54612 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

shall be made for a term of at least 

twenty (20) years. In any case, samples 

must be stored under agreements that 

would make them available to the Office 

during the enforceable life of the 

certificate for which the deposit was 

made. 

(g) Viability of deposit. A deposit of 

biological material that is capable of 

self-replication either directly or 

indirectly must be viable at the time of 

deposit and during the term of deposit. 

Viability may be tested by the 

depository periodically. The test must 

conclude only that the deposited 

material is capable of reproduction. No 

evidence necessarily is required 

regarding the ability of the deposited 

material to perform any function 

described in the application. If a 

viability test indicates that the deposit 

is not viable upon receipt or that the 

quantity of material is insufficient, the 

examiner shall proceed as if no deposit 

was made. The examiner will accept the 

conclusion set forth in a viability 

statement issued by a depository 

recognized under paragraph 97.7(c). 

(h) Furnishing of samples. A deposit 

must be made under conditions that 

assure that: 

(1) Public access to the deposit will 

not be available during pendency of the 

application or during the term of 

protection, and 

(2) All restrictions on the availability 

to the public of the deposited material 

will be irrevocably removed upon the 

abandonment, cancellation, expiration, 

or withdrawal of the certificate. 

(i) Examination procedures. The 

examiner shall determine, prior to 

issuance of the certificate, in each 

application if a voucher sample deposit 

actually made is acceptable for plant 

variety protection purposes. 

■ 4. Section 97.175 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 97.175 Fees and charges. 

The following fees and charges apply 

to the services and actions specified 

below: 

(a) Filing the application and 

notifying the public of filing—$518.00. 

(b) Search or examination—$3,864.00. 

(c) Submission of new application 

data, after notice of allowance, prior to 

issuance of certificate—$432.00. 

(d) Allowance and issuance of 

certificate and notifying public of 

issuance—$768.00. 

(e) Revive an abandoned 

application—$518.00. 

(f) Reproduction of records, drawings, 

certificates, exhibits, or printed material 

(cost per page of material)—$1.80. 

(g) Authentication (each page)—$1.80. 

(h) Correcting or re-issuance of a 

certificate—$518.00. 

(i) Recording an assignment, any 

revision of an assignment, or 

withdrawal or revocation of an 

assignment (per certificate or 

application)—$41.00. 

(j) Copies of 8 x 10 photographs in 

color—$41.00. 

(k) Additional fee for 

reconsideration—$518.00. 

(l) Additional fee for late payment—

$41.00. 

(m) Fee for handling replenishment 

seed sample (applicable only for 

certificates issued after June 20, 2005)—

$38.00. 

(n) Additional fee for late 

replenishment of seed—$41.00. 

(o) Filing a petition for protest 

proceeding—$4,118.00. 

(p) Appeal to Secretary (refundable if 

appeal overturns the Commissioner’s 

decision)—$4,942.00. 

(q) Granting of extensions for 

responding to a request—$89.00. 

(r) Field inspections by a 

representative of the Plant Variety 

Protection Office, made at the request of 

the applicant, shall be reimbursable in 

full (including travel, per diem or 

subsistence, and salary) in accordance 

with Standardized Government Travel 

Regulation. 

(s) Any other service not covered 

above will be charged for at rates 

prescribed by the Commissioner, but in 

no event shall they exceed $107.00 per 

employee-hour. Charges also will be 

made for materials, space, and 

administrative costs. 

Dated: September 13, 2005. 

Kenneth C. Clayton, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18511 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20364; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–186–AD; Amendment 

39–14274; AD 2005–19–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Boeing Model 747 airplanes. This AD 

requires repetitive inspections of the 

dual side braces (DSBs), underwing 

midspar fittings, and associated parts; 

other specified actions; and corrective 

actions if necessary. This AD also 

provides an optional terminating action 

for the inspections and other specified 

actions. This AD is prompted by reports 

of corroded, migrated, and rotated 

bearings for the DSBs in the inboard and 

outboard struts, a report of a fractured 

retainer for the eccentric bushing for 

one of the side links of a DSB, and 

reports of wear and damage to the 

underwing midspar fitting on the 

outboard strut. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent the loss of a DSB or 

underwing midspar fitting load path, 

which could result in the transfer of 

loads and motion to other areas of a 

strut, and possible separation of a strut 

and engine from the airplane during 

flight. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

October 21, 2005. 

