A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 99-27-07, amendment 39-11488 (65 FR 213, January 4, 2000), which is applicable to all Airbus Model A300 B4-600R and A300 F4-600R series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2003 (68 FR 53058). The action proposed to continue to require a one-time visual inspection for damage of the center tank fuel pumps and fuel pump canisters, and replacement of damaged fuel pumps and fuel pump canisters with new or serviceable parts. The action also proposed to continue to require repetitive detailed inspections for damage of the fuel pumps and repetitive eddy current inspections of the fuel pump canisters, and replacement of damaged fuel pumps and fuel pump canisters with new or serviceable parts. The action also proposed to mandate modification of the canisters of the center tank fuel pumps, which would terminate the repetitive inspections required by the existing AD.
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 Change Compliance Time
One commenter requests that the compliance time for the terminating action (modification) specified in paragraph (d) of the proposed AD be changed to "Prior to the accumulation of 5,000 total hours, time-in-service, or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later." The commenter notes that an equivalent level of safety is maintained by this change, as the change will still require the modification to be done prior to the first inspection required by AD 99-27-07. The commenter adds that this change will minimize the hardship of implementing the proposed AD.
The FAA does not agree, as repetitive inspections for cracks are not equivalent to replacement of the canisters of the center tank fuel pumps with improvedcanisters for continued operational safety. Cracked canisters continue to be detected during the mandated inspections, but in view of the potential unsafe condition, we find that modification of the canisters by installation of reinforced canisters that are not subject to cracking must be done. In addition, inclusion of a 5,000 flight hour compliance time could allow certain low-time airplanes an additional year before accomplishment of the canