56814 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

needs. The pilot was originally 

scheduled to expire in 1998 but was 

extended until December 8, 2004, 

through a series of legislative actions. 

On December 8, 2004, President Bush 

signed Public Law 108–447, Division K, 

which included the Small Business 

Administration Reauthorization and 

Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004. 

This Act gave SBA authorization to 

continue several programs but did not 

re-authorize the VSB program. Because 

SBA no longer has statutory authority to 

conduct the VSB program, the 

regulations applicable to the program 

are no longer necessary and will be 

removed from the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Removal of these 

regulations is an entirely administrative 

action that will minimize confusion 

about the status of the VSB program and 

how agencies are to conduct 

procurements. 

The expiration of the authority to give 

preference to very small businesses 

under the VSB program also impacts the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). 

SBA has notified the Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council (Council) as well as 

the Federal procurement agencies of the 

expiration of the VSB program and 

intends to work with the Council to 

implement the necessary amendments 

to the FAR. 

Compliance With Executive Orders 

12866, 12988, and 13132, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) 

OMB has determined that this final 

rule does not constitute a ’’significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. 

For purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35, the 

SBA determines that this rule does not 

impose new reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. 

This action meets applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. The action does not have 

retroactive or preemptive effect. 

This regulation will not have 

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, for the 

purposes of Executive Order 13132, 

SBA determines that this final rule has 

no federalism implications warranting 

preparation of a federalism assessment. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires 

administrative agencies to consider the 

effect of their actions on small entities, 

small non-profit enterprises, and small 

local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, 

when an agency issues a rulemaking, 

the agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis which describes the 

impact of the rule on small entities. 

However, section 605 of the RFA allows 

an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of 

preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking 

is not expected to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Within the 

meaning of RFA, SBA certifies that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

List of Subjects 

13 CFR Part 121 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Government procurement, 

Government property, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

13 CFR Part 125 

Government contracts, Government 

procurement, Small businesses, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Small businesses, 

Technical assistance. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Small Business Administration 

amends 13 CFR parts 121 and 125 as 

follows: 

PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 121 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632(a), (p), (q), 

634(b)(6), 637(a), 644, and 662(5); Pub. L. 

105–135 sec. 401 et seq. 

■ 2. Revise § 121.401 to read as follows: 

§ 121.401 What procurement programs are 

subject to size determinations? 

The rules set forth in §§ 121.401 

through 121.413 apply to all Federal 

procurement programs for which status 

as a small business is required or 

advantageous, including the small 

business set-aside program, SBA’s 

Certificate of Competency program, 

SBA’s 8(a) Business Development 

program, SBA’s HUBZone program, 

SBA’s Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned 

Small Business program, the Small 

Business Subcontracting program, and 

the Federal Small Disadvantaged 

Business (SDB) program. 

§ 121.413 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 3. Remove and reserve § 121.413. 

PART 125—GOVERNMENT 

CONTRACTING PROGRAMS 

■ 4. The authority citation for Part 125 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632(p), (q); 634(b)(6); 

637; 644 and 657(f). 

§ 125.7 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 5. Amend Part 125 by removing and 

reserving § 125.7. 

■ 6. Revise § 125.13 to read as follows: 

§ 125.13 May 8(a) Program participants, 

HUBZone SBCs, Small and Disadvantaged 

Businesses, or Women-Owned Small 

Businesses qualify as SDVO SBCs? 

Yes, 8(a) Program participants, 

HUBZone SBCs, Small and 

Disadvantaged Businesses, and WomenOwned SBCs, may also qualify as SDVO 

SBCs if they meet the requirements in 

this subject. 

Dated: September 23, 2005. 

Hector V. Barretto, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–19512 Filed 9–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20796; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–160–AD; Amendment 

39–14299; AD 2005–20–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A300 B2 and A300 B4 Series Airplanes; 

Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R and F4–

600R Series Airplanes, and Model A300 

C4–605R Variant F Airplanes 

(Collectively Called A300–600 Series 

Airplanes); and Model A310–200 and 

–300 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all the 

Airbus models identified above. This 

AD requires modifying the electrical 

power supply logic for the integral 

lighting of the standby horizon indicator 

in the cockpit, accomplishing repetitive 

operational tests of the integral lighting 

logic system, and performing corrective 

action if necessary. This AD is 

prompted by a report of temporary loss 

of six cathode ray tube (CRT) flight 

displays and the integral lighting of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56815 

standby horizon indicator backlight in 

the cockpit during takeoff, due to failure 

of the normal electrical power circuit. 

