65528 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington; or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html.

Note 1: The subject of this AD is addressed 

in French airworthiness directive 2002–

220(B) R1, dated October 15, 2003.

Effective Date 

(d) This amendment becomes effective on 

December 20, 2004.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 1, 2004.

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24933 Filed 11–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2002–NM–97–AD; Amendment 

39–13863; AD 2004–23–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A300 B4–600R and A300 F4–600R 

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes 

an existing airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to Airbus Model A300 B4–

600R and A300 F4–600R series 

airplanes, that currently requires a onetime detailed inspection for damage of 

the center tank fuel pumps and fuel 

pump canisters, and replacement of 

damaged fuel pumps and fuel pump 

canisters with new or serviceable parts. 

That AD also requires repetitive detailed 

inspections of the fuel pumps and 

repetitive eddy current inspections of 

the fuel pump canisters, and 

replacement of damaged fuel pumps 

and fuel pump canisters with new or 

serviceable parts. This amendment 

mandates modification of the canisters 

of the center tank fuel pumps, which 

would terminate the repetitive 

inspections required by the existing AD. 

The actions specified by this AD are 

intended to prevent damage to the fuel 

pump and fuel pump canister, which 

could result in loss of flame trap 

capability and could provide a fuel 

ignition source in the center fuel tank. 

This action is intended to address the 

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective December 20, 2004. 

The incorporation by reference of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–6069, 

Revision 01, dated May 28, 2002; and 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–6061, 

Revision 04, dated August 1, 2002; as 

listed in the regulations, is approved by 

the Director of the Federal Register as of 

December 20, 2004. 

The incorporation by reference of 

Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) 28–

09, dated November 28, 1998, as listed 

in the regulations, was approved 

previously by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of December 28, 1998 (63 FR 

70639, December 22, 1998). 

The incorporation by reference of 

Airbus Alert Service Bulletin A300–

28A6061, dated February 19, 1999, as 

listed in the regulations, was approved 

previously by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of February 8, 2000 (65 FR 

213, January 4, 2000).

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point 

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, 

France. This information may be 

examined at the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington; or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, call (202) 741–

6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html.

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: A 

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) 

by superseding AD 99–27–07, 

amendment 39–11488 (65 FR 213, 

January 4, 2000), which is applicable to 

all Airbus Model A300 B4–600R and 

A300 F4–600R series airplanes, was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 9, 2003 (68 FR 53058). The 

action proposed to continue to require 

a one-time visual inspection for damage 

of the center tank fuel pumps and fuel 

pump canisters, and replacement of 

damaged fuel pumps and fuel pump 

canisters with new or serviceable parts. 

The action also proposed to continue to 

require repetitive detailed inspections 

for damage of the fuel pumps and 

repetitive eddy current inspections of 

the fuel pump canisters, and 

replacement of damaged fuel pumps 

and fuel pump canisters with new or 

serviceable parts. The action also 

proposed to mandate modification of 

the canisters of the center tank fuel 

pumps, which would terminate the 

repetitive inspections required by the 

existing AD. 

Comments 

Interested persons have been afforded 

an opportunity to participate in the 

making of this amendment. Due 

consideration has been given to the 

comments received. 

Request To Change Compliance Time 

One commenter requests that the 

compliance time for the terminating 

action (modification) specified in 

paragraph (d) of the proposed AD be 

changed to ‘‘Prior to the accumulation 

of 5,000 total hours, time-in-service, or 

within 18 months after the effective date 

of this AD, whichever occurs later.’’ The 

commenter notes that an equivalent 

level of safety is maintained by this 

change, as the change will still require 

the modification to be done prior to the 

first inspection required by AD 99–27–

07. The commenter adds that this 

change will minimize the hardship of 

implementing the proposed AD. 

