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. 

65532 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

We acknowledge the operator’s desire 

to minimize cost; however, we do not 

consider it appropriate to include 

various provisions in an AD to 

accommodate individual operators’

unique methods for complying with the 

AD. However, according to paragraph 

(c) of this AD, operators may request to 

use a unique nameplate as an alternative 

method of compliance. We have not 

changed this final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Request To Revise the Cost Impact 

Figures 

The same commenter states that, 

while the proposed AD specifies two 

work hours for the proposed actions, the 

referenced service bulletin specifies 

three work hours for those actions. The 

commenter asserts that the figure 

specified in the referenced service 

bulletin more accurately reflects the 

time necessary to accomplish those 

actions. 

From this comment, we infer that the 

commenter is requesting that we revise 

the Cost Impact section of the proposed 

AD. We do not agree. As stated in the 

preamble of the proposed AD, the cost 

impact figures discussed in AD 

rulemaking actions represent only the 

time necessary to perform the specific 

actions actually required by the AD. 

Those 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. The workhour figure listed in the referenced 

service bulletin includes time for access 

and close up. However, as we explain 

below, we have revised the labor rate 

used in the proposed AD. 

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 change 

previously described. The FAA has 

determined that this change will neither 

increase the economic burden on any 

operator nor increase the scope of the 

AD. 

Labor Rate Increase 

After the proposed AD was issued, we 

reviewed the figures we have used over 

the past several years to calculate AD 

costs to operators. To account for 

various inflationary costs in the airline 

industry, we find it necessary to 

increase the labor rate used in these 

calculations from $60 per work hour to 

$65 per work hour. The cost impact 

information, below, reflects this 

increase in the specified hourly labor 

rate. 

Cost Impact 

There are approximately 1,224 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 of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The FAA estimates that 600 airplanes of 

U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, 

that it will take approximately 2 work 

hours per airplane to accomplish the 

required actions, and that the average 

labor rate is $65 per work hour. 

Required parts will cost approximately 

$38 per airplane. Based on these figures, 

the cost impact of the AD on U.S. 

operators is estimated to be $100,800, or 

$168 per airplane. 

The cost impact figure discussed 

above is 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. The 

manufacturer may cover the cost of 

parts associated with this proposed AD, 

subject to warranty conditions. 

Manufacturer warranty remedies also 

may be available for labor costs 

associated with this proposed AD. As a 

result, the costs attributable to the 

proposed AD may be less than stated 

above.

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:

2004–23–05 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–13860. Docket 2000–

NM–169–AD.

Applicability: 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, 

as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 

Bulletin MD80–24A159, Revision 01, dated 

January 24, 2000; certificated in any category. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

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; accomplish 

the following: 

Required Actions 

(a) Within 1 year after the effective date of 

this AD, reverse the installation of the ground 

stud for the main battery and install a new 

nameplate on the cover of the battery; in 

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–24A159, Revision 01, 

dated January 24, 2000. 

Credit for Previously Accomplished Actions 

(b) Accomplishment of the actions 

specified in paragraph (a) of this AD before 

the effective date of this AD, in accordance 

with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 

MD80–24A159, dated March 15, 1996, is 

considered to be an acceptable method of 

compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(c) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, FAA, is authorized to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 65533

Incorporation by Reference 

(d) The actions shall be done in accordance 

with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 

Bulletin MD80–24A159, Revision 01, dated 

January 24, 2000. 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. Copies 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). Copies may be 

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 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.

Effective Date 

(e) 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. 04–24932 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–324–AD; Amendment 

39–13862; AD 2004–23–07] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 737–100, –200, –300, –400, and 

–500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes 

an existing airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain Boeing Model 737 

series airplanes, that currently requires 

modification of certain fuselage support 

structure for the number 2 galley. This 

amendment requires modification of the 

same support structure using new 

methods based on new calculations. 

This amendment also expands the 

applicability of the existing AD to 

include additional airplanes. The 

actions specified by this AD are 

intended to prevent the galley from 

shifting, which could limit access to the 

galley door during emergencies, and 

result in injury to passengers and 

flightcrew. This action is intended to 

address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective December 20, 2004. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications 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, 

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 

98124–2207. 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:

Keith Ladderud, Aerospace Engineer, 

ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; 

telephone (425) 917–6435; fax (425) 

917–6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) 

by superseding AD 95–02–08, 

amendment 39–9127 (60 FR 8295, 

February 14, 1995), which is applicable 

to certain Boeing Model 737 series 

airplanes, was published in the Federal 

Register on May 7, 2004 (69 FR 25505). 

The action proposed to require 

modification of certain fuselage support 

structure for the number 2 galley. The 

action also proposed to expand the 

applicability of the existing AD to 

include additional airplanes. 

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. 

Requests To Add an Option To Reduce 

the Weight Limit of the Galley as an 

Alternative to the Modification 

One commenter states that the 

wording in the proposed AD and the 

referenced service bulletin is such that, 

if the allowable operating weight limit 

of a given airplane’s galley is above a 

certain threshold value, the proposed 

modification would be required. The 

commenter suggests that the proposed 

AD specify that if a galley has a weight 

limit above the threshold value, the 

operator be given the option of reducing 

the weight limit to the threshold value 

and re-placarding the galley with the 

new limit, instead of modifying the 

airplane. 

Another commenter proposes an 

option be included for operators to 

reduce the total weight limit of the 

galley, as opposed to doing the 

structural modification. The commenter 

adds that, for all airplanes other than 

Group 1, the proposed AD forces the 

operator to use Table A in the 

referenced service bulletin to determine 

the structural configuration of the 

airplane. Based on that configuration, 

and the allowable galley weight limit, 

the operator will do the applicable 

corrective action. The commenter 

proposes that the FAA specify a weight 

limit for all airplane groups which is 

similar to the Group 1 airplanes listed 

in the proposed AD. The commenter 

notes that, by doing this, the operator 

will have the option of either doing the 

modification and maintaining the 

current galley weight limit, or reducing 

the galley weight limit and avoiding the 

expensive modification. 

We agree. We have added a new 

paragraph (d) to this AD that allows 

reducing the galley weight limit to 995 

pounds or less as an alternative to doing 

the required modification. The 

reduction in the galley weight limit will 

require re-placarding to specify the 

maximum capacity limit of 995 pounds 

for the galley. If necessary, re-placarding 

is required to specify the load limit for 

individual compartments, to ensure that 

the total of the individual compartment 

weights does not exceed the maximum 

capacity for the galley. 

Request To Change Applicability 

One commenter states that the 

applicability section in the proposed AD 

specifies ‘‘as listed in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–

1154, Revision 1, dated October 3, 

2002,’’ and paragraph (b) of the 

proposed AD requires doing the 

proposed modification within 18 

months, per the referenced service 

bulletin. The commenter adds that the 

first step specified in the service 

bulletin is to determine the maximum 

operating weight of the number 2 galley; 

the proposed modification is only 

necessary on airplanes with that galley, 

and that have an allowable operating 

weight of more than 995 pounds. The 

commenter suggests adding further 

description to the applicability section 

of the proposed AD to avoid 

unnecessary research and inspection. 

The commenter also adds that the 

applicability specified in AD 95–02–08 

includes a description of the galley