Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 75591

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:

2000–24–18 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–12025. Docket 2000–NM–96–AD.

Applicability: Model A300 B2 and B4

series airplanes, and Model A300 B4–600,

A300 B4–600R, and A300 F4–600R (A300–

600) series airplanes; certificated in any

category; except those airplanes on which

Airbus Modification 04489 has been installed

during production.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent chafing of the wire harnesses of

the high-level sensors, which could result in

a short circuit and consequent fuel ignition

source inside the outer wing fuel tanks,

accomplish the following:

Detailed Visual Inspection

(a) Within 500 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, perform a detailed

visual inspection to detect chafing and the

existence of repairs of the harness (cable) of

the high-level sensor of the fuel surge tanks,

and to detect chafe marks on the support

canisters of the magnetic level indicators, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–28–0077 (for Model A300 series

airplanes) or A300–28–6062 (for Model

A300–600 series airplanes), each dated July

19, 1999, as applicable.

(1) For airplanes on which modification of

the harness in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–28–0058 (for Model

A300 series airplanes) or A300–28–6020 (for

Model A300–600 series airplanes), as

applicable, HAS NOT been accomplished:

Accomplish the requirements of paragraphs

(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Repeat the detailed visual inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight

hours until the requirements of paragraph

(a)(1)(ii) of this AD are accomplished. If any

wire chafing, chafe mark, or existing repair

is detected during any inspection, prior to

further flight, determine the appropriate

repair and/or condition of repair as specified

in Inspection Table 1 of the Accomplishment

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–

28–0077 or A300–28–6062, as applicable. At

the times specified in Inspection Table I,

accomplish corrective actions (e.g.,

temporary or permanent repairs, and followon inspections and repairs) in accordance

with the applicable service bulletin. If any

discrepancy is found during any follow-on

inspection, prior to further flight, repair the

discrepancy in accordance with the

applicable service bulletin.

(ii) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, modify the harness of the

high-level sensor in the outer wing fuel tanks

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–28–0058, Revision 02 (for Model A300

series airplanes), or A300–28–6020, Revision

01 (for Model A300–600 series airplanes),

each dated September 28, 1999.

Accomplishment of the modification

terminates the 500-flight-hour repetitive

inspection required by paragraph (a)(1) of

this AD. However, if a temporary repair is

installed, the 10,000-flight-hour detailed

visual inspection specified in the follow-on

corrective actions of Table 1 continues to be

required by this AD.

(2) For airplanes on which modification of

the harness in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–28–0058 (for Model

A300 series airplanes) or A300–28–6020 (for

Model A300–600 series airplanes), as

applicable, HAS been accomplished:

Accomplish the requirements of paragraph

(a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii), as applicable.

(i) If no wire chafing, chafe marks, or

existing repairs are detected, no further

action is required by this AD.

(ii) If any wire chafing, chafe mark, or

existing repair is detected, prior to further

flight, determine the appropriate repair and/

or condition of repair specified in Inspection

Table 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions

of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–0077 or

A300–28–6062, as applicable. At the times

specified in Inspection Table 2, accomplish

corrective actions (e.g., temporary or

permanent repairs and follow-on inspections)

in accordance with the applicable service

bulletin. If any discrepancy is found during

any follow-on inspection, prior to further

flight, repair the discrepancy in accordance

with the applicable service bulletin.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as

mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used.

Surface cleaning and elaborate access

procedures may be required.’’

Note 3: Modification accomplished prior to

the effective date of this AD in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–0058,

dated December 15, 1988, or Revision 01,

dated October 1, 1991 (for Model A300 series

airplanes); or A300–28–6020, dated

December 15, 1988 (for Model A300–600

series airplanes); is considered acceptable for

compliance with the action specified in

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(d) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–0077,

dated July 19, 1999; Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–28–0058, Revision 02, dated

September 28, 1999; Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–28–6062, dated July 19, 1999; or

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–28–6020,

Revision 01, dated September 28, 1999; 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. Copies may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 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

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 1999–404–

293(B), dated October 6, 1999.