The FAA does not agree, as repetitive 

inspections for cracks are not equivalent 

to replacement of the canisters of the 

center tank fuel pumps with improved 

canisters for continued operational 

safety. Cracked canisters continue to be 

detected during the mandated 

inspections, but in view of the potential 

unsafe condition, we find that 

modification of the canisters by 

installation of reinforced canisters that 

are not subject to cracking must be 

done. In addition, inclusion of a 5,000 

flight hour compliance time could allow 

certain low-time airplanes an additional 

year before accomplishment of the 

canister replacement. We do not find it 

necessary to change the AD in this 

regard. However, the commenter may 

request approval of an alternative 

method of compliance from the FAA, in 

accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this 

AD, if technical justification, 

substantiation of need, and a 

satisfactory retrofit status of the 

commenter’s fleet with the new canister 

are provided. 

Clarification of Terminating Action 

One commenter states that paragraph 

(d) of the proposed AD (New 

Requirements of This AD) specifies that 

accomplishment of Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–28–6069, Revision 01, 

dated May 28, 2002 (modification of the 

canisters of the center tank fuel pumps) 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 65529

ends the repetitive inspections required 

by paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. 

The commenter adds that initial 

accomplishment of the paragraph (b) 

inspection would terminate the 

repetitive inspections required by 

paragraph (a) of the proposed AD. The 

commenter notes that, as written, the 

proposed AD seems to require the initial 

accomplishment of the inspection 

required by paragraph (b) to terminate 

the repetitive inspections. The 

commenter asks for clarification of the 

intent of the AD. 

As requested, we provide the 

following clarification: The AD does 

require accomplishment of the initial 

inspection required by paragraph (b) of 

this AD to terminate the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (a) of 

this AD. The repetitive inspections 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the 

AD are required by AD 99–27–07 

(Restatement of Requirements of AD 99–

27–07), and continue to be required by 

this AD until the terminating action is 

done. The new requirements that 

mandate modification of the canisters of 

the center tank fuel pumps, as specified 

in paragraph (d) of this AD, terminate 

those repetitive inspections. 

Request To Change Terminating Action 

to Optional 

One commenter states that AD 99–27–

07 addresses the unsafe condition 

identified by that rule, and adds that the 

proposed AD does not provide 

justification for mandating the 

terminating action. The commenter 

provides the following reasons for 

changing the terminating action in the 

proposed AD to an optional action.

• The proposed AD does not 

specifically identify an additional 

unsafe condition, so there is no need to 

add further financial burden for 

operators without justifiable cause. 

• Operators favor the use of 

terminating action in lieu of repetitive 

inspections; however, where either 

solution offers the same level of safety, 

this decision becomes a matter of 

economics. 

• There is no safety benefit identified 

for the terminating action, so the 

decision to continue to inspect, or 

implement the terminating action, 

should remain at the option of the 

operator. 

The commenter adds that there is no 

reasonable basis for the 18-month 

compliance time for the terminating 

action, as it appears arbitrary. Due to the 

current economic conditions of the 

airline industry, operators should be 

given the option of replacing the 

canister with the improved design, or 

continuing the scheduled inspections 

and replacing the canister only if a crack 

is found during the inspection. The 

commenter adds that the scheduled 

inspections, when done in accordance 

with AD 99–27–07, will provide a level 

of safety equivalent to that provided by 

the proposed AD. 

We do not agree. The unsafe 

condition specified in AD 99–27–07 has 

not been corrected; therefore, an 

additional unsafe condition does not 

need to be added to this AD, as there 

has been no final fix until now. 

Although we acknowledge the 

commenter’s concerns regarding further 

financial burden on operators, the FAA, 

in conjunction with the Direction 

Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC), 

which is the airworthiness authority for 

France, is mandating the terminating 

action based on the determination that, 

in this case, long-term continued 

operational safety would be better 

assured by a modification to remove the 

source of the problem, rather than by 

continued repetitive inspections. We 

consider the existing canisters of the 

center fuel tank to be a safety issue of 

sufficient significance to warrant 

modification of the canisters. Relying on 

continued repetitive inspections as an 

option to the modification does not 

ensure that affected airplanes will 

receive appropriately modified canisters 

in a timely manner, or at all. 

