40 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

Applicability: Model 747–100, 747–100B, 

747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200F, 747–

300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes; line 

numbers 1 through 810 inclusive; certificated 

in any category; and NOT equipped with a 

nose cargo door.

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 in 

accordance with paragraph (e) 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 find and fix cracking in certain upper 

deck floor beams, which could extend and 

sever floor beams adjacent to the body frame 

and result in rapid depressurization of the 

airplane, accomplish the following: 

Inspections 

(a) At the compliance time specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as 

applicable, perform one-time detailed visual 

and open-hole high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspections for cracking in the upper 

deck floor beams at station (STA) 340 and 

STA 360, according to Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2459, dated January 11, 

2001. 

(1) For airplanes with 22,000 or fewer total 

flight cycles as of the effective date of this 

AD: Do the inspections prior to the 

accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or 

within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever is later. 

(2) For airplanes with more than 22,000 

total flight cycles as of the effective date of 

this AD: Do the inspections within 500 flight 

cycles after the effective date 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.’’

Modification 

(b) If no crack is found during the 

inspections per paragraph (a) of this AD: 

Within 5,000 flight cycles after the initial 

inspections, modify the upper deck floor 

beams at STA 340 and STA 360, according 

to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

53A2459, dated January 11, 2001. If this 

modification is not accomplished before 

further flight after the inspections required 

by paragraph (a) of this AD, those inspections 

must be repeated one time, immediately 

before accomplishing the modification in this 

paragraph. If any crack is found during these 

repeat inspections, before further flight, 

accomplish paragraph (c)(2) of this AD. 

Repair 

(c) If any crack is found during the 

inspections per paragraph (a) of this AD: 

Before further flight, repair according to 

either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Accomplish repairs according to 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Accomplish a temporary repair 

(including removing certain fasteners and the 

existing strap, performing open-hole HFEC 

inspections of the chord and web, stopdrilling web cracks, replacing the outboard 

section of the web, if applicable, and 

installing new straps) according to Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2459, dated 

January 11, 2001; except where the service 

bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for 

appropriate action, repair according to a 

method approved by the Manager, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or 

according to data meeting the type 

certification basis of the airplane approved 

by a Boeing Company Designated 

Engineering Representative (DER) who has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make such findings. For a repair 

method to be approved by the Manager, 

Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, 

the Manager’s approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. AND, 

(ii) Within 18 months or 1,500 flight cycles 

after installation of the temporary repair 

according to paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this AD, 

whichever is first, do paragraph (c)(2) of this 

AD. 

(2) Accomplish a permanent repair 

according to a method approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, or according to data 

meeting the type certification basis of the 

airplane approved by a Boeing Company DER 

who has been authorized by the Manager, 

Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a 

repair method to be approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this 

paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter 

must specifically reference this AD.

Note 3: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

53A2459, dated January 11, 2001, does not 

contain instructions for permanent repairs.

Repetitive Inspections: Post-Modification/

Repair 

(d) Within 15,000 flight cycles after 

modification of the upper deck floor beams 

per paragraph (b) of this AD, or repair of the 

upper deck floor beams per paragraph (c) of 

this AD, as applicable: Perform either openhole HFEC inspections for cracking of 

fastener holes common to the upper chord, 

reinforcement straps, and the body frame; or 

surface HFEC inspections for cracking along 

the lower edge of the upper chord of the floor 

beam at the intersection with the body frame; 

and repeat these inspections at the interval 

specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this 

AD, as applicable. Perform these inspections 

and repair any cracking found during these 

inspections according to a method approved 

by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or according to 

data meeting the type certification basis of 

the airplane approved by a Boeing Company 

DER who has been authorized by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such 

findings. For an inspection or repair method 

to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, 

as required by this paragraph, the Manager’s 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(1) If the most recent inspection used the 

surface HFEC method: Repeat the inspection 

within 1,000 flight cycles. 

(2) If the most recent inspection used the 

open-hole HFEC method: Repeat the 

inspection every 3,000 flight cycles.

Note 4: There is no terminating action at 

this time for the repetitive post-modification/

repair inspections according to paragraph (d) 

of this AD, and instructions for these 

inspections are not provided in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2459, dated January 

11, 2001.

