Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 65523

operator nor increase the scope of the 

AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

This AD affects about 396 airplanes of 

U.S. registry and 963 airplanes 

worldwide. The required inspection 

will 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 the AD for U.S operators is 

$77,220, or $195 per airplane, per 

inspection cycle.

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):

2004–23–11 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–13866. Docket No. 

FAA–2004–18994; Directorate Identifier 

2003–NM–210–AD. 

Effective Date 

(A) This AD becomes effective December 

20, 2004. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to certain McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–9–14, DC–9–15, DC–9–

21, DC–9–31, DC–9–32, DC–9–32 (VC–9C), 

DC–9–32F, DC–9–33F, DC–9–34, DC–9–34F, 

DC–9–32F (C–9A, C–9B), DC–9–41, and DC–

9–51 airplanes, certificated in any category; 

as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin DC9–57–

223, dated July 21, 2003. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracks in the upper cap of the center wing 

rear spar that resulted from stress corrosion. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

cracking of the left or right upper cap of the 

center rear spar, which could cause a 

possible fuel leak and structural failure of the 

upper cap, and result in reduced structural 

integrity 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. 

Inspection 

(f) At the later of the times specified in 

paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD: Do a high 

frequency eddy current inspection to detect 

cracks in the vertical radius of the upper cap 

of the center wing rear spar, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Service Bulletin DC9–57–223, dated 

July 21, 2003. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 25,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(2) Within 15,000 flight cycles or 5 years 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first. 

Corrective Action 

(g)(1) If no crack is found, then repeat the 

inspection thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 15,000 flight cycles or 5 years, 

whichever occurs first. 

(2) If any crack is found, before further 

flight, repair per a method approved by the 

Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to 

be approved by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, as required by this paragraph, the 

Manager’s approval letter must specifically 

refer to this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested in accordance with the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(i) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 

DC9–57–223, dated July 21, 2003, 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. For copies of the service information, 

contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long 

Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, 

Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: 

Data and Service Management, Dept. CI–L5A 

(D800–0024). For information on the 

availability of this material at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA), call (202) 741–6030, or go to

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

code_of_ federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html. You may view the AD 

docket at the Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., room PL–401, Nassif 

Building, Washington, DC.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 1, 2004. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24934 Filed 11–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2002–NM–153–AD; Amendment 

39–13859; AD 2004–23–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A319 and A320 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a 

new airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain Airbus Model 

A319 and A320 series airplanes, that 

requires a modification and replacement 

affecting all fuel tanks. All affected 

airplanes require the installation of 

fuses in the wiring of the fuel quantity 

indicating probes of all fuel tanks. Some 

affected airplanes also require 

replacement of the high-level sensors of 

the additional center tanks (ACTs) with 

new sensors. For all affected airplanes, 

these actions are necessary to prevent 

overheating of the fuel probes due to a 

short circuit. For some affected 

airplanes, these actions are necessary to 

prevent fuel leakage due to inadequate 

space for thermal expansion within the 

ACTs. Such conditions could result in 

fuel vapors or fuel contacting an 

ignition source and/or consequent fire/

explosion in the center fuel tanks. These 

actions are intended to address the 

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective December 20, 2004. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the 

65524 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Airbus, 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: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

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

fax (425) 227–1149. 

Relationship of This AD to SFAR 88 

The FAA has examined the 

underlying safety issues involved in 

recent fuel tank explosions on several 

large transport airplanes, including the 

adequacy of existing regulations, the 

service history of airplanes subject to 

those regulations, and existing 

maintenance practices for fuel tank 

systems. As a result of those findings, 

we issued a regulation titled ‘‘Transport 

Airplane Fuel Tank System Design 

Review, Flammability Reduction and 

Maintenance and Inspection 

Requirements’’ (67 FR 23086, May 7, 

2001). In addition to new airworthiness 

standards for transport airplanes and 

new maintenance requirements, this 

rule included Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88 (SFAR 88). 

Among other actions, SFAR 88 

requires certain type design (i.e., type 

certificate (TC) and supplemental type 

certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate 

that their fuel tank systems can prevent 

ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This 

requirement applies to type design 

holders for large turbine-powered 

transport airplanes and for subsequent 

modifications to those airplanes. It 

requires them to perform design reviews 

and to develop design changes and 

maintenance procedures if their designs 

do not meet the new fuel tank safety 

standards. As explained in the preamble 

to the rule, we intended to adopt 

airworthiness directives to mandate any 

changes found necessary to address 

unsafe conditions identified as a result 

of these reviews. 