The fuel pump canister is intended to 

contain or trap any potential fuel pump 

ignition sources and consequent flames 

in the canister, and keep them from 

entering the fuel tank. A crack in the 

fuel pump canister has the potential to 

eliminate the canister fire trap 

capability and provide an ignition 

source to the center tank fuel pump. The 

new, improved canisters have been 

strengthened by thicker and re-profiled 

webs, the fuel aperture corner radius 

has been increased, the non-return valve 

has been strengthened, and the 

attachment fasteners have been 

increased from four to six inches. A 

canister locating pin (foolproofing pin) 

is also installed by this modification, 

which will prevent the installation of 

unmodified fuel booster-pump 

canisters. Accordingly, no change to the 

AD is made in this regard. 

Request To Change Cost Analysis 

The same commenter states that the 

proposed AD lacks adequate cost 

analysis. The commenter states that the 

cost of the canister is omitted, and 

specifies the cost as $4,660 per canister. 

The commenter adds that the actual cost 

of the proposed AD, using actual 

industry wages and the omitted cost for 

parts, would be $10,548 per airplane or 

$886,032; not the $76,660 cost 

calculated by the FAA. 

After considering the data presented 

by the commenter, we agree that the 

parts cost for the canisters was omitted. 

The cost of each canister is $4,660. The 

cost impact information, below, has 

been revised to indicate this higher 

amount. 

Economic Analysis 

The same commenter states that it 

appreciates the FAA economic analysis 

for using work time estimates consistent 

with industry experience; however, the 

FAA labor rate remains much lower 

than actual industry costs. The 

commenter adds that the average airline 

industry labor rate is currently $98 per 

work hour. 

We point out that our estimate of $65 

per work hour is the current burdened 

labor rate established for use by the 

Office of Aviation Policy, Plans, and 

Management Analysis. (The burdened 

labor rate includes the actual labor cost, 

overhead, and other related costs.) 

Because the labor rate used in our 

calculations accounts for the variations 

in costs among those in the airline 

industry, we consider that $65 per work 

hour is appropriate. Accordingly, no 

change to the AD is made in this regard. 

Explanation of Change Made to 

Proposed AD 

We have clarified the inspection 

requirement contained in the proposed 

AD. Whereas the proposed AD specifies 

a visual inspection, we have revised this 

final rule to clarify that our intent is to 

require a detailed inspection. 

Additionally, a new note has been 

added to the final rule to define that 

inspection. 

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. 

We have determined that these changes 

will neither significantly increase the 

economic burden on any operator nor 

increase the scope of the AD. 

Cost Impact 

This AD will affect about 84 airplanes 

of U.S. registry. 

The inspections that are required by 

AD 99–27–07 take about 2 work hours 

per airplane to accomplish, at an 

average labor rate of $65 per work hour. 

Based on these figures, the cost impact 

of the currently required actions is 

estimated to be $130 per airplane, per 

inspection cycle. 

65530 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

The inspections required by AD 99–

27–07 were applicable to about 67 

airplanes. Based on the figures 

discussed above, the cost impact of the 

current requirements of that AD on U.S. 

operators is estimated to be $8,710.

In this AD, the inspections are 

applicable to about 17 additional 

airplanes. Based on the figures 

discussed above, the new costs to U.S. 

operators that will be imposed by this 

AD are estimated to be $2,210. 

The new modification required by 

this AD action will take about 11 work 

hours per airplane to accomplish, at an 

average labor rate of $65 per work hour. 

Required parts will cost about $9,620 

per airplane. Based on these figures, the 

cost impact of the modification on U.S. 

operators is estimated to be $868,140, or 

$10,335 per airplane. 