That power circuit supplies power to 

both the CRTs and the standby horizon 

indicator backlight. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent loss of the integral 

lighting due to failure of the normal 

electrical power circuit, which could 

result in inability of the pilot to read the 

backup attitude information during 

takeoff, and possible deviation from the 

intended flight path. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 3, 2005. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the AD is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of November 3, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 

Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 

Blagnac Cedex, France. 

Docket: The AD docket contains the 

proposed AD, comments, and any final 

disposition. You can examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility office between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

Docket Management Facility office 

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

the plaza level of the Nassif Building at 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

400 Seventh Street SW., room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. This docket number is 

FAA–2005–20796; the directorate 

identifier for this docket is 2004–NM–

160–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2797; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with 

an AD for all Airbus Model A300 B2 

and A300 B4 series airplanes; Model 

A300 B4–600, B4–600R and F4–600R 

series airplanes, and Model A300 C4–

605R Variant F airplanes (collectively 

called A300–600 series airplanes); and 

Model A310 series airplanes. That 

action, published in the Federal 

Register on April 4, 2005 (70 FR 16981), 

proposed to require modifying the 

electrical power supply logic for the 

integral lighting of the standby horizon 

indicator in the cockpit, accomplishing 

repetitive operational tests of the 

integral lighting logic system, and 

performing corrective action if 

necessary. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments that have 

been submitted on the NPRM. 

Support for Proposed AD 

One commenter supports the intent 

and actions specified in the NPRM. 

Request To Revise Service Information/ 

Change Certain Requirements 

One commenter states that it has no 

objection to the intent of the NPRM—to 

prevent loss of integral lighting; 

however, the commenter has several 

concerns. Each of the commenter’s 

concerns is followed by an FAA 

response. 

1. The NPRM and the referenced 

French airworthiness directive are based 

on one operator, one airplane, and one 

event. The commenter notes that the 

Airbus solution was to issue the 

referenced service information, and 

adds that the reported multiple cathode 

ray tube (CRT) failure seems to be a 

mystery. Per the Discussion section in 

the NPRM, ‘‘The temporary loss of the 

CRTs is still under investigation.’’

However, the referenced service bulletin 

specifies ‘‘This inspection service 

bulletin (ISB) recommends checking the 

standby horizon integral lighting logic 

supply. Accomplishment of this ISB 

will avoid the loss of the standby 

horizon indicator integral lighting.’’ The 

commenter notes that there is no CRT 

reference in the service bulletin. The 

commenter would like to see the 

modification specified in the service 

bulletins be compatible with the 

modification required by the NPRM; for 

this to occur, the service bulletins must 

be revised to specify if the CRT issue is 

corrected with the modification. 

Airbus has issued the following 

revised service bulletins (the previous 

versions were referenced in the NPRM 

as the appropriate sources of service 

information for accomplishing certain 

required actions): 

REVISED SERVICE BULLETINS

For Model— Service Bulletin date— 

A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes ................................................... A300–31–0077, Revision 01, dated January 28, 2005. 

A300 B4–600, B4–600R and F4–600R series airplanes; A300 C4– 

605R Variant F airplanes.

A300–31–6105, Revision 03, dated December 20, 2004. 

A300–33–6049, Revision 02, dated April 25, 2005. 

A310 series airplanes ............................................................................... A310–31–2120, Revision 02, dated January 28, 2005; and Revision 

03, dated June 22, 2005. 

We have added the revisions above to 

this final rule as the sources of service 

information for accomplishing certain 

actions. These revisions add no further 

work to the previous issues of the 

service bulletins; operators are merely 

informed that the revised service 

bulletins are mandatory. We have 

changed paragraph (f) of this AD to add 

credit for actions done in accordance 

with the previous issues of the service 

bulletins. 

For clarification, the standby horizon 

indicator provides backup attitude 

information to the pilot and is 

illuminated by integral lighting (a 

backlight). The purpose of modifying 

the electrical power supply logic for the 

integral lighting is to provide automatic 

switching to a different power circuit if 

there is a failure of the normal power 

circuit. This switching will allow the 

pilot to read attitude information from 

the standby indicator in low light 

conditions with a failure of the normal 

power circuit. The technical content of 

the referenced service bulletins is 

correct and contains adequate 

information and procedures to 

accomplish the modification of the 

electrical power supply logic; however, 

this modification will not correct the 

temporary loss of the CRTs, which is 

still under investigation. We have 

changed the Summary section and 

paragraph (d) of this AD to add this 

clarification. 