In evaluating these design reviews, we 

have established four criteria intended 

to define the unsafe conditions 

associated with fuel tank systems that 

require corrective actions. The 

percentage of operating time during 

which fuel tanks are exposed to 

flammable conditions is one of these 

criteria. The other three criteria address 

the failure types under evaluation: 

single failures, single failures in 

combination with another latent 

condition(s), and in-service failure 

experience. For all four criteria, the 

evaluations included consideration of 

previous actions taken that may mitigate 

the need for further action. 

Based on this process, we have 

determined that the actions identified in 

this AD are necessary to reduce the 

potential of ignition sources inside fuel 

tanks, which, in combination with 

flammable fuel vapors, could result in 

fuel tank explosions and consequent 

loss of the airplane. 

Proposed AD 

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 Airbus Model A319 and A320 

series airplanes was published in the 

Federal Register on November 17, 2003 

(68 FR 64823). That action proposed to 

require a modification and replacement 

affecting the center and wing fuel tanks. 

All affected airplanes would require 

modification of the wiring of the fuel 

quantity indicating probes of the center 

and wing fuel tanks. Some affected 

airplanes would also require 

replacement of the high-level sensors of 

the additional center fuel tank with 

new, improved sensors. 

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.

Supportive Comments 

One commenter supports the 

proposed AD; one commenter supports 

the intent of the proposed AD. 

Requests To Extend Compliance Time 

One commenter notes a large 

disparity between the two limitations in 

the proposed accomplishment time of 

‘‘Within 4,000 flight hours or 30 months 

after the effective date of the AD, 

whichever is first.’’ The commenter 

suggests that the FAA consider changing 

the timeline to flight hours or a calendar 

month, which is more closely tied to 

actual airplane utilization. The 

commenter adds that utilization of these 

airplanes could be as high as 9,000 

flight hours during the proposed 30-

month compliance time. The 

commenter asks that the compliance 

time be changed to 9,000 flight hours or 

30 months, whichever is first. Another 

commenter also recommends that the 

compliance time be changed to 9,000 

flight hours or 30 months, whichever is 

first, and provided no justification for 

the recommendation. 

A third commenter states that, based 

on airplane utilization, the flight-hour 

threshold will occur first, and result in 

a 14-month schedule for completion. 

The commenter adds that, based on the 

instructions outlined in Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–28–1087, 

accomplishment of the actions is 

possible only during a base maintenance 

visit. The commenter notes that the 

compliance limits will penalize 

operators with long-to-medium-range 

missions. The commenter recommends 

that the compliance time be extended to 

5,500 flight hours or 30 months after the 

effective date of the AD, whichever 

occurs first. The commenter states that 

this will allow operators to utilize 

routine base maintenance visit 

opportunities where appropriate 

tooling, ground equipment, and 

qualified skill set are available. 

A fourth commenter states that 

including a flight-hour limit in the 

compliance time suggests that the 

failure mode being addressed by the 

mandatory activity is sensitive to flight 

hours in service. The commenter notes 

that the failure mode addressed by 

Service Bulletin A320–28–1087 (wiring 

insulation breakdown/damage) is 

primarily related to calendar age. The 

commenter adds that, while the flighthour limit may have value, it is not the 

crucial parameter. The commenter’s inservice airplanes average about eight 

hours of flying per day, which means 

that the 4,000-flight-hour limit would 

require that the actions be done on all 

affected airplanes within about 500 

days. This period is 55 percent of the 

calendar time afforded by the 

compliance time, and is less than the Ccheck interval. The commenter states 

that doing the actions on all airplanes 

within 4,000 flight hours would put an 

additional burden and cost on its 

operation. The commenter suggests 

extending the compliance time to 6,000 

flight hours, which will not compromise 

the level of safety. 

We do not agree with the commenters. 

In developing an appropriate 

compliance time for this action, we 

considered the safety implications, 

operators’ normal maintenance 

schedules, and the compliance time 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 65525

recommended by the airplane 

manufacturer for the timely 

accomplishment of the required actions. 