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(e) 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, Seattle 

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests 

through an appropriate FAA Principal 

Maintenance Inspector, who may add 

comments and then send it to the Manager, 

Seattle ACO.

Note 5: Information concerning the 

existence of approved alternative methods of 

compliance with this AD, if any, may be 

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits 

(f) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 26, 2001. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–32196 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2001–NM–205–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A300 B2 and A300 B4 Series Airplanes; 

Model A300 F4–605R Airplanes; Model 

A300 B4–600 and A300 B4–600R Series 

Airplanes; and Model A310 Series 

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; reopening of 

comment period. 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41

SUMMARY: This document revises an 

earlier proposed airworthiness directive 

(AD), applicable to certain Airbus 

Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series 

airplanes; certain Model A300 F4–605R 

airplanes and Model A300 B4–600 and 

A300 B4–600R series airplanes; and 

certain Model A310 series airplanes. 

That earlier proposed AD would have 

required repetitive inspections to detect 

damage of the fillet seals and feeder 

cables, and of the wiring looms in the 

wing/pylon interface area; and 

corrective action, if necessary. That 

earlier proposed AD also would have 

provided for optional terminating action 

for the repetitive inspections. This new 

action would retain those proposed 

actions but require that actions be done 

in accordance with newly revised 

service bulletins. This new action also 

would revise the applicability. The 

actions specified by this new proposed 

AD are intended to prevent wire chafing 

and short circuits in the wing leading 

edge/pylon interface area, which could 

result in loss of the power supply 

generator and/or system functions. This 

action is intended to address the 

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 28, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

triplicate to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, 

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–

205–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 

Comments may be inspected at this 

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Comments may be submitted 

via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments 

may also be sent via the Internet using 

the following address: 9–anm–

nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent 

via fax or the Internet must contain 

‘‘Docket No. 2001–NM–205–AD’’ in the 

subject line and need not be submitted 

in triplicate. Comments sent via the 

Internet as attached electronic files must 

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for 

Windows or ASCII text. 

The service information referenced in 

the proposed rule may be obtained from 

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. 

This information may be examined at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington.

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: 

Comments Invited 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in the making of the 

proposed rule by submitting such 

written data, views, or arguments as 

they may desire. Communications shall 

identify the Rules Docket number and 

be submitted in triplicate to the address 

specified above. All communications 

received on or before the closing date 

for comments, specified above, will be 

considered before taking action on the 

proposed rule. The proposals contained 

in this action may be changed in light 

of the comments received. 

Submit comments using the following 

format: 

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. 

For example, discuss a request to 

change the compliance time and a 

request to change the service bulletin 

reference as two separate issues. 

• For each issue, state what specific 

change to the proposed AD is being 

requested. 

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or 

data) for each request. 

Comments are specifically invited on 

the overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed rule. All comments 

submitted will be available, both before 

and after the closing date for comments, 

in the Rules Docket for examination by 

interested persons. A report 

summarizing each FAA-public contact 

concerned with the substance of this 

proposal will be filed in the Rules 

Docket. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

submitted in response to this action 

must submit a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket 2001–NM–205–AD.’’ The 

postcard will be date stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

Any person may obtain a copy of this 

NPRM by submitting a request to the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket 

2001–NM–205–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–056. 

Discussion 

A proposal to amend part 39 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 39) to add an airworthiness 

directive (AD), applicable to certain 

Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 

series airplanes; certain Model A300 

F4–605R airplanes and Model A300 B4–

600 and A300 B4–600R series airplanes; 

and certain Model A310 series 

airplanes; was published as a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the 

Federal Register on October 4, 2001 (66 

FR 50588). That original NPRM would 

have required repetitive inspections to 

detect damage of the fillet seals and 

feeder cables, and of the wiring looms 

in the wing/pylon interface area; and 

corrective action, if necessary. The 

original proposed AD also would have 

provided for optional terminating action 

for the repetitive inspections. The 

original NPRM was prompted by reports 

of wire chafing and short circuits in the 

wing leading edge/pylon interface area. 

That condition, if not corrected, could 

result in loss of the power supply 

generator and/or system functions. 

Since Issuance of the Original NPRM 

Since the original NPRM was issued, 

Airbus has issued new service 

information that would affect the 

requirements proposed by that NPRM. 