Effective Date

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

January 8, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 22, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30395 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–227–AD; Amendment

39–12015; AD 2000–24–08]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

75592 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Airbus Model A319,

A320, and A321 series airplanes, that

requires a revision to the Airplane

Flight Manual; inspection to detect

damage of the wiring and adjacent

structure along the length of the fairing

of the fuel boost pump; corrective

actions, if necessary; and modification

of the fuel pump wire and fairing. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent electrical arcing of

the fuel boost pump wire, which could

result in wing structural damage, fire,

and/or fuel vapor explosion. This action

is intended to address the identified

unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective January 8, 2001.

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, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, ANM–116,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2141; fax (425) 227–1149.

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 all Airbus Model

A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes

was published in the Federal Register

on August 24, 2000 (65 FR 51560). That

action proposed to require a revision to

the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM);

inspection to detect damage of the

wiring and adjacent structure along the

length of the fairing of the fuel boost

pump; corrective actions, if necessary;

and modification of the fuel pump wire

and fairing.

Action Since the Issuance of Proposed

AD

The Direction Generale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France, has

issued French airworthiness directive

2000–419–154(B), dated October 4,

2000. That airworthiness directive

includes a procedure for revising the

AFM. In addition, if a fuel boost pump

malfunctions, airworthiness directive

procedures specify removing the wiring

fairing to inspect the electrical wiring,

fairing, and wing skin within the fairing

area; and corrective actions, if

necessary. Procedures also include a

reporting requirement.

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.

One commenter supports the AFM

revision specified by the proposed AD.

Request To Delete the Inspection

Requirement

Five commenters request deleting the

requirement in paragraph (b) of the

proposed AD, which specifies an

inspection of the wiring and adjacent

structure along the length of the fairing.

All of the commenters are concerned

that the inspection could induce more

damage, even if operators exercise

caution as recommended in the

proposed AD.

One commenter states that in-service

experience indicates that arcing of the

underwing fuel pump wiring is mainly

linked to poor maintenance action

rather than to damage due to vibration

and chafing. That commenter considers

that most of the damage has occurred

during fairing replacement when the

fuel boost pump wire can be pinched

and damaged. A second commenter

concurs and suggests that the inspection

specified in paragraph (b) be included

in paragraph (c) of this AD, in case a

circuit breaker tripped. A third

commenter considers that removing the

fairing is unnecessary, and that such

action may cause needless damage to

the wiring upon re-installation. In

addition, the design of the system is

such that, if a wire is trapped, the

circuit breaker will trip and avert

danger. A fourth commenter considers

that the inspection increases the

probability of inducing a fault despite

heightened awareness, and that the

inspection should be required only

when terminating action is identified

and applied before reinstalling the

fairing. A fifth commenter notes that, if

a fuel pump circuit breaker trips, a full

inspection of the wiring underneath the

fairing is required prior to further use of

that pump. Further, that requirement

should be enough to remove the need

for the inspection specified by the

proposed AD.

The FAA does not concur that the

detailed visual inspection in paragraph

(b) of the proposed AD should be

deleted. We consider that the benefit

from the one-time inspection outweighs

the risk of wire damage during

reassembly of the fairing. We have

received reports of damaged wiring and

arcing to the fuselage skin on in-service

and newly manufactured airplanes,

which indicate that additional airplanes

may have pre-existing wire damage. In

addition, we have found that

intermittent arcing, which gradually

eroded the adjacent aluminum structure

and penetrated into the fuel tank, has

occurred on other model airplanes

without tripping the circuit breaker.

Therefore, the possibility that such

arcing damage could result in fuel

leaking on top of the arcing wire

justifies the one-time inspection.

We do not agree that the inspection

increases the probability of inducing

damage. We point out that the original

fairing installations were done without

any installation precautions. However,

to ensure that wiring damage is not

induced during replacement action, we

included specific instructions

cautioning operators to take special care

when replacing the fairing. Those

instructions, which were added to

paragraph (b) of the proposed AD, make

it unlikely that improper installation of

the fairing will occur.

For these reasons, we consider that

the one-time detailed visual inspection

required by paragraph (b) of this AD is

needed to ensure that no critical

condition exists in the fleet. Paragraph

(b) has not been deleted in the final rule.

Requests To Specify a Difference

Regarding the Inspection Requirement

Two commenters state that, although

the proposed AD specifies a one-time

inspection (of all Model A319, A320,

and A321 series airplanes), the

previously referenced French

airworthiness directive does not specify

such an inspection. This difference

should be included in the final rule so

that other Civil Aviation Authorities can

decide on the corrective actions they

consider appropriate, and so that any

confusion for the operators is avoided.

We concur with the request to specify

this difference in the final rule. Note 4

of the final rule includes a statement

that notifies operators of the difference

between this AD and the French

airworthiness directive.

Request To Add a Reference to an

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

One commenter requests adding a

reference to the DGAC-approved AFM

Temporary Revision (TR) 2.05.00/31 in

paragraph (a) of the proposed AD as a

means of compliance. That TR includes

the same basic requirements defined in

paragraph (a) of the proposed AD.

We concur with this request, and

agree that the TR includes the same

basic requirements defined in paragraph

(a) of the proposed AD. Paragraph (a) of

the final rule now states that ‘‘This may

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 75593

be accomplished by inserting a copy of

this AD or Airbus Temporary Revision

2.04.00/31 into the AFM.’’

Requests To Delete the Modification

Requirement

Two commenters request deleting the

modification requirement specified by

paragraph (e) of the proposed AD. One

commenter states that a final fix is being

developed and should be available by

the end of this year. When the final fix

is available, a new AD should be issued

to mandate the modification. Another

commenter considers that the

modification should be required within

18 months after the modification is

made available. However, since the

modification is not currently available,

that requirement should be removed

from the AD.

We partially concur with the requests

regarding the modification requirement

in paragraph (e) of the proposed AD.

Although a final modification has not

been completely defined, we consider it

imperative to speed up the development

and installation of a modification to

prevent any chance of the wires being

damaged either during removal and

replacement of the fairing, or due to

vibration while the airplane is in

service. We have determined that

allowing an additional 6 months for

development and testing of the

modification is appropriate to ensure

that the modification is effective and to

allow enough time for incorporating the

modification on in-service airplanes.

The compliance time for the

modification is extended from 18 to 24

months in paragraph (e) of the final rule.

Request To Revise the Cost Estimate

The Air Transport Association (ATA)

of America, on behalf of one of its

members, states that re-installation of

the fairing, per the ‘‘Installation of Fuel

Pump Fairing’’ section of Airbus

Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM)

Task 28–21–49–400–001, requires the

use of a sealant with a cure time of up

to 16 hours. The commenter adds that

the sealant curing process will have a

severe economic impact on the airlines,

which does not appear to be addressed

in the Cost Impact paragraph of the

NPRM.

We infer that the commenter requests

a revision of the cost estimate in the

proposed AD, but we do not concur that

a revision to the cost estimate is

necessary. While we agree that the

previously referenced AMM specifies

the use of sealant to reassemble the front

fairing and cover plate, upon further

review we have determined that it is not

necessary to remove the front fairing

and cover plate to inspect the portion of

the wiring where damage has been

found. Therefore, we have revised

paragraph (b) in the final rule to require

removal of only the ‘‘rear and

intermediate’’ fairing. With this change,

there is no requirement to apply sealant

during accomplishment of the action

required by paragraph (b) of this AD. No

change to the cost estimate was made in

the final rule.

Request To Delete Paragraph (c)

One commenter requests that

paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be

deleted from the final rule. The airplane

trouble-shooting manual (TSM)

addresses what to do when a circuit

breaker trips and includes procedures

for checking the wiring, if necessary.

The commenter adds that mandating the

removal of the fairing to check the

wiring when it is unnecessary may

induce problems. In the past, the TSM

procedure has been used to effectively

locate any arcing of the pump wiring.

We do not concur that paragraph (c)

should be deleted from this AD. While

we agree that the TSM includes a

procedure for checking the continuity of

the wire, the check may not detect an

exposed wire condition. In addition,

there have been cases where the wire

was not inspected and was later found

to be damaged. Therefore, we consider

that an inspection to determine the

condition of the wire is necessary to

ensure that no arcing condition exists.

Paragraph (c) was not deleted in the

final rule.

Request To Revise the Repair

Requirements

One commenter recommends revising

paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed AD to

include a reference to the Airbus

Standard Repair Manual (SRM), and

points out that paragraph (b)(1) of the

proposed AD references standard

practices of the manufacturer’s Aircraft

Wiring Manual. The commenter notes

that, if any damage beyond SRM limits

is found, [the commenter’s] procedures

specify seeking FAA or DGAC repair

approval for structures that are the

subject of AD’s.

We concur with the request to revise

the repair requirements. Because the

SRM is approved by the DGAC, it may

be used as the approved data source to

repair any damage that does not exceed

the limits specified in the SRM. We

have revised paragraph (b)(2) in the

final rule to include the SRM as another

approved method for repairing the

airplane structure.

Explanation of Change Made to

Proposal

We have clarified the inspection

requirement contained in the proposed

AD.

Although NOTE 2 in the proposal

specified a detailed inspection, we have

revised this final rule to clarify that its

intent is to require a detailed visual

inspection. NOTE 2 of the final rule has

been changed accordingly.

Editorial Changes to the Final Rule

Airbus advises that the circuit

breakers for the wing fuel tank pump are

designated as 1QA, 2QA, 7QA, and

8QA. We have added these circuit

breaker designators to paragraph (a) of

the final rule.

Airbus also advises that the Aircraft

Wiring Manual (AWM), Standard

Practices, Chapter 20, includes

procedures for repairing damaged wire.

As a result of this information, we have

added repair to the existing replacement

action as another method of compliance

in paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule. We

have determined that this change will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD. This change provides

operators with an option to either repair

or replace the wire per the AWM.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, we have determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

described previously. These changes

will neither increase the economic

burden on any operator nor increase the

scope of the AD.

Cost Impact

We estimate that 306 Model A319,

A320, and A321 series airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

required AFM revision, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

AFM revision on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $18,360, or $60 per

airplane.

It will take approximately 2 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required inspection (including time to

remove the fairing), at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

wiring inspection on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $36,720, or $120 per

airplane.

Since the manufacturer has not yet

developed a modification

commensurate with the requirements of

75594 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

this AD, we are unable at this time to

provide specific information as to the

number of work hours or cost of parts

that will be required to accomplish the

modification. The compliance time of

24 months should provide ample time

for the development, approval, and

installation of an appropriate

modification.

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, 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:

2000–24–08 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–12015. Docket 2000–NM–227–AD.

Applicability: All Model A319, A320, and

A321 series airplanes; certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance per

paragraph (f) of this AD. The request should

include an assessment of the effect of the

modification, alteration, or repair on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and,

if the unsafe condition has not been

eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent electrical arcing of the fuel

boost pump wire, which could result in wing

structural damage, or fire and/or fuel vapor

explosion, accomplish the following:

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

(a) Within 10 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of

the FAA-approved AFM to include the

following which may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of this AD or Airbus

Temporary Revision 2.04.00/31 into the

AFM:

‘‘FUEL SYSTEM

If circuit breaker 1QA, 2QA, 7QA, and 8QA

for any wing tank fuel boost pump is tripped,

do not reset.’’

Inspection

(b) Within 90 days after the effective date

of this AD: For each fuel boost pump, remove

the rear and intermediate fairings located on

the lower wing skin and perform a detailed

visual inspection of the wiring and the

adjacent structure along the length of the

fairings. Inspect to detect damage to the wires

including chafed, pinched, or melted wires,

and any signs of arcing damage to the

structure. When replacing the fairing

following the inspection, take care not to

pinch or otherwise damage the wiring of the

fuel boost pumps; incorrect replacement of

the fairing could cause damage to the wiring.

(1) If any damage to the wire, as described

in paragraph (b) of this AD, is detected: Prior

to further flight, either repair the wire or

replace the wire with new wire per the

manufacturer’s Aircraft Wiring Manual,

Standard Practices, Chapter 20. Submit a

report at the time specified and per

paragraph (d) of this AD.

(2) If any arcing damage to the structure is

detected: Prior to further flight, repair the

damaged structure per the airplane Structural

Repair Manual or a method approved by

either the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate; or the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de

l’Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France (or its

delegated agent). For a repair method to be

approved by the Manager, International

Branch, ANM–116, as required by this

paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter

must specifically reference this AD. Submit

a report at the time specified and per

paragraph (d) of this AD.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

(c) As of the effective date of this AD: For

any fuel boost pump on which circuit breaker

1QA, 2QA, 7QA, and 8QA of the pump has

tripped, prior to further use of that pump,

accomplish the inspection and applicable

corrective actions specified by paragraph (b)

of this AD.

Reporting Requirement

(d) If any damage is detected during any

inspection required by paragraphs (b) and (c)

of this AD: Within 10 days after

accomplishing that inspection, submit a

report of the inspection findings to the

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; fax (425) 227–1149. The report

must include a description of the damage

found, the airplane serial number, and the

number of landings and flight hours on the

airplane. Information collection requirements

contained in this regulation have been

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2120–0056.

Modification

(e) Within 24 months after the effective

date of this AD: Modify the fuel pump wire

and fairing, per a method approved by the

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(f) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 75595

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(g) Special flight permits may be issued per

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate the airplane to a location

where the requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 2000–419–

154(B), dated October 4, 2000. Operators

should note that, although this AD requires

a one-time detailed visual inspection, the

French airworthiness directive does not

mandate such an inspection.

Effective Date

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

January 8, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 22, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30394 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–107–AD; Amendment

39–12007; AD 2000–23–34]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Boeing Model 737–300,

–400, and –500 series airplanes, that

requires replacement of the existing

autothrottle computer with a new,

improved autothrottle computer. This

amendment is prompted by reports of

asymmetric thrust conditions during

flight caused by irregular autothrottle

operation in which the thrust levers

slowly move apart causing the airplane

to bank excessively and go into a roll.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent such conditions,

which could result in loss of control of

the airplane.

DATES: Effective January 8, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of January 8,

2001.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, 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 Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thanh Truong, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2552; fax (425) 227–1181.

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 all Boeing Model

737–300, –400, and –500 series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on June 12, 2000 (65 FR 36803).

That action proposed to require

replacement of the existing autothrottle

computer with a new, improved

autothrottle computer.

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 the Proposal

Two commenters state no objection to

the proposed rule and indicate that the

proposed replacements are already in

progress on their fleets.

Request to Increase Compliance Time

Three commenters request an increase

in the compliance time above the

proposed one year after the effective

date of this AD. One commenter

suggests a compliance time of 18

months, but states no reason for its

request. A second commenter suggests a

compliance time of two years, to

account for the amount of time

necessary for a particular repair station

to accomplish the modification. A third

commenter does not make a specific

suggestion for a compliance time,

though it states that it will need four

years to complete the proposed

replacement using existing spares,

considering the amount of time

necessary for the repair station (the

same one referenced by the second

commenter) to modify existing

autothrottle computers.

The FAA concurs that the compliance

time for the requirements of this AD

may be extended. To assist in

determining an appropriate compliance

time, the FAA contacted the

manufacturer of the autothrottle

computers to determine the number of

authorized repair facilities and the

manpower available. The FAA also

obtained data on the number of

autothrottle computers manufactured,

the number of units already converted,

and the number of airplanes that are

affected. Based on this information, the

FAA finds that an extension of the

compliance time to 18 months will be

sufficient to allow accomplishment of

this AD on all affected airplanes. The

FAA also finds that such an extension

of the compliance time will not

adversely affect the continued safety of

the airplane fleet. Therefore, paragraph

(a) of this AD has been revised to state

a compliance time of 18 months after

the effective date of this AD.

Request to Remove ‘‘Spares’’

Requirement

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise the proposed AD to remove

paragraph (b), the ‘‘Spares’’ paragraph.

That paragraph states, ‘‘As of the

effective date of this AD, no person shall

install on any airplane, an autothrottle

computer having part number 10–

62017–1, –2, –3, –4, –5, –11, –21, –23,

–25, or –27.’’ The commenter’s request

was based on the length of time

necessary for modification of the

existing autothrottle computers by an

authorized repair facility.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to delete the

‘‘Spares’’ requirement. As stated

previously, the FAA finds that

extension of the compliance time for

this AD from one year to 18 months

after the effective date of this AD will

allow adequate time for autothrottle

computers to be modified by an

authorized repair facility and for

operators to comply with the

requirements of this AD, without

compromising safety. No change to the

final rule is necessary in this regard.

Request to Reduce Compliance Time

and Consider Interim Actions

One commenter states that there is an

inconsistency between the urgency of

the unsafe condition, as explained in

the proposal, and the length of the

compliance time. The commenter points

to the statement in the ‘‘Differences

Between Proposed Rule and Alert

Service Bulletin’’ section of the

proposed AD, which reads, ‘‘The FAA