The compliance time is based on 

airplane utilization overall. In addition, 

operators provided no data to support 

that a compliance time extension will 

ensure safety. In consideration of these 

items, we have determined that 

compliance within 4,000 flight hours or 

30 months after the effective date of this 

AD, whichever is first, will provide an 

acceptable level of safety and is an 

appropriate interval of time wherein the 

required actions can be accomplished 

during scheduled maintenance intervals 

for the majority of affected operators. 

However, according to the provisions of 

paragraph (b) of this AD, we may 

approve requests to adjust the 

compliance time if the request includes 

data that justify that a different 

compliance time would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. No change to 

the AD is made in this regard. 

Request To Delay Issuance of the 

Proposed AD 

One commenter states that it 

previously elected not to do the actions 

required by the proposed AD on affected 

airplanes (reference Service Bulletin 

A320–28–1087, Revision 02). This was 

because the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de 

l’Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the 

airworthiness authority for France, 

found the Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88 (‘‘SFAR 88,’’

Amendment 21–78, and subsequent 

Amendments 21–82 and 21–83) 

compliance solution proposal submitted 

by Airbus to be sufficient for 

compliance with French airworthiness 

directive 2002–220(B) R1, dated October 

15, 2003; although further discussions 

with the FAA and the DGAC were 

necessary. These discussions were 

expected to include the possibility of a 

requirement to install transient 

suppression units. Correspondence 

between the commenter and Airbus 

confirmed that, in the event that 

transient suppression units were 

specified in future rulemaking, the 

fused adapter/connection installation 

specified in the service bulletin would 

be revised. The commenter adds that, 

according to its cost model, the 

proposed AD would cost over $500,000 

for its fleet. The commenter objects to 

spending the money if the solution is 

only interim, with introduction of 

transient suppression units to follow. 

The commenter strongly encourages a 

permanent solution to be introduced 

and regulated, and is not aware of any 

in-service data that would suggest that 

airplane safety could be compromised 

by delaying the interim solution until 

introduction of a permanent solution. 

We do not agree with the commenter 

that an alternate solution is necessary, 

as the modification required by the 

proposed AD is not an interim action. 

We have examined the underlying 

safety issues involved in fuel tank 

explosions on several transport 

airplanes. As a result of those findings, 

we issued a regulation titled ‘‘Transport 

Airplane Fuel Tank System Design 

Review, Flammability Reduction and 

Maintenance and Inspection 

Requirements.’’ In addition to new 

airworthiness standards for transport 

airplanes and new maintenance 

requirements, this rule included SFAR 

No. 88. Among other actions, SFAR 88 

requires certain type design holders to 

perform design reviews, and to develop 

design changes and maintenance 

procedures if necessary. We intend to 

adopt ADs to mandate any changes 

found necessary to address unsafe 

conditions identified during these 

reviews. Based on this process, we have 

determined that the modification 

required by this AD is necessary to 

address the identified unsafe condition. 

Request To Clarify Summary Section 

One commenter states that the 

Summary section of the proposed AD 

has significant inaccuracies due to the 

assimilation of two independent unsafe 

conditions, as identified in the 

referenced French airworthiness 

directive. The unsafe conditions require 

mandatory action, which is achieved by 

applying the two service bulletins 

referenced in the proposed AD. The 

commenter notes that the reason there 

are two service bulletins, and only one 

French airworthiness directive, is to 

minimize the cost impact on the three 

airplanes requiring correction of both 

unsafe conditions. 

Additionally, the commenter states 

that the Summary section does not 

properly distinguish between additional 

center tanks (ACTs) and center wing 

tanks, which could lead to 

misinterpretation of any corrective 

action necessary. The commenter notes 

that Airbus Service Bulletin A320–28–

1086, Revision 01, dated October 23, 

2002 (cited in the proposed AD as an 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishment of 

certain actions), affects the ACTs on the 

three airplanes specified above only. 

The commenter adds that the identified 

modifications reposition the high-level 

sensors to ensure there is a minimum of 

two percent expansion space in the 

applicable ACT, and correct a noncompliance to Joint Aviation Regulation 

(JAR) 25.969. This non-compliance 

issue could result in fuel overflowing 

from the ACT to the left wing surge tank 

in the event of thermal expansion of the 

fuel in the ACT. The commenter also 

adds that the bracket that the high-level 

sensor is attached to, not the high-level 

sensor, is the part that has been 

improved.