Explanation of Relevant Service 

Information 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–24–

0053, Revision 05, was cited in the 

original NPRM as the appropriate source 

of service information for the inspection 

of the fillet seals and feeder cables for 

Model A300 series airplanes. Airbus has 

since issued Revision 06 of the service 

bulletin, dated September 10, 2001, 

which describes the basic pylon and 

common pylon configurations and 

distinguishes the procedures for 

repairing damaged fillet seals for the 

two configurations. 

The original NPRM cited Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–54–0095, 

Revision 01, as the appropriate source of 

service information for the optional 

replacement of the fillet panel 

assemblies on Model A300 series 

airplanes. Airbus has since issued 

Revision 02 of the service bulletin, 

dated September 7, 2001, to include a 

new kit for airplanes in the basic pylon 

configuration. Either Revision 01 or 

Revision 02 would eliminate the need 

for the repetitive inspections for 

airplanes in the common pylon 

configuration; only Revision 02 would 

eliminate the need for the repetitive 

inspections for airplanes in the basic 

pylon configuration. 

The original NPRM cited Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–24–6039, 

Revision 06, as the appropriate source of 

service information for the inspection 

and repair of the wiring looms for 

Model A300–600 series airplanes. 

Airbus has since issued Revision 07 of 

the service bulletin, dated August 9, 

42 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

2001, which includes minor changes 

only. 

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation 

Civile (DGAC), which is the 

airworthiness authority for France, 

approved these service bulletin 

revisions. 

Accomplishment of the actions 

specified in Airbus Service Bulletins 

A300–24–0053, Revision 06, A300–24–

6001, Revision 05, A310–24–2021, 

Revision 06, A300–24–0083, Revision 

03, A300–24–6039, Revision 07, and 

A310–24–2052, Revision 04, is intended 

to adequately address the identified 

unsafe condition. 

Comments 

Interested persons have been afforded 

an opportunity to participate in the 

making of this amendment. Due 

consideration has been given to the 

comments received. 

Request to Extend the Compliance Time 

for the Inspection 

One commenter requests that the 

compliance time specified by the 

original NPRM be extended from 500 

flight hours to 600 flight hours. 

According to the commenter, a ‘‘600 FH 

‘‘grace period’’ is compatible with the 

highest existing interval for an Acheck.’’

The FAA concurs with the request. 

The FAA finds it appropriate to extend 

the compliance time to 600 flight hours 

and has determined that such an 

extension would not adversely affect the 

safety of the fleet. Paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this supplemental NPRM have been 

revised accordingly. 

Requests to Cite Latest Service Bulletin 

Revisions 

The commenters request that the 

original NPRM be revised to refer to the 

latest service bulletin revisions 

(described previously). Airbus Service 

Bulletins A300–24–0053, Revision 06, 

and A300–54–0095, Revision 02, have 

included procedures for the inspection 

and repair of airplanes in the basic 

pylon configuration. One commenter 

states that the earlier revisions of these 

service bulletins properly cover the 

common pylon configuration but are not 

suitable for the basic pylon 

configuration. The commenters also 

request that Revision 07 of Service 

Bulletin A300–24–6039 be cited as the 

primary service information for the 

wiring loom inspection for Model 

A300–600 series airplanes. 

The FAA partially concurs with the 

requests. Although accomplishment of 

the actions specified by earlier service 

bulletin revisions may be acceptable for 

certain airplanes, the FAA has 

determined that, for simplicity, this 

supplemental NPRM will cite only the 

latest service bulletin revisions for the 

proposed actions specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

supplemental NPRM. As a result, 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

supplemental NPRM have been revised, 

and Note 3 and Note 5 of the original 

NPRM have been removed (and the 

remaining Notes have been 

renumbered). However, paragraph (c) of 

this supplemental NPRM has been 

revised to specify accomplishment of 

the terminating action in accordance 

with either Revision 01 or Revision 02 

of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–54–

0095 for airplanes in the common pylon 

configuration, but would require 

Revision 02 for airplanes in the basic 

pylon configuration. Operators should 

note that the provisions of paragraph (d) 

of this supplemental NPRM would 

enable the FAA to approve requests for 

alternative methods of compliance (e.g., 

per an alternative service bulletin 

revision) if data are submitted to 

substantiate that such alternative 

methods would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. 

Request to Disallow Credit for Repair 

Per Certain Service Bulletin Versions 

One commenter requests that the 

original NPRM be revised to specifically 

exclude credit for repairs done in 

accordance with revisions prior to 

Revision 05 of Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–24–6011 and Revision 06 of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–24–2021. 

Note 3 of the original NPRM would have 

provided this credit. Note 3 of the 

original NPRM refers to paragraph (a) of 

the original NPRM. The commenter 

states that earlier revisions of these 

service bulletins are acceptable for 

accomplishment of detailed visual 

inspections to detect damage (including 

erosion and tearing) and deterioration of 

the fillet seals and feeder cables, but not 

the repairs of damage on applicable 

affected airplanes. 

The FAA partially concurs. The FAA 

agrees that the repair procedures 

described in those earlier revised 

service bulletins are not acceptable for 

the basic pylon configuration, and notes 

that the repair procedures have been 

deleted from Airbus Service Bulletins 

A300–24–6011, Revision 05, and A310–

24–2021, Revision 06. However, as 

stated earlier, Note 3 and Note 5 of the 

original NPRM, which provided credit 

for prior accomplishment of the earlier 

service bulletin revisions, have been 

removed from this supplemental NPRM, 

but operators may request approval of 

an alternative method of compliance in 

accordance with paragraph (d) of this 

supplemental NPRM. No additional 

change is necessary in this regard. 

Request to Change Inspection Type 

One commenter, the manufacturer, 

requests that the original NPRM be 

revised to change the inspection type 

from a general visual inspection to a 

detailed visual inspection. According to 

the manufacturer, ‘‘even if not always 

clearly stated in the Airbus SBs, visual 

inspection means detailed visual 

inspection and not general visual 

inspection.’’

The FAA finds that detailed visual 

inspections are appropriate to address 

the identified unsafe condition, and 

concurs with the commenter’s request. 

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

supplemental NPRM have been revised 

to specify detailed, rather than general, 

visual inspections. In addition, Note 2 

of this supplemental NPRM has been 

revised to define a detailed visual 

inspection. 

Request to Revise Applicability of 

Proposed AD 

One commenter requests that Table 1 

of the original NPRM be revised to 

reflect the correct applicability. The 

original NPRM indicates that airplanes 

would be excluded from the 

applicability if either of two specified 

modifications had been accomplished. 

The commenter states that the 

applicability should exclude only 

airplanes on which both of the specified 

modifications have been accomplished. 

The FAA concurs. The original NPRM 

inadvertently substituted the 

conjunction ‘‘or’’ for ‘‘and’’ between the 

modification numbers listed in Table 1. 

The applicability of this supplemental 

NPRM has been revised to exclude 

airplanes only if both of the specified 

modifications have been accomplished. 

Conclusion 

Since these changes expand the scope 

of the original NPRM, the FAA has 

determined that it is necessary to reopen 

the comment period to provide 

additional opportunity for public 

comment. 

Cost Impact 

The FAA estimates that 107 airplanes 

of U.S. registry would be affected by this 

supplemental NPRM. 

It would take approximately 6 work 

hours per airplane to inspect the seals/

cables at an average labor rate of $60 per 

work hour. Based on these figures, the 

cost impact of this proposed inspection 

on U.S. operators is estimated to be 

$38,520, or $360 per airplane, per 

inspection cycle. 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Proposed Rules 43

It would take approximately 5 work 

hours per airplane to inspect the wiring 

looms and apply the protection, at an 

average labor rate of $60 per work hour. 

Based on these figures, the cost impact 

of this proposed inspection on U.S. 

operators is estimated to be $32,100, or 

$300 per airplane, per inspection cycle. 

The cost impact figures discussed 

above are based on assumptions that no 

operator has yet accomplished any of 

the proposed requirements of this AD 

action, and that no operator would 

accomplish those actions in the future if 

this proposed 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. 

Should an operator elect to perform 

the optional terminating action, it 

would take approximately 5 work hours 

per airplane to replace the fillet panel 

assemblies, at an average labor rate of 

$60 per work hour. Required parts 

would cost approximately $350 to $470 

per airplane. Based on these figures, the 

cost impact of the optional terminating 

action is estimated to be $650 to $770 

per airplane. 