The cost impact figures discussed 

above are based on assumptions that no 

operator has yet accomplished any of 

the requirements of this AD action, and 

that no operator would accomplish 

those actions in the future if this AD 

were not adopted. The cost impact 

figures discussed in AD rulemaking 

actions represent only the time 

necessary to perform the specific actions 

actually required by the AD. These 

figures typically do not include 

incidental costs, such as the time 

required to gain access and close up, 

planning time, or time necessitated by 

other administrative actions. 

Regulatory Impact 

The regulations adopted herein will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, it is 

determined that this final rule does not 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this action (1) is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 

will not have a significant economic 

impact, positive or negative, on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has 

been prepared for this action and it is 

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy 

of it may be obtained from the Rules 

Docket at the location provided under 

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

■ 2. Section 39.13 is amended by 

removing amendment 39–11488 (65 FR 

213, January 4, 2000), and by adding a 

new airworthiness directive (AD), 

amendment 39–13863, to read as 

follows:

2004–23–08 Airbus: Amendment 39–13863. 

Docket 2002–NM–97–AD. Supersedes 

AD 99–27–07, Amendment 39–11488.

Applicability: Model A300 B4–600R and 

A300 F4–600R series airplanes, certificated 

in any category, on which Airbus 

Modification 4801 (trim tank system) has 

been accomplished. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

To prevent damage to the fuel pump and 

fuel pump canister, which could result in 

loss of flame trap capability and could 

provide a fuel ignition source in the center 

fuel tank, accomplish the following:

Restatement of Requirements of AD

99–27–07 

Inspections 

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 5,000 total 

hours, time-in-service or within 250 hours 

time-in-service after February 8, 2000 (the 

effective date of AD 99–27–07, amendment 

39–11488), whichever occurs later, perform a 

detailed inspection for damage of the center 

tank fuel pumps and fuel pump canisters, in 

accordance with Airbus All Operators Telex 

(AOT) 28–09, dated November 28, 1998. 

Repeat the inspection prior to the 

accumulation of 12,000 total hours time-inservice, or within 250 hours time-in-service 

after accomplishment of the initial 

inspection, whichever occurs later. 

Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals 

not to exceed 250 hours time-in-service, until 

accomplishment of the initial inspection 

required by paragraph (b) 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.’’

(b) At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this AD: 

Perform a detailed inspection to detect 

damage of the center tank fuel pumps and 

perform an eddy current inspection to detect 

damage of the fuel pump canisters, in 

accordance with Airbus Alert Service 

Bulletin A300–28A6061, dated February 19, 

1999; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–

6061, Revision 04, dated August 1, 2002. 

Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles, until 

accomplishment of paragraph (d) of this AD. 

Accomplishment of the initial inspections 

required by this paragraph constitutes 

terminating action for the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this AD. 

(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 

11,000 or more total flight cycles as of 

February 8, 2000: Inspect within 300 flight 

cycles after February 8, 2000. 

(2) For airplanes that have accumulated 

8,500 or more total flight cycles, but fewer 

than 11,000 total flight cycles, as of February 

8, 2000: Inspect within 750 flight cycles after 

February 8, 2000. 

(3) For airplanes that have accumulated 

fewer than 8,500 total flight cycles as of 

February 8, 2000: Inspect prior to the 

accumulation of 7,000 flight cycles, or within 

1,500 flight cycles after February 8, 2000, 

whichever occurs later. 

Corrective Action 

(c) If any damage is detected during any 

inspection required by this AD, prior to 

further flight, replace the damaged fuel pump 

or fuel pump canister with a new or 

serviceable part in accordance with Airbus 

Alert Service Bulletin A300–28A6061, dated 

February 19, 1999; or Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–28–6061, Revision 04, dated August 1, 

2002. 

New Requirements of This AD 

Modification 

(d) Within 18 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Modify the canisters of the 

center tank fuel pumps (including an 

operational test) by doing all the actions per 

paragraphs 3.A., 3.B., 3.C., and 3.D. of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–28–6069, Revision 01, 

dated May 28, 2002. Accomplishment of this 

modification ends the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (b) of this AD. 