2. The modification of the integral 

lighting power supply logic of the 

standby horizon is still not the ultimate 

‘‘fix’’ since the NPRM requires 

indefinite repetitive operational tests of 

56816 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the modification. The commenter argues 

that the referenced service bulletins 

were issued by Airbus as a data 

collection device to verify that the 

modification fixed the problem. Further 

explanation of the necessity of the 

repetitive operational tests, by the FAA 

or the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation 

Civile (DGAC), which is the 

airworthiness authority for France, is 

requested. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

concern regarding accomplishing 

repetitive operational tests indefinitely, 

but we disagree with the comment that 

the service bulletins were issued by 

Airbus as a data collection device to 

verify that the modification fixed the 

problem. The FAA, DGAC, and Airbus 

regard the modification of the integral 

lighting power supply logic of the 

standby horizon indicator a final fix to 

ensure adequate lighting. During 

operation under normal electrical 

power, background lighting of the standby attitude is supplied through a 

specific power circuit. However, the 

modification provides automatic 

switching to a different power circuit if 

there is a failure of the normal power 

circuit. This feature is hidden as long as 

the normal power circuit is operating. 

Consequently, to limit the exposure 

time of a hidden failure of the automatic 

switching feature to meet safety 

objectives, a periodic operational test is 

required. 

3. The NPRM requires indefinite 

repetitive operational tests of the 

modification at 600-flight-hour 

intervals. The commenter has an 

established B-check maintenance 

schedule of 350 flight hours and would 

like to propose that the test interval be 

changed to a 700-flight-hour interval. 

This would allow for routine scheduling 

of aircraft and add only 1.5 man hours 

to its current B-check workload. 

We agree that the test interval can be 

changed to a 700-flight-hour interval. 

The manufacturer has completed a 

reassessment of the probability of the 

loss of the automatic switching feature. 

As a result of a detailed Failure Mode 

Effect Analysis, and inclusion of the 

latest fleet cumulative flight-hour data, 

the necessary safety objective can be 

met with an extension of the maximum 

exposure time to 700 flight hours. We 

have changed paragraph (h) of this AD 

accordingly. 

4. Of the 189 airplanes of U.S. registry 

that are affected by the NPRM, the 

commenter currently operates 107, with 

8 more in a passenger-to-freighter 

conversion process. All of these 

airplanes will require the proposed 

modification. The referenced service 

bulletins specify that obtaining the kits 

to accomplish the modification will take 

a 4-month lead-time from receipt of 

order. This makes scheduling and 

accomplishing the modification on all 

its airplanes within the 12 month 

compliance time virtually impossible. 

The commenter proposes a 36-month 

compliance time to allow the 

commenter to take advantage of its Ccheck intervals, which are Airbus 

specified at 910 days or 3,500 flight 

hours, whichever occurs first. The 

proposed compliance time also takes 

into consideration that maintenance 

facilities are down for host-country 

holidays, and limited maintenance is 

accomplished in the U.S. from October 

through January for maximum airlift 

during that time. 

We agree to extend the compliance 

time for the modification to within 18 

months after the effective date of this 

AD. We find that, for the airplane 

models affected by this AD, operators 

should be able to accomplish the 

modification within 18-months. For 

operators that encounter difficulty 

accomplishing the modification within 

this timeframe, under the provisions of 

paragraph (j) of this AD, we may 

approve a request for further adjustment 

to the compliance time if data are 

submitted to substantiate that such an 

adjustment would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. 

5. The cost estimates for the NPRM 

differ from the cost estimates specified 

in the referenced service bulletins. The 

service bulletins specify a minimum of 

two Airbus kits, and some airplanes will 

need three, depending on whether other 

modifications are embodied. The 

commenter has computed a required 

parts price range of $5,410 to $9,350, 

with an associated work hour range of 

31 to 36. Based on these figures, the 

estimated cost for the proposed 

modification would be between $7,425 

and $11,690 per airplane. The service 

bulletins also indicate that the 

operational test will require 1.5 work 

hours to accomplish, which is an 

additional $97.50 per airplane, per test 

cycle. 

We do not agree, the cost of the kits 

and the number of work hours are the 

same as those specified in the 

referenced service bulletins. The cost 

analysis in AD rulemaking actions 

typically does not include incidental 

costs such as the time required to gain 

access and close up, time necessary for 

planning, or time necessitated by other 

administrative actions. Because the 

work hours may vary significantly from 

operator to operator, depending on the 

airplane configuration, they are almost 

impossible to calculate. We have made 

no change to the AD in this regard. 

6. The corrective action specified in 

paragraph (i) of the NPRM is too vague 

and will slow the repair process, as 

follows: ‘‘If any operational test required 

by paragraph (h) of this AD fails: Before 

further flight, accomplish any 

applicable repair per 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 

(or its delegated agent).’’ The literal 

interpretation of this, as written, is that 

when a test fails, the airplane is 

grounded until the FAA grants an 

approved method that would restore the 

airplane to an operational condition. 

This prevents the operator from using 

established maintenance practices until 

an ‘‘approved method’’ is granted by the 

FAA or DGAC. The approval required is 

implied to be per airplane, since the 

operational test is done by individual 

airplane. Allowing the use of standard 

maintenance practices would allow an 

operator to restore the affected airplane 

on-site and expedite the return to 

operational status. The FAA-approved 

operator’s general maintenance manual, 

aircraft maintenance manual, illustrated 

parts catalog, wire diagram manual, and 

system schematic manual, have always 

been accepted tools to troubleshoot and 

restore an airplane to operational status. 

Instances of a failed test in which 

standard maintenance practices do not 

solve the problem should be the only 

time an AMOC would be required by 

the FAA or DGAC. 

We agree that, in the case of a failed 

test in which standard maintenance 

practices do not solve the problem, a 

repair approved by us or the DGAC is 

required. The service bulletins for the 

test do not provide formal repair/trouble 

shooting instructions if a test fails. 

However, the manufacturer has 

confirmed that their intent was that any 

repair/trouble shooting following such 

failure should be performed per basic 

maintenance practices, using standard 

Airbus documentation. We have 

included the aircraft wiring manual, 

trouble shooting manual, and aircraft 

maintenance manual as approved 

methods for accomplishing the repairs 

specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. 

Explanation of Change to Applicability 

We have revised the applicability of 

the NPRM to identify model 

designations as published in the most 

recent type certificate data sheet for the 

affected models. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

that have been submitted, and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56817 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We have determined that these changes 

will neither increase the economic 

burden on any operator nor increase the 

scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

This AD affects about 189 airplanes of 

U.S. registry. 

It will take between approximately 10 

and 36 work hours per airplane to 

accomplish the modification (depending 

on the number of kits needed), at an 

average labor rate of $65 per work hour. 

Required parts will cost approximately 

between $310 and $4,880 per airplane. 

Based on these figures, the estimated 

cost of the modification is between $960 

and $7,220 per airplane. 

It will take about 1 work hour per 

airplane to accomplish the operational 

test, at an average labor rate of $65 per 

work hour. Based on these figures, the 

estimated cost of the test is $12,285, or 

$65 per airplane, per test cycle. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

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

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

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

(3) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for 

a location to examine the regulatory 

evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2005–20–06 Airbus: Amendment 39–14299. 

Docket No. FAA–2005–20796; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–160–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective November 3, 

2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model 

A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, and B2–203 

and A300 B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 

airplanes; Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–

620, and B4–622, A300 B4–605R and B4–

622R, A300 F4–605R and F4–622R, and A300 

C4–605R Variant F airplanes; and Model 

A310–203, –204, –221, and –222 and –304, 

–322, –324, and –325 airplanes; certificated 

in any category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by a report of 

temporary loss of six cathode ray tube (CRT) 

flight displays and the integral lighting of the 

standby horizon indicator in the cockpit 

during takeoff, due to failure of the normal 

electrical power circuit. That power circuit 

supplies power to both the CRTs and standby 

horizon indicator backlight. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent loss of the integral lighting 

due to failure of the normal electrical power 

circuit, which could result in inability of the 

pilot to read the backup attitude information 

during takeoff, and possible deviation from 

the intended flight path. 

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. 

Required Service Information 

(f) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, 

the term ‘‘service bulletin,’’ as used in this 

AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions 

of the applicable service bulletin identified 

in Table 1 of this AD. Airbus Service 

Bulletins A300–33–0126, A300–33–6049, 

and A310–33–2047 specify to submit certain 

information to the manufacturer, but this AD 

does not include that requirement. 

TABLE 1.—SERVICE BULLETINS

For Airbus Models— Use Airbus Service Bulletin(s)— Revision— Dated—

And, for actions done before the 

effective date of this AD, credit is 

given for prior accomplishing of—

A300 B2 and A300 B4 series ........ A300–31–0077 (Airbus Modification 12513).01 ................ January 28, 2005 Original, dated March 2, 2004. 