The commenter also states that Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–28–1087, 

Revision 02, dated June 10, 2003 (cited 

in the proposed AD as an appropriate 

source of service information for 

accomplishment of certain actions), 

affects all fuel tanks (all wing tanks and 

all ACTs), on the affected airplanes. The 

modification identified is to install fuses 

in the fuel quantity indicating (FQI) 

harnesses at or near the fuel tank walls, 

which corrects a non-compliance with 

JAR 25.981. This non-compliance issue 

could result in the ignition of flammable 

fuel vapors in a fuel tank in the event 

of a short circuit between the FQI wiring 

and an unprotected 28-volt supply. 

In conclusion, the commenter states 

that the Summary section should clearly 

distinguish between these two unsafe 

conditions and should provide certain 

wording to more clearly define the two 

unsafe conditions. 

We agree with the commenter and 

have changed the applicable sections in 

this AD, for clarification, to separate the 

two unsafe conditions. 

Request To Change Paragraph (a) of 

This AD 

In following up on his request to 

distinguish the two unsafe conditions, 

the commenter requests the following 

changes, which would include a new 

paragraph (b): 

‘‘(a) Within 4,000 flight hours or 30 

months after the effective date of this 

AD, whichever is first: Do the applicable 

actions specified in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this AD. Accomplishment of the 

modification before the effective date of 

this AD per Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–28–1087, dated July 17, 2001, or 

Revision 01, dated March 3, 2003; is 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding action specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this AD. 

(1) For airplanes defined in Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–28–1087, 

Revision 02, dated June 10, 2003: 

Modify the wiring of the fuel quantity 

indicating probes of all the fuel tanks by 

doing all the actions specified in 

paragraphs 3.A. through 3.D. (including 

operational testing and any applicable 

repair) of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the service bulletin. Any 

applicable repair must be done before 

further flight. 

(b) Within 4,000 flight hours or 30 

months after the effective date of this 

65526 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

AD, whichever is first: Do the applicable 

actions specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this AD. Accomplishment of the 

replacement before the effective date of 

this AD per Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–28–1086, dated November 30, 

1999; as applicable; is considered 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding action specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this AD. 

(1) For airplanes defined in Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–28–1086, 

Revision 01, dated October 23, 2002: 

Prior to or concurrent with 

accomplishment of paragraph (a)(1) of 

this AD, replace the high-level sensors 

of the additional center fuel tanks by 

doing all the actions specified in 

paragraphs 3.A through 3.D. (including 

operational testing and any applicable 

repair) of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the service bulletin. Do 

the actions per the service bulletin. Any 

applicable repair must be done before 

further flight.’’ The commenter provided 

no justification for the requested 

changes. 

After reviewing the commenter’s 

suggested changes to paragraph (a) of 

the proposed AD, we find that 

specifying ‘‘all the fuel tanks’’ instead of 

‘‘the center and wing fuel tanks,’’ is the 

only significant change. We also find 

that moving the service bulletin 

references around, as suggested by the 

commenter, does not clarify the 

requirements of that paragraph. 

Therefore, we have changed the 

wording in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD 

to specify ‘‘all the fuel tanks,’’ for 

clarification; we made no further 

changes to paragraph (a) of this AD. 

Request To Clarify Certain Sections in 

the Preamble 

The same commenter reiterates 

certain wording regarding compliance 

with JAR 25.989, as specified in the 

Discussion section of the proposed AD, 

and notes that the wording is incorrect. 

The commenter states that the 

referenced testing is specific to some 

ACTs that can be fitted only to Model 

A319 series airplanes with Airbus 

Modification 28238 installed, and does 

not relate to other ACTs fitted to Models 

A319 and A320 series airplanes, or to 

center (wing) tanks. The commenter 

adds that the correct reference is JAR 

25.969, not 25.989. The commenter 

notes that the high-level sensor is not 

improved and has no regulatory 

deficiency, and adds that it is the 

bracket that the sensor is attached to 

that is improved to provide the required 

expansion space. In addition, the 

commenter states that there is no 

connection between changing the highlevel sensor position and the 

overheating of the FQI fuel probes in the 

event of an external 28-volt short circuit 

to the FQI fuel probe wiring. The 

commenter adds that there is no risk of 

the high-level sensor overheating in the 

event of an external 28-volt short circuit 

to its wiring. 

