attachment fitting between the inner flap and 

flap track no. 2, and consequent reduced 

structural integrity of the flap. 

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) Do a detailed inspection, using a 

borescope or endoscope, for cracking of the 

vertical stiffeners, and of the horizontal 

flanges between the stiffeners, of nose rib 7 

of the inner flap of the left- and right-hand 

wings; and do an eddy current inspection to 

detect cracking in the horizontal flanges of 

the attachment lug root of nose rib 7 of the 

inner flap of the left- and right-hand wings; 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–

57–0240 or A300–57–6095, both Revision 01, 

both dated December 2, 2004, as applicable. 

Do the initial inspections at the applicable 

compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(1) 

or (f)(2) of this AD. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

(1) For airplanes on which nose rib 7 has 

not been replaced in accordance with Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–0242 or A300–57–

6097, both dated December 18, 2003: Do the 

initial inspections at the applicable time 

specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of 

this AD. 

(i) For airplanes with 18,599 or fewer total 

flight cycles as of the effective date of this 

AD: Prior to the accumulation of 5,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is later. 

(ii) For airplanes with 18,600 or more total 

flight cycles as of the effective date of this 

AD: Within 500 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(2) For airplanes on which nose rib 7 has 

been replaced in accordance with Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–57–0242 or A300–57–

6097, both dated December 18, 2003: Do the 

initial inspection within 5,000 flight cycles 

after accomplishing the replacement, or 

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever is later. 

Repetitive Inspections 

(g) If no cracking is found during the 

inspection required by paragraph (f) of this 

AD: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to 

exceed 1,000 flight cycles. 

54490 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Related Investigative/Corrective Actions 

(h) If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (f) or (g) of 

this AD: Before further flight, replace nose rib 

7 with a new, reinforced rib and do all 

related investigative actions in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0242 or 

A300–57–6097, both dated December 18, 

2003, as applicable, except as provided by 

paragraph (i) of this AD. Then, within 5,000 

flight cycles after doing the replacement, do 

the inspection in paragraph (f) of this AD, 

and perform repetitive inspections or related 

investigative/corrective actions as required 

by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, as 

applicable. 

(i) If any cracking is found for which the 

service bulletin specifies to contact Airbus: 

Before further flight, repair per a method 

approved by either the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Direction 

Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile (or its delegated 

agent). 

No Reporting Required 

(j) Airbus Service Bulletins A300–57–0240 

and A300–57–6095, both Revision 01, both 

dated December 2, 2004, specify to submit 

certain information to the manufacturer, but 

this AD does not include that requirement. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(k) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(l) French airworthiness directive F–2005–

022, dated February 2, 2005, also addresses 

the subject of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 8, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18312 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 906 

[CO–031–FOR] 

Colorado Abandoned Mine Land 

Reclamation Plan 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and 

extension of public comment period and 

opportunity for public hearing on 

proposed amendment. 

SUMMARY: We are announcing receipt of 

revisions pertaining to a previously 

proposed amendment to the Colorado 

abandoned mine land reclamation 

(AMLR) plan (hereinafter, the ‘‘Colorado 

plan’’) under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). Colorado proposes 

revisions about: Project selection 

criteria; selection of project alternatives; 

requirements for authorization to 

proceed; evaluation of project benefits; 

incorporation of the ‘‘Common Rule’’ in 

the procedures for financial 

management and accounting; 

interaction with the Colorado State 

Forest Service; and minor editorial 

revisions. Colorado intends to revise its 

plan to meet the requirements of the 

corresponding Federal regulations, to 

provide additional safeguards, and to 

clarify ambiguities. 

DATES: Comments on this amendment 

must be received on or before 4 p.m., 

m.d.t., on October 17, 2005 to ensure 

our consideration. If requested, we will 

hold a public hearing on the 

amendment on October 11, 2005. We 

will accept requests to speak until 4 

p.m., m.d.t., on September 30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘CO–031–FOR,’’ by any of 

the following methods: 

E-mail: rpair@osmre.gov. Include 

‘‘CO–031–FOR’’ in the subject line of 

the message. 

Mail: James Fulton, Chief, Denver 

Field Division, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, P.O. Box 

No. 46667, Denver, CO 80201–6667. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: James Fulton, 

Chief, Denver Field Division, Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, 1999 Broadway, Suite 

3320, Denver, CO 80202–5733, 303–

844–1400 x1424. 

Fax: 303–844–1545. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and be 

identified by ‘‘CO–031–FOR’’. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: You may review the docket 

(administrative record) for this plan 

amendment at the addresses listed 

below during normal business hours, 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

holidays. The docket will contain copies 

of the Colorado plan, this amendment, 

a listing of any scheduled public 

hearings, and all written comments 

received in response to this document. 

You may receive one free copy of the 

amendment by contacting Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement’s (OSM) Denver Field 

Division. In addition, you may review a 

copy of the amendment during regular 

business hours at the following 

locations: 

James Fulton, Chief, Denver Field 

Division, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1999 

Broadway, Suite 3320, Denver, CO 

80202. 303–844–1400 x1424. 

Ms. Loretta Pineda, Program 

Supervisor, Colorado Inactive Mine 

Reclamation Program, Division of 

Minerals and Geology, Colorado 

Department of Natural Resources, 1313 

Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, CO 

80203. Telephone: 303–866–3567. 

E-mail address: 

loretta.pineda@state.co.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Fulton, Telephone: 303–844–1400 

x1424, E-mail address: 

jfulton@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Colorado Plan 

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment 

III. Public Comment Procedures 

IV. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Colorado Plan 

The Abandoned Mine Land 

Reclamation Program was established 

by Title IV of the Act, (30 U.S.C. 1201 

et seq.) in response to concerns over 

extensive environmental damage caused 

by past coal mining activities. The 

program is funded by a reclamation fee 

collected on each ton of coal that is 

produced. The money collected is used 

to finance the reclamation of abandoned 

coal mines and for other authorized 

activities. Section 405 of the Act allows 

States and Indian tribes to assume 

exclusive responsibility for reclamation 

activity within the State or on Indian 

lands if they develop and submit to the 

Secretary of the Interior for approval, a 

program (often referred to as a plan) for 

the reclamation of abandoned coal 

mines. On June 11, 1982, the Secretary 

of the Interior approved the Colorado 

plan. You can find general background 

information on the Colorado plan, 

including the Secretary’s findings and 

the disposition of comments, in the June 

11, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 

25332). You can also find later actions 

concerning Colorado’s plan and plan 

amendments at 30 CFR 906.25. 

II. Description of the Proposed 

Amendment 

By letter dated October 29, 1996, 

Colorado sent to us a proposed