A300–33–0126 ............................. Original ........ April 5, 2004 ........ N/A. 

A300 B4–600; A300 B4–600R and 

F4–600R series; and A300 C4–

605R Variant F airplanes.

A300–31–6105 (Airbus Modifications 12513 and 12730).03 ................ December 20, 

2004.

Revision 02, dated May 27, 2003. 

A300–33–6049 ............................. 02 ................ April 25, 2005 ...... Original, dated April 5, 2004; Revision 01, dated May 28, 2004. 

A310 series .................................... A310–31–2120 (Airbus Modification 12513).03 ................ June 22, 2005 ..... Original, dated November 19, 

2002; Revision 01, dated May 

27, 2003; Revision 02, dated 

January 28, 2005. 

56818 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—SERVICE BULLETINS—Continued 

For Airbus Models— Use Airbus Service Bulletin(s)— Revision— Dated—

And, for actions done before the 

effective date of this AD, credit is 

given for prior accomplishing of—

A310–33–2047 ............................. Original ........ April 5, 2004 ........ N/A. 

Modification 

(g) For airplanes on which Airbus 

Modifications 12513 and 12730 have not 

been accomplished: Within 18 months after 

the effective date of this AD, modify the 

electrical power supply logic of the integral 

lighting for the standby horizon indicator in 

the cockpit in accordance with the service 

bulletin. 

Repetitive Operational Tests 

(h) For all airplanes: Within 700 flight 

hours after accomplishing the modification 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or 

within 700 flight hours after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever is later, 

accomplish the operational test of the 

integral lighting logic system in accordance 

with the service bulletin. Repeat the test 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 700 flight 

hours. 

Corrective Action 

(i) If any operational test required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD fails: Before further 

flight, accomplish any applicable repair per 

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) (or its delegated agent). Airbus 

A300–600 and A310 Trouble Shooting 

Manuals; Airbus A300–600 and A310 

Aircraft Wiring Manuals; and Airbus A300–

600 and A310 Aircraft Maintenance Manuals, 

are approved methods for accomplishing the 

repair, as applicable. Except, in the case of 

a failed test in which standard maintenance 

practices do not solve the problem, a repair 

approved by the FAA or the DGAC is 

required. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(k) French airworthiness directive F–2004–

098, dated July 7, 2004, also addresses the 

subject of this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(l) You must use the applicable service 

bulletin identified in Table 2 of this AD to 

perform the actions that are required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

TABLE 2.—SERVICE BULLETINS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Airbus Service Bulletin— Revision— Dated—

A300–31–0077 ............................................................................................................................................. 01 ................ January 28, 2005. 

A300–31–6105 ............................................................................................................................................. 03 ................ December 20, 2004. 

A300–33–0126, excluding Appendix 01 ...................................................................................................... Original ........ April 5, 2004. 

A300–33–6049, excluding Appendix 01 ...................................................................................................... 02 ................ April 25, 2005. 

A310–31–2120 ............................................................................................................................................. 03 ................ June 22, 2005. 

A310–33–2047, excluding Appendix 01 ...................................................................................................... Original ........ April 5, 2004. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 

Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France, for a copy of this service 

information. You may review copies at the 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh 

Street SW., Room PL–401, Nassif Building, 

Washington, DC; on the internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov; or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

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

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

federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 20, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–19229 Filed 9–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22540; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–137–AD; Amendment 

39–14301; AD 2005–20–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330–200 and –300 Series Airplanes; 

and Model A340–200 and –300 Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Airbus transport category airplanes, 

identified above. This AD requires an 

inspection to determine if a certain 

lower pin (p-pin) of the retraction 

actuator of the main landing gear (MLG) 

is installed. If the affected p-pin is 

installed, this AD requires a one-time 

inspection of the p-pin for correct grease 

hole position and cracking; repetitive 

daily inspections for pin migration; and 

eventual replacement of all p-pins with 

new p-pins. For any p-pin that is 

cracked or shows pin migration, this AD 

requires immediate replacement with a 

new p-pin. Replacing the p-pin with one 

that is correctly manufactured (i.e., that 

has the correct grease hole position) is 

terminating action for the repetitive 

inspections. This AD results from a 

report that a cracked p-pin was found 

when the MLG was removed for 

overhaul. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent failure of the p-pin, which 

could result in degradation of the MLG 

structural integrity and possible 

hazardous landing. 

DATES: Effective October 14, 2005. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of October 14, 2005. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by November 28, 2005.