(e) Accomplishment of the modification 

before the effective date of this AD per 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–6069, 

dated September 4, 2001, is acceptable for 

compliance with the modification required 

by paragraph (d) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(f)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

FAA, is authorized to approve alternative 

methods of compliance for this AD. 

(2) Alternative methods of compliance, 

approved previously in accordance with AD 

99–27–07, amendment 39–11488, are 

approved as alternative methods of 

compliance with the applicable actions in 

this AD. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 65531

Incorporation by Reference 

(g) The actions shall be done in accordance 

with the applicable service information listed 

in Table 1 of this AD, unless the AD specifies 

otherwise.

TABLE 1.—MATERIALS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Airbus service information Revision level Date 

All Operators Telex 28–09 ............................................................................................................... Original ...................... November 28, 1998. 

Alert Service Bulletin A300–28A6061 ............................................................................................. Original ...................... February 19, 1999. 

Service Bulletin, A300–28–6061 ..................................................................................................... 04 .............................. August 1, 2002. 

Service Bulletin, A300–28–6069 ..................................................................................................... 01 .............................. May 28, 2002. 

(1) The incorporation by reference of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–6069, 

Revision 01, dated May 28, 2002; and Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–28–6061, Revision 04, 

dated August 1, 2002; is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register in accordance 

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

(2) The incorporation by reference of 

Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) 28–09, 

dated November 28, 1998, was approved 

previously by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of December 28, 1998 (63 FR 

70639, December 22, 1998). 

(3) The incorporation by reference of 

Airbus Alert Service Bulletin A300–

28A6061, dated February 19, 1999, was 

approved previously by the Director of the 

Federal Register as of February 8, 2000 (65 

FR 213, January 4, 2000). 

(4) Copies may be obtained from Airbus, 1 

Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France. Copies may be inspected at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington; or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed 

in French airworthiness directive 2002–

132(B), dated March 20, 2002.

Effective Date 

(h) This amendment becomes effective on 

December 20, 2004.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 1, 2004. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24930 Filed 11–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2000–NM–169–AD; Amendment 

39–13860; AD 2004–23–05] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–

9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–

9–87 (MD–87), and Model MD–88 

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a 

new airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain McDonnell 

Douglas airplanes, that requires 

reversing the ground stud installation of 

the main battery, and installing a new 

nameplate on the cover of the battery. 

This action is necessary to prevent 

damage to equipment or possible fire in 

the electrical/electronics equipment 

compartment due to electrical arcing 

between the ground stud of the main 

battery and adjacent structure. This 

action is intended to address the 

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective December 20, 2004. 

The incorporation by reference of a 

certain publication listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of December 

20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood 

Boulevard, Long Beach, California 

90846, Attention: Data and Service 

Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–

0024). This information may be 

examined at the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California; or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, call (202) 741–

6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elvin Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5344; 

fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to 

include an airworthiness directive (AD) 

that is applicable to certain McDonnell 

Douglas airplanes was published in the 

Federal Register on June 18, 2003 (68 

FR 36518). That action proposed to 

require reversing the ground stud 

installation of the main battery, and 

installing a new nameplate on the cover 

of the battery. 

Comments 

Interested persons have been afforded 

an opportunity to participate in the 

making of this amendment. Due 

consideration has been given to the 

comments received. 

Support for Proposed AD 

One commenter supports the 

proposed AD. 

Request To Allow Equivalent 

Nameplates 

One commenter requests that we 

allow operators to use equivalent 

nameplates in lieu of the original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

nameplates. The commenter states that, 

in an effort to reduce costs, many 

operators manufacture equivalent 

nameplates with identical information, 

which they install at the location(s) 

specified in the applicable service 

bulletin(s) referenced in the proposed 

AD.