The incorporation by reference of a 

certain publication listed in the AD is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of October 21, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

Docket: The AD docket contains the 

proposed AD, comments, and any final 

disposition. 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 of the Nassif Building at 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

400 Seventh Street SW., room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. This docket number is 

FAA–2005–20364; the directorate 

identifier for this docket is 2004–NM–

186–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: The FAA 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with 

an AD for certain Boeing Model 747 

airplanes. That action, published in the 

Federal Register on February 14, 2005 

(70 FR 7446), proposed to require 

repetitive inspections of the dual side 

braces (DSBs), underwing midspar 

fittings, and associated parts; other 

specified actions; and corrective actions 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54613 

if necessary. That action also provides 

an optional terminating action for the 

inspections and other specified actions. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments that have 

been submitted on the proposed AD. 

Support for the Proposed AD 

One commenter concurs with the 

content of the proposed AD. 

Requests to Refer to Revised Service 

Bulletin and Give Credit for Prior Issue 

One commenter asks that the 

proposed AD reference Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–54A2218, Revision 1, 

dated February 24, 2005. Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–54A2218, dated 

June 17, 2004, was referenced in the 

proposed AD as the appropriate source 

of service information for accomplishing 

the specified actions. The commenter 

states that Revision 1 specifies that no 

more work is necessary on airplanes 

changed per the original issue of the 

service bulletin. The commenter also 

asks that we give credit for actions done 

in accordance with the original issue of 

the service bulletin. The commenter 

notes that this will prevent additional 

work for the Civil Aviation Authorities 

that would necessitate approving 

Revision 1 as an alternative method of 

compliance. The commenter adds that 

the revised information specified in 

Revision 1 may be helpful for operators 

in accomplishing the actions required 

by the proposed AD. A second 

commenter asks that credit be given for 

the initial inspection done in 

accordance with the original issue of the 

service bulletin. 

We agree with the commenters. We 

have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–54A2218, Revision 1, dated 

February 24, 2005. The instructions in 

Revision 1 are essentially the same as 

those in the original issue of the service 

bulletin. Accordingly, we have revised 

this AD to refer to Revision 1 of the 

service bulletin in the applicability 

section and as the applicable source of 

service information for accomplishing 

the actions required by this AD. We 

have also added a new paragraph (i) 

(and re-identified subsequent 

paragraphs accordingly) to give credit 

for actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance 

with the original issue of the service 

bulletin. 

Requests to Remove/Delay Check for an 

Insufficient Gap/Delay Corrective 

Actions 

One commenter questions why the 

check for an insufficient gap between 

the underwing midspar fitting and the 

strut midspar fitting is necessary if no 

discrepancies are found during the 

proposed inspections of the dual side 

brace (DSB) bearings. The commenter 

states that it was both surprising and 

disappointing to learn of reported 

interference between the underwing 

midspar fitting and the adjacent strut 

midspar fitting. The commenter states 

that, while recognizing that corrective 

actions should be accomplished only if 

conditions warrant such actions, any 

future adopted rule should consider the 

inclusion of options that will enable 

corrective actions to occur during 

planned D-check visits to minimize 

unplanned out-of-service situations. The 

commenter notes that the proposed AD 

includes a check for an insufficient gap 

between those fittings within 24 

months. The commenter concludes that 

the check for an insufficient gap 

between those fittings should only be 

required if discrepancies are found 

during the inspection of the DSB 

bearings per Parts 1 and 2 of the 

referenced service bulletin. 

A second commenter asks that 

paragraph (f) of the proposed AD be 

changed to postpone the requirement for 

accomplishing the corrective actions per 

Parts 3, 5, and 6 of the referenced 

service bulletin, if an insufficient gap is 

found per Part 4. The commenter states 

that those actions can be performed at 

its first FD-check, and until the actions 

are performed, the spring beam/wing 

fitting joint and DSB fitting can be 

inspected per the baseline inspection 

task specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–54A2182, Revision 1, dated January 

8, 2004, but at a 3A interval. That 

service bulletin describes procedures for 

certain baseline inspections of the strutto-wing attachment structure. The 

commenter adds that it has performed 

wing pylon modifications on more than 

50 airplanes per Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletins 747–54A2156 (referenced in 

AD 95–13–06, amendment 39–9286, as 

the appropriate source of service 

information for modification of the 

nacelle strut and wing) and 747–

54A2158 (referenced in AD 95–13–07, 

amendment 39–9287, as the appropriate 

source of service information for 

modification of the nacelle strut and 

wing), concurrently with Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–57–2246, Revision 5, dated 

July 17, 1997. Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–57–2246 describes procedures for 

modification of the nacelle strut 

attachment fittings. The commenter 

notes that Service Bulletin 747–57–2246 

also describes procedures for checking 

the surface wear on the underwing 

fittings of the outboard pylon midspar 

that were caused by interference with 

the spring beam flanged bushings, and 

removal of any damage by spotfacing. 