The commenter also states that there 

is no risk of fuel spillage resulting from 

inadequate expansion space, which 

could result in fuel vapors or fuel 

contacting an ignition source, and/or 

consequent fire/explosion in the center 

fuel tank. Any fuel spillage will be 

contained within the fuel vent system 

until the left wing surge tank is 

overfilled and subsequent limited fuel 

spillage from the surge tank through a 

flame arrestor could occur. The 

commenter adds that in the event of fuel 

spillage from the surge tank, and in the 

presence of an ignition source on the 

ground, a ground fire could be ignited. 

In the event of a ground fire, the flame 

arrestor installed for this purpose will 

eventually protect the fuel tank. 

The commenter notes that the section 

titled ADDRESSES incorrectly identifies 

the airplane manufacturer as ‘‘Airbus 

Industrie.’’ The airplane manufacturer 

should be identified as ‘‘Airbus.’’

The same commenter states that the 

Explanation of Relevant Service 

Information section in the preamble of 

the proposed AD is unclear in 

identifying which tanks apply to Service 

Bulletin A320–28–1087, Revision 02. 

The commenter states that the text 

should read, ‘‘Airbus has issued Service 

Bulletin A320–28–1087, Revision 02, 

which describes procedures for 

modification of the wiring of the FQI 

probes of all fuel tanks.’’ The 

modification includes the following: 

• Installation of fused plug 

connectors for the FQI probes of the 

wing tanks; and 

• Installation of fused adapters 

between the external wiring harness and 

the in-tank wiring of the connectors on 

the ACT and center wing fuel tank 

walls. 

The commenter notes that the term 

‘‘center tank’’ is imprecise, as it could 

be interpreted to mean the center wing 

tank and not the ACT. This could lead 

to the exclusion of necessary corrective 

action for some fuel tanks. The fact that 

the modification is applicable to all fuel 

tanks is explicitly described by using 

the word ‘‘all.’’

We acknowledge and agree with the 

commenter’s remarks on the preamble 

of the proposed AD; however, most of 

the sections referred to are not restated 

in this final rule. The name of the 

airplane manufacturer specified in the 

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section has been changed 

to Airbus. No other change to the AD is 

made in this regard. 

Inadequate Technical Information 

Provided in the Service Bulletins 

One commenter states that it is 

apparent that the information in the 

service bulletins lacks adequate 

technical detail for the commenter to 

form an opinion relative to the content. 

The commenter adds that Service 

Bulletin A320–28–1087 specifies adding 

fused connectors/adapters to protect the 

fuel gauging lines from hot shorts to 28 

volt direct current that enter the fuel 

tanks. However, there is no information 

regarding compliance with Advisory 

Circular (AC) 25.981, which provides 

guidance for the overall safe design of 

fuel systems under certain conditions. 

The commenter notes that compliance 

with the AC may require a different 

design approach, in which case issuance 

of the proposed AD, although improving 

the level of safety, would be premature 

and would cause an unnecessary 

financial burden for operators. The 

commenter is unable to render a sound 

technical opinion as to the accuracy of 

the proposed AD, due to insufficient 

data.

We appreciate the commenter’s 

concerns; however, it is not standard 

practice to provide technical details for 

design changes in service bulletins. The 

modification required by this AD is 

intended to prevent excessive currents 

from entering the FQI probes. 

Investigations have shown that a short 

of 28-volt direct current to the probes 

could cause certain parts of the probe to 

heat up to a temperature in excess of 

200 degrees centigrade. Additionally, all 

FQI probe wiring installed on Model 

A319 series airplanes is co-routed with 

28-volt direct current. The service 

bulletin was issued to provide 

procedures to modify the airplane to the 

approved type design. We do not agree 

that this AD is premature. In this case, 

we find that to withdraw this AD and 

initiate new proposed rulemaking 

(providing for public opportunity to 

comment) would significantly delay the 

rulemaking process and would be 

inappropriate in light of the identified 

unsafe condition. We have determined 

that issuance of this AD is appropriate 

and warranted. 

Request To Revise Cost Impact Section 

One commenter states that there are 

presently no airplanes registered in the 

U.S. for which Service Bulletin A320–

28–1086 applies (Models A319–115 and 

A319–133 series airplanes). The 

commenter requests that the Cost 

Impact section of the proposed AD be 

revised to provide, for future imported 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 65527

airplanes, accomplishment of the 

proposed actions through a Certificate of 

Airworthiness. 

We do not agree to provide for 

accomplishment of the proposed actions 

through a Certificate of Airworthiness 

for future imported Models A319–115 

and A319–133 series airplanes. We do 

agree that those airplanes are not U.S.-

registered; therefore, we have added a 

new paragraph to the Cost Impact 

section to provide the estimated costs 

for those airplanes should the airplanes 

be imported and placed on the U.S. 

