59256 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Actions Previously Accomplished 

(l) Inspections required by paragraph (i) of 

this AD, accomplished before the effective 

date of this AD, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53–2349, dated June 27, 

1991; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000; 

are acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding action required by paragraph 

(i) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(m)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

the appropriate principal inspector in the 

FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding 

District Office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) Alternative methods of compliance and 

FAA-approved repairs, approved previously 

in accordance with AD 2002–10–10 or AD 

93–08–12, are approved as alternative 

methods of compliance with the 

corresponding requirements of this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(n) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 

747–53–2349, dated June 27, 1991; Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, 

Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000; or Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, Revision 2, 

dated April 3, 2003; to perform the actions 

that are required by this AD, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approves the incorporation by reference of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2349, 

Revision 2, dated April 3, 2003, in 

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

part 51. 

(2) The Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation by 

reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 

2000, as of June 27, 2002 (67 FR 36081, May 

23, 2002). 

(3) The Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation by 

reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–

2349, dated June 27, 1991, as of June 11, 1993 

(58 FR 27927, May 12, 1993). 

(4) To get copies of the service information, 

contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. 

Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

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 26, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20072 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20687; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–171–AD; Amendment 

39–14325; AD 2005–20–28] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A319–100 Series Airplanes; Model 

A320–111 Airplanes; Model A320–200 

Series Airplanes, and Model A321–100 

and –200 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 certain 

Airbus airplane models, as specified 

above. This AD requires modifying the 

floor proximity emergency escape path 

marking system. This AD results from 

information that the existing system 

design for interconnection of the 

emergency power supply units of the 

floor proximity emergency escape path 

marking system does not provide 

adequate floor path lighting and 

marking for safe evacuation of the 

airplane in the event of an emergency. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent 

inadequate lighting and marking of the 

escape path, which could delay or 

impede the flightcrew and passengers 

when exiting the airplane during an 

emergency landing. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 16, 2005. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of November 16, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street 

SW., Nassif Building, room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. 

Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

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

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the airworthiness 

directive (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 street address stated in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain Airbus Model A319, 

A320, and A321 series airplanes. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on March 23, 2005 (70 FR 

14597). That NPRM proposed to require 

modifying the floor proximity 

emergency escape path marking system 

(FPEEPMS). 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Request To Clarify Certain Sections in 

the Preamble 

One commenter disagrees with the 

implication that Bruce Industries 

equipment is the root cause of the 

unsafe condition. The commenter states 

that the language in the Discussion 

section of the NPRM indicates that the 

root cause of the unsafe condition is the 

design of the Bruce power supply. The 

commenter adds that this is not the 

case, and notes that the problem is not 

with the design but with the method of 

installing that component on the 

airplane. The commenter states that it 

contacted Airbus regarding this 

problem, and Airbus responded by 

identifying the source of the problem as 

the incorrect installation of the Bruce 

power supply and the wiring on the 

airplane. Airbus and Bruce Industries 

have since developed a resolution. The 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 59257 

commenter reiterates the Discussion 

section in the NPRM and asks that the 

final sentence of that section be 

changed, as follows: ‘‘The DGAC 

advises that the existing system design 

for interconnection of the emergency 

power supply units (EPSU) of the 

FPEEPMS installed on these airplanes 

does not provide adequate floor path 

lighting and marking for safe evacuation 

of the airplane in the event of an 

emergency.’’ The commenter adds that 

it is very sensitive to the company’s 

reputation in the industry and feels that 

the existing language of the NPRM 

unfairly targets the company as 

providing an unsafe product. 

The commenter also states that the 

corrective action language as described 

in the ‘‘Relevant Service Information’’

section is correct. The language the 

commenter is referring to is as follows 

‘‘The modification includes removing 

the BRUCE and DIEHL EPSUs of the 

FPEEPMS; modifying the wiring; 

installing placards; and installing new, 

improved DIEHL EPSUs.’’ The 

commenter notes that if the problem 

were due solely to the design of the 

Bruce power supplies, the resolution 

would be to replace only those units. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

statements, but cannot make changes to 

the ‘‘Discussion’’ or ‘‘Relevant Service 

Information’’ sections in the NPRM 

because those sections are not restated 

in the final rule. However, for clarity’s 

sake and for operators’ reference, we 

have changed the Summary section and 

paragraph (d) of this AD to add, ‘‘the 

existing system design for 

interconnection of the EPSU of the 

FPEEPMS does not provide adequate 

floor path lighting and marking for safe 

evacuation of the airplane in the event 

of an emergency.’’

Request To Extend Compliance Time 

One commenter states that the NPRM 

allows only 17 months from the 

effective date of the AD to accomplish 

the modification. The commenter adds 

that trying to meet the 17-month 

deadline would require either extending 

C-check visits (accomplishing a heavy 

maintenance visit won’t meet the 

deadline), or adding scheduled special 

route visits. 

We infer that the commenter is asking 

that the compliance time for the 

modification be extended. We agree that 

the compliance time may be extended 

somewhat. We have reconsidered the 

urgency of the unsafe condition and the 

amount of work related to the required 

actions. We find that extending the 

compliance time from 17 months to 24 

months will not adversely affect safety, 

and, for the majority of affected 

operators, will allow the required 

actions to be performed during regularly 

scheduled maintenance at a base where 

special equipment and trained 

maintenance personnel will be available 

if necessary. We have changed the 

compliance time for accomplishing the 

modification required by paragraph (f) 

of this AD accordingly. 

Request To Change Applicability 

One commenter refers to French 

airworthiness directive F–2004–121 R1, 

dated October 13, 2004 (referenced in 

the NPRM), and states that the 

applicability specified in the NPRM 

should be the same as the effectivity in 

the French airworthiness directive. The 

commenter adds that the French 

airworthiness directive does not affect 

aircraft fitted with DIEHL EPSUs having 

part numbers (P/Ns) 3214–51, –52, –54, 

or –55, with no BRUCE EPSU having P/ 

N 100865. The commenter notes that the 

reason for this is that DIEHL equipment 

must be replaced if associated with a 

BRUCE EPSU having P/N 100865. 

We agree with the commenter for the 

reasons provided. The applicability 

specified in this AD has been changed 

accordingly. 

Request To Change Cost Estimate 

One commenter requests that we 

revise the cost estimate for the 

modification in the NPRM. The 

commenter states that the referenced 

service bulletin shows an estimate of 

approximately 28 work hours per 

airplane, but the commenter believes 

this to be overly optimistic. The 

commenter adds that the work requires 

several seat units to be removed, 

multiple ceiling panels to be lowered, 

and certain power supplies to be 

replaced and then rewired. The 

commenter does not believe that even 

doubling the estimate in the service 

bulletin will be adequate. The 

commenter further states that the need 

to do the modification during special 

visits will be necessary, which will 

increase the cost to operators. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

concerns. We recognize that, in 

accomplishing the requirements of any 

AD, operators may incur ‘‘incidental’’

costs in addition to the ‘‘direct’’ costs 

that are reflected in the cost analysis 

presented in the AD preamble. 

However, the cost analysis in AD 

rulemaking actions typically does not 

include incidental costs. 

Further, because ADs require specific 

actions to address specific unsafe 

conditions, they appear to impose costs 

that would not otherwise be borne by 

operators. However, because of the 

general obligation of operators to 

maintain and operate their airplanes in 

an airworthy condition, this appearance 

is deceptive. Attributing those costs 

solely to the issuance of this AD is 

unrealistic because, in the interest of 

maintaining and operating safe 

airplanes, prudent operators would 

accomplish the required actions even if 

they were not required to do so by the 

AD. In any case, we have determined 

that direct and incidental costs are still 

outweighed by the safety benefits of the 

AD. We have not changed the AD in this 

regard. 

Explanation of Change to Applicability 

We have changed the applicability of 

the NPRM to identify model 

designations as published in the most 

recent type certificate data sheet for the 

affected models. 

Clarification of Alternative Method of 

Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph 

We have changed this AD to clarify 

the appropriate procedure for notifying 

the principal inspector before using any 

approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

received, and determined that air safety 

and the public interest require adopting 

the AD with the changes described 

previously. These changes will neither 

increase the economic burden on any 

operator nor increase the scope of the 

AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

This AD would affect about 236 

airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

modification will take about 28 work 

hours per airplane, at an average labor 

rate of $65 per work hour. Required 

parts will cost about $280 per airplane. 

Based on these figures, the estimated 

cost of the modification for U.S. 

operators is $495,600, or $2,100 per 

airplane. 

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 

59258 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and 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 and placed it in the AD docket. 

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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

2005–20–28 Airbus: Amendment 39–14325. 

Docket No. FAA–2005–20687; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–171–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective November 

16, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A319–

111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and 

–133 airplanes; Model A320–111, –211, –212, 

–214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and 

Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211 and –231 

airplanes; certificated in any category; in 

which the floor proximity emergency escape 

path marking system (FPEEPMS) is equipped 

with BRUCE emergency power supply units 

(EPSUs) having BRUCE part number (P/N) 

100865. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by information 

that the existing system design for 

interconnection of the EPSUs of the 

FPEEPMS does not provide adequate floor 

path lighting and marking for safe evacuation 

of the airplane in the event of an emergency. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent inadequate 

lighting and marking of the escape path, 

which could delay or impede the flightcrew 

and passengers when exiting the airplane 

during an emergency landing. 

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. 

Modification 

(f) Within 24 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Modify the FPEEPMS by 

doing all the actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–33–1041, dated 

December 11, 2003. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested in accordance with 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

the appropriate principal inspector in the 

FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding 

District Office. 

Related Information 

(h) French airworthiness directive F–2004–

121 R1, dated October 13, 2004, also 

addresses the subject of this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(i) You must use Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–33–1041, dated December 11, 2003, to 

perform the actions that are required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The 

Director of the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of this document 

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 28, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20074 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20441; Directorate 

Identifier 2003–CE–35–AD; Amendment 39–

14322; AD 2003–19–14 R2] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; BURKHART 

GROB LUFT—UND RAUMFAHRT 

GmbH & CO KG Models G103 TWIN 

ASTIR, G103A TWIN II ACRO, and 

G103C TWIN III ACRO Sailplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003–19–

14 R1, which applies to certain 

BURKHART GROB LUFT—UND 

RAUMFAHRT GmbH & CO KG (GROB) 

Models G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103A 

TWIN II ACRO, and G103C TWIN III 

ACRO sailplanes. AD 2003–19–14 R1 

requires you to modify the airspeed 

indicators, install flight speed reduction 

and aerobatic maneuver restrictions 

placards (as applicable), and revise the 

flight and maintenance manuals. AD 

2003–19–14 R1 approves simple 

aerobatic maneuvers for Model G103A 

TWIN II ACRO sailplanes and provides 

an option for modifying the rear 

fuselage for Models G103A TWIN II 

ACRO and G103C TWIN III ACRO 

sailplanes to terminate the flight 

limitation restrictions for aerobatic 

maneuvers. This AD retains all the 

actions from AD 2003–19–14 R1 for 

Models G103A TWIN II ACRO and 

G103C TWIN III ACRO and reinstates 

certain operating limits for Model G103 

TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent damage to the 

fuselage during limit load flight, which 

could result in reduced structural 

integrity. This condition could lead to 

loss of control of the sailplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective on 

November 30, 2005. 

On August 12, 2004 (69 FR 34258, 

June 21, 2004) the Director of the