The commenter states that only four of 

its airplanes required the spotfaces to be 

larger than what was allowed in the 

service bulletin, and the larger spotfaces 

were approved by the FAA. The 

commenter adds that cracks were never 

found in the wear/spotface area; 

however, several of the 50 airplanes 

must have had the insufficient gap 

condition for many years. The 

commenter concludes that if additional 

surface damage occurs on the 

underwing midspar fittings, it would be 

detected in a timely manner when 

performing the proposed inspections. 

A third commenter, the airplane 

manufacturer, states that it is concerned 

with the comments regarding a no-gap 

condition that may exist during 

inspection, and the actions specified in 

paragraph (f) of the proposed AD per 

Parts 4, 5, and 6 of the referenced 

service bulletin. The commenter adds 

that a deferral for these actions may be 

justified for a no-gap condition, 

provided that no damage is found 

during the Part 4 inspection. The 

commenter’s position is based on fleet 

history data with similar conditions, as 

provided by other commenters. The 

commenter may consider a change to 

the referenced service bulletin upon a 

recommended course of action, and will 

advise us accordingly. The commenter 

adds that we may choose to approve an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) on a case-by-case basis, at our 

discretion. 

We acknowledge the new information 

provided by the commenters. The 

airplane manufacturer has informed us 

that it is planning to revise the service 

bulletin to reflect this new information 

by the end of 2005. Delaying this action 

until after the release and approval of 

the manufacturer’s planned service 

bulletin is not warranted. We have 

determined that the inspections must be 

conducted to ensure continued 

operational safety. When a new revision 

of the service bulletin has been 

developed, we will review that revision 

and consider approving it as an 

alternative method of compliance with 

the requirements of this AD. In light of 

this, we have determined that all the 

actions required by this AD are 

appropriate and warranted. No change 

is made to the AD in this regard. 

Additionally, insufficient technical 

justification was provided by the 

54614 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

commenters to justify delaying issuance 

of the AD; however, if sufficient 

technical justification is provided, we 

may approve an AMOC, in accordance 

with paragraph (j)(1) of the AD. 

Requests to Change Costs of 

Compliance Section/Extend Compliance 

Time 

One commenter states that we should 

revise the Costs of Compliance section 

that is specified in the preamble of the 

proposed AD. The language in that 

section states, ‘‘The following table 

provides the estimated costs for U.S. 

operators to comply with this proposed 

AD.’’ The commenter notes that the 

table provides the cost impact of the 

required inspections, but offers no 

estimate of the cost impact should an 

inspection detect the specific 

discrepancy that is the basis for the 

proposal. The commenter states that it 

is well aware that the FAA’s policy for 

estimating the impact of proposed ADs 

does not include publishing the impact 

of aircraft re-routing, preparation, 

access, correction of discrepancies 

found, aircraft close-up, or return-toflight tests and procedures, often 

categorizing them as ‘‘incidental’’

impacts. The commenter does not 

support that policy. The commenter 

states that, in this particular proposal, 

the impact of the man hours necessary 

for accomplishing the corrective action 

alone can be an order-of-magnitude 

greater than the per airplane cost 

published for comment. The commenter 

asks us to consider adopting a policy for 

proposed ADs that consistently states 

the per airplane impact of the 

prescribed corrective action in cases 

where that action is found necessary. 

A second commenter states that it will 

be subjected to a huge economic impact 

when accomplishing the actions 

specified in the proposed AD, per the 

referenced service bulletin, due to the 

mandatory status of the follow-up 

inspections and modification after an 

insufficient gap is found. The 

commenter adds that the follow-up 

inspections require engine and pylon 

removal. The commenter lists, and we 

respond to, the following factors that 

will make the economic impact of the 

proposed AD even greater: 

1. Experience with the modification 

specified in Part 3 of the referenced 

service bulletin shows that one of the 

DSB underwing fitting bolts may 

interfere with the modification tool. If a 

bolt interferes, it will have to be 

removed. Removal of a bolt requires 

removal of the WS 1140 rib to gain 

access to the DSB underwing fitting bolt 

for modification, which is a very timeconsuming job. 