Register in the future. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the available 

data, including the comments noted 

above, the FAA has determined that air 

safety and the public interest require the 

adoption of the rule with the changes 

described previously. We have 

determined that these changes will 

neither increase the economic burden 

on any operator nor increase the scope 

of the AD. 

Cost Impact 

We estimate that 468 Model A319–

111, –112, –113, –114, –131, and –132 

and Model A320 series airplanes of U.S. 

registry will be affected by this AD. 

It will take between 10 and 22 work 

hours per airplane to accomplish the 

modification, at an average labor rate of 

$65 per work hour. Required parts will 

cost between $670 and $5,750 per 

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost 

impact of the modification required by 

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated 

to be between $617,760 and $3,360,240, 

or between $1,320 and $7,180 per 

airplane. 

If an operator is required to replace 

the high-level sensors, it will take about 

80 work hours, at an average labor rate 

of $65 per work hour. Required parts are 

free of charge. Based on these figures, 

the cost impact of the replacement 

required by this AD is estimated to be 

$5,200 per airplane. 

The cost impact figures discussed 

above are based on assumptions that no 

operator has yet accomplished any of 

the requirements of this AD action, and 

that no operator would accomplish 

those actions in the future if this AD 

were not adopted. The cost impact 

figures discussed in AD rulemaking 

actions represent only the time 

necessary to perform the specific actions 

actually required by the AD. These 

figures typically do not include 

incidental costs, such as the time 

required to gain access and close up, 

planning time, or time necessitated by 

other administrative actions. 

Currently, there are no affected A319–

115 and A319–133 series airplanes on 

the U.S. Register. However, if an 

affected airplane is imported and placed 

on the U.S. Register in the future, the 

required modification would take 

between 10 and 22 work hours per 

airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 

per work hour. Required parts will cost 

between $670 and $5,750 per airplane. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

cost of this AD to be between $1,320 

and $7,180 per airplane. 

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 adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive:

2004–23–04 Airbus: Amendment 39–13859. 

Docket 2002-NM–153√AD.

Applicability: Model A319 and A320 series 

airplanes, certificated in any category; as 

listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A320–28–

1087, Revision 02, dated June 10, 2003; and 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–28–1086, 

Revision 01, dated October 23, 2002. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

To prevent overheating of the fuel probes 

due to a short circuit, and fuel leakage due 

to inadequate space for thermal expansion 

within the additional center tanks, which 

could result in fuel vapors or fuel contacting 

an ignition source, accomplish the following: 

Modification/Replacement 

(a) Within 4,000 flight hours or 30 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is first: Do the applicable actions specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD. 

Accomplishment of the modification before 

the effective date of this AD per Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–28–1087, dated July 

17, 2001; or Revision 01, dated March 3, 

2003; or accomplishment of the replacement 

before the effective date of this AD per 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–28–1086, 

dated November 30, 1999; as applicable; is 

considered acceptable for compliance with 

the corresponding action specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD. 

(1) For airplanes defined in Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–28–1087, Revision 02, dated 

June 10, 2003: Modify the wiring of the fuel 

quantity indicating probes of all the fuel 

tanks by doing all the actions specified in 

paragraphs 3.A. through 3.D. (including 

operational testing and any applicable repair) 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

service bulletin. Do the actions per the 

service bulletin. Any applicable repair must 

be done before further flight. 

(2) For airplanes defined in Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–28–1086, Revision 01, dated 

October 23, 2002: Prior to or concurrent with 

accomplishment of paragraph (a)(1) of this 

AD, replace the high-level sensors of the 

additional center fuel tanks by doing all the 

actions specified in paragraphs 3.A through 

3.D. (including operational testing and any 

applicable repair) of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the service bulletin. Do the 

actions per the service bulletin. Any 

applicable repair must be done before further 

flight. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(b) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is 

authorized to approve alternative methods of 

compliance for this AD. 

Incorporation by Reference 

(c) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, 

the actions shall be done in accordance with 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–28–1086, 

Revision 01, dated October 23, 2002; or 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–28–1087, 

Revision 02, dated June 10, 2003; as 

applicable. This incorporation by reference 

was approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR part 51. For copies, contact 

Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Inspect copies 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

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)