Regulatory Impact 

The regulations proposed herein 

would 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 proposal 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this proposed regulation (1) 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if 

promulgated, 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 copy of the draft 

regulatory evaluation prepared for this 

action is contained in the Rules Docket. 

A copy of it may be obtained by 

contacting 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.

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the Federal Aviation 

Administration proposes to amend 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:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 2001–NM–205–AD. 

Applicability: The following airplanes, 

certificated in any category:

Model Excluding those modified per 

Airbus modification 

A300 B2–1C, A300 B2–203, A300 B2K–3C, and A300 B4 series ............................................................................ 11349 and airplanes 12309. 

A300 F4–605R airplanes, A300 B4–600 series airplanes, and A300 B4–600R series airplanes ............................. 11348 and 12303. 

A310 series airplanes ................................................................................................................................................. 11350 and 12310. 

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 (d) 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 wire chafing and short circuits 

in the wing leading edge/pylon interface 

area, which could result in loss of the power 

supply generator and/or system functions, 

accomplish the following: 

Inspections 

(a) Within 600 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD, perform a detailed 

visual inspection to detect damage (including 

erosion and tearing) and deterioration of the 

fillet seals and feeder cables, in accordance 

with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–24–0053, 

Revision 06, dated September 10, 2001 (for 

Model A300 series airplanes); A300–24–

6011, Revision 05, dated May 18, 2001 (for 

Model A300 F4–605R airplanes and Model 

A300 B4–600 and A300 B4–600R series 

airplanes); or A310–24–2021, Revision 06, 

dated May 18, 2001 (for Model A310 series 

airplanes). Repeat the inspection thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours, 

until the actions specified by paragraph (c) 

are accomplished. 

(1) If no damage is detected: Prior to 

further flight following the initial inspection 

only, apply protection to each feeder cable in 

accordance with the applicable service 

bulletin. 

(2) If any damage is detected: Prior to 

further flight, repair 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 mirror, 

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate access procedures 

may be required.’’

Note 3: Airbus Service Bulletins A300–24–

0053, A300–24–6011, and A310–24–2021 

refer to Airbus Service Bulletins A300–24–

0054, A300–24–6013, and A310–24–2024, 

respectively, as additional sources of service 

information for repair.

(b) Within 600 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD: Perform a detailed 

visual inspection of the wiring looms in the 

area of the wing leading edge/pylon interface 

to detect damage (including chafing, burning, 

and short circuits), in accordance with 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–24–0083, 

Revision 03, dated January 3, 2001 (for Model 

A300 series airplanes); A300–24–6039, 

Revision 07, dated August 9, 2001 (for Model 

A300 F4–605R airplanes and Model A300 

B4–600 and A300 B4–600R series airplanes); 

or A310–24–2052, Revision 04, dated April 6, 

2001 (for Model A310 series airplanes); as 

applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter 

at least every 1,000 flight hours, until the 

actions specified by paragraph (c) of this AD 

have been accomplished. 

(1) If no damage is detected: Prior to 

further flight following the initial inspection 

only, apply protection in accordance with the 

applicable service bulletin. 

(2) If any damage is detected: Prior to 

further flight, repair in accordance with the 

applicable service bulletin. 

Optional Terminating Action 

(c) Replacement of the fillet panel 

assemblies with new, improved assemblies, 

44 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

1 18 CFR 284.12(c)(3)(i)(A) (2001).

2Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas 

Transportation Services, Order No. 637, 65 FR 

10156 (Feb. 25, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

Regulations Preambles [July 1996–December 2000] 

¶ 31,091 (Feb. 9, 2000).

3Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate 

Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 

(Jul. 26, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations 

Preambles [July 1996–December 2000] ¶ 31,038 (Jul. 

17, 1996), Order No. 587–B, 62 FR 5521 (Feb. 6, 

1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles 

[July 1996–December 2000] ¶ 31,046 (Jan. 30, 1997), 

Order No. 587–C, 62 FR 10684 (Mar. 10, 1997), 

FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [July 

1996–December 2000] ¶ 31,050 (Mar. 4, 1997), 

Order No. 587–G, 63 FR 20072 (Apr. 23, 1998), 

FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [July 

1996–December 2000] ¶ 31,062 (Apr. 16, 1998), 

Order No. 587–H, 63 FR 39509 (July 23, 1998), 

FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [July 

1996–December 2000] ¶ 31,063 (July 15, 1998); 

Order No. 587–I, 63 FR 53565 (Oct. 6, 1998), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [July 1996–

December 2000] ¶ 31,067 (Sept. 29, 1998), Order 

No. 587–K, 64 FR 17276 (Apr. 9, 1999), FERC Stats. 