Since we issued the proposed AD, 

this condition has not been reported by 

any other operators. In addition, 

accomplishing the modification is only 

necessary if damage or cracking is 

found, thus making it an on-condition 

action and not part of the inspections 

required by the AD. 

2. The tooling kit specified in the 

referenced service bulletin limits the 

operator to modifying only one fitting 

on one pylon at a time, and not two or 

more pylons simultaneously. This 

results in additional downtime when 

more than one pylon must be modified. 

As we stated previously, 

accomplishing the modification is an 

on-condition action. Obtaining the 

tooling kits necessary for accomplishing 

the modification should be addressed by 

operators on a case-by-case basis. 

3. The airplane manufacturer does not 

seem ready to support so many 

modifications with tooling and material 

kits. Currently, the airplane 

manufacturer does not have enough 

tooling and material kits available to 

support all operators in the 24-month 

timeframe allowed for the modification. 

We have no way of estimating how 

many operators will be accomplishing 

the on-condition modifications. The 

airplane manufacturer has confirmed 

that it will have the necessary tooling 

and material kits available to complete 

the on-condition actions required by the 

AD. 

A third commenter states that the 

maintenance and economic impact of 

the proposed AD could be significantly 

greater than that specified in the ‘‘Costs 

of Compliance’’ section. The commenter 

notes that a review of labor estimates in 

the referenced service bulletin revealed 

that over 500 labor hours per airplane 

may be required to perform the 

necessary corrective actions if problems 

exist at all four engine strut to wing 

attachment locations. The commenter 

adds that this would raise the labor cost 

for compliance to over $30K per 

airplane; additionally, material costs 

total over $21K per airplane, plus 

tooling rental charges in excess of $1K 

per day are expected. 

We do not agree with the commenters 

that request changing the work hours in 

this AD, because the AD reflects only 

the direct costs of the specific required 

actions based on the best data available 

from the manufacturer. We recognize 

that operators may incur incidental 

costs (such as the time for planning and 

associated administrative actions) in 

addition to the direct costs. The cost 

analysis in ADs, however, typically does 

not include incidental costs. 

The 24-month compliance time for 

the initial inspection required by this 

AD should allow ample time for the 

majority of affected operators to do the 

required actions at the same time as 

scheduled major airplane inspection 

and maintenance activities, which 

would reduce the additional time and 

costs associated with special 

scheduling. We note that the 24-month 

compliance time is consistent with the 

compliance time specified in the 

referenced service bulletin. However, 

operators may submit a request for 

approval of an AMOC, as specified in 

paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. The request 

must include data substantiating that an 

acceptable level of safety would be 

maintained by extending the 

compliance time. No change is made to 

the AD in this regard. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

that have been submitted, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

These changes will neither increase the 

economic burden on any operator nor 

increase the scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 1,091 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work 

hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Parts Cost per 

airplane 

Number 

of U.S.- 

registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Part 1 Inspections, per inspection 

cycle.

8 $65 None ................. $520 229 $119,080, per inspection 

cycle. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54615 

ESTIMATED COSTS—Continued 

Action Work 

hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Parts Cost per 

airplane 

Number 

of U.S.- 

registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Part 2 Inspections, per inspection 

cycle.

48 65 None ................. 3,120 229 714,480, per inspection 

cycle. 

Part 4 Inspections, per inspection 

cycle.

4 65 None ................. 260 229 59,540, per inspection 

cycle. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in subtitle VII, 

part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

(3) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for 

a location to examine the regulatory 

evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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): 

2005–19–09 Boeing: Amendment 39–14274. 

Docket No. FAA–2005–20364; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–186–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective October 21, 

2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747–

100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 

747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 

747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes; certificated in any category; 

as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24, 

2005. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

corroded, migrated, and rotated bearings for 

the dual side braces (DSB) in the inboard and 

outboard struts, a report of a fractured 

retainer for the eccentric bushing for one of 

the side links of a DSB, and reports of wear 

and damage to the underwing midspar fitting 

on the outboard strut. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent the loss of a DSB or underwing 

midspar fitting load path, which could result 

in the transfer of loads and motion to other 

areas of a strut, and possible separation of a 

strut and engine from the airplane during 

flight. 