& Regs. Regulations Preambles [July 1996–

December 2000] ¶ 31,072 (Apr. 2, 1999); Order No. 

587–M, 65 FR 77285 (Dec. 11, 2000), FERC Stats. 

& Regs. Regulations Preambles [July 1996–

December 2000] ¶ 31,114 (Dec. 11, 2000).

as specified by paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), or 

(c)(3) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the 

requirements of this AD. 

(1) For Model A300 series airplanes: 

Replacement of the fillet panel assemblies, if 

accomplished, must be done as specified by 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) For airplanes in the common pylon 

configuration: In accordance with Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–54–0095, Revision 01, 

dated January 3, 2001, or Revision 02, dated 

September 7, 2001. 

(ii) For airplanes in the basic pylon 

configuration: In accordance with Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–54–0095, Revision 02, 

dated September 7, 2001. 

(2) For Model A300 F4–605R airplanes and 

Model A300 B4–600 and A300 B4–600R 

series airplanes: Replacement of the fillet 

panel assemblies, if accomplished, must be 

done in accordance with Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–54–6032, Revision 03, dated 

January 3, 2001. 

(3) For Model A310 series airplanes: 

Replacement of the fillet panel assemblies, if 

accomplished, must be done in accordance 

with Airbus Service Bulletin A310–54–2033, 

Revision 01, dated January 3, 2001. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(d) 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, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA. 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 

(e) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 26, 2001. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–32197 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 284 

(Docket No. RM96–1–020) 

Standards for Business Practices of 

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines 

Issued December 20, 2001.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission is proposing to 

amend § 284.12 of its regulations 

governing standards for conducting 

business practices with interstate 

natural gas pipelines. The Commission 

is proposing to incorporate by reference 

the most recent version of the standards, 

Version 1.5, promulgated August 18, 

2001 by the Gas Industry Standards 

Board (GISB). Version 1.5 of the GISB 

standards can be obtained from GISB at 

1100 Louisiana, Suite 4925, Houston, 

TX 77002, 713–356–0060, http://

www.gisb.org.

DATES: Comments are due February 1, 

2002.

ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC, 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Goldenberg, Office of the 

General Counsel, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 208–2294 

Marvin Rosenberg, Office of Markets, 

Tariffs, and Rates, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 208–1283 

Kay Morice, Office of Markets, Tariffs, 

and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

0507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) proposes to 

amend § 284.12 of its open access 

regulations governing standards for 

conducting business practices and 

electronic communications with 

interstate natural gas pipelines. The 

Commission is proposing to adopt the 

most recent version, Version 1.5, of the 

consensus industry standards, 

promulgated by the Gas Industry 

Standards Board (GISB). The 

Commission also is proposing to remove 

§ 284.12(a) of its regulations dealing 

with pipeline Electronic Bulletin Boards 

(EBBs), since all pipelines are required 

under Commission regulations to 

provide all electronic communications 

and conduct all electronic transactions 

using the public Internet.1 The proposed 

rule is intended to benefit the public by 

adopting the most recent and up-to-date 

standards governing electronic 

communication that includes new 

shipper options such as title transfer 

tracking, as well as standards for 

imbalance netting and trading and 

uniform procedures for implementation 

of aspects of Order No. 637.2

2. Background 

3. Since 1996, in the Order No. 587 

series,3 the Commission has adopted 

regulations to standardize the business 

practices and communication 

methodologies of interstate pipelines in 

order to create a more integrated and 

efficient pipeline grid. In this series of 

orders, the Commission incorporated by 

reference consensus standards 

developed by GISB, a private consensus 

standards developer composed of 

members from all segments of the 

natural gas industry. GISB is an 

accredited standards organization under 

the auspices of the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI).

4. On October 19, 2001, GISB filed 

with the Commission a report informing 

the Commission that it had adopted a 

new version of its standards, Version 

1.5. On December 3, 2001, GISB filed 

with the Commission a report listing 

errata to the Version 1.5 standards.