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 and Other Specified Actions 

(f) At the times specified in Figure 1 of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–54A2218, 

Revision 1, dated February 24, 2005, except 

as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD: Do 

the various inspections and other specified 

actions in the figure to detect discrepancies 

of the DSBs, underwing midspar fittings, and 

associated parts, by doing all of the actions 

specified in Parts 1, 2, and 4; and the 

applicable corrective actions specified in 

Parts 3, 5, 6, and 7; of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the service bulletin, except as 

provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Repeat 

the inspections and other specified actions 

thereafter at the intervals specified in Figure 

1 of the service bulletin. Accomplishment of 

any terminating action specified in Figure 1 

of the service bulletin terminates the 

inspections and other specified actions for 

the affected strut. 

(g) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24, 

2005, recommends an initial compliance 

threshold of ‘‘within 24 months after the 

original issue date on this service bulletin’’

for Parts 1 and 4 of the service bulletin, and 

of ‘‘within 72 months after the original issue 

date on this service bulletin’’ for Part 2 of the 

service bulletin, this AD requires an initial 

compliance threshold of ‘‘within 24 months 

after the effective date of this AD’’ for Parts 

1 and 4 of the service bulletin and of ‘‘within 

72 months after the effective date of this AD’’

for Part 2 of the service bulletin. 

Corrective Actions 

(h) If any damage or crack is found during 

any inspection or corrective action required 

by this AD, before further flight, repair in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24, 

2005; except, where the service bulletin 

specifies to contact Boeing, before further 

flight, repair according to a method approved 

by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA; or according to data 

meeting the certification basis of the airplane 

approved by an Authorized Representative 

for the Boeing 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. 

Actions Accomplished According to 

Previous Issue of Service Bulletin 

(i) Inspections and other specified and 

corrective actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance with 

54616 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2218, 

dated June 17, 2004, are considered 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding actions specified in paragraph 

(f) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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 

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. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(k) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–54A2218, Revision 1, dated February 24, 

2005, to perform the actions that are required 

by this AD, unless the AD specifies 

otherwise. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves the incorporation by 

reference of this document in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To 

get copies of the service information, contact 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 

3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. To 

view the AD docket, go to the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., 

room PL–401, Nassif Building, Washington, 

DC. To review copies of the service 

information, go to the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 8, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18313 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–21140; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–274–AD; Amendment 

39–14273; AD 2005–19–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–9–14, DC–9–15, 

and DC–9–15F Airplanes; and 

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–20, 

DC–9–30, DC–9–40, and DC–9–50 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

transport category airplanes listed 

above. This AD requires repetitive 

inspections for cracks of the main 

landing gear (MLG) shock strut cylinder, 

and related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. This AD results 

from two reports of a collapsed MLG 

and a report of cracks in two MLG 

cylinders. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct fatigue cracks in the 

shock strut cylinder of the MLG, which 

could result in a collapsed MLG during 

takeoff or landing, and possible reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

October 21, 2005. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of October 21, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street 

SW., Nassif Building, room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024), for service information 

identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 

627–5324; fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the airworthiness 

directive (AD) docket on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility office 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The Docket Management Facility office 

(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building at 

the street address stated in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to all McDonnell Douglas Model 

DC–9–14, DC–9–15, and DC–9–15F 

airplanes; Model DC–9–21 airplanes; 

Model DC–9–31, DC–9–32, DC–9–32 

(VC–9C), DC–9–32F, DC–9–33F, DC–9–

34, DC–9–34F, and DC–9–32F (C–9A, 

C–9B) airplanes; Model DC–9–41 

airplanes; and Model DC–9–51 

airplanes. That NPRM was published in 

the Federal Register on May 9, 2005 (70 

FR 24338). That NPRM proposed to 

require repetitive inspections for cracks 

of the main landing gear (MLG) shock 

strut cylinder, and related investigative 

and corrective actions if necessary. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Request to Refer to Latest Service 

Bulletin Revision 

The commenter, an airplane operator, 

states that the manufacturer is planning 

to revise Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

DC9–32A350, dated December 3, 2004, 

which was cited as the appropriate 

source of service information for the 

action in the NPRM. The commenter 

asks that we revise paragraph (f) to refer 

to the new revision of the service 

bulletin, and that we also give credit for 

the actions done in accordance with the 

original issue of the service bulletin. In 

addition, the commenter requests that 

we address certain references in the 

service bulletin that are incorrect. 

We agree with the commenter. We 

have revised paragraph (f) of the final 

rule to refer to Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin DC9–32A350, Revision 1, dated 

August 3, 2005, as the appropriate 

source of service information. We have 

also added a new paragraph (l) to give 

credit for the actions done in 

accordance with the original issue of the 

service bulletin, and re-identified the 

subsequent paragraph accordingly. 

Revision 1 of the service bulletin does 

not increase the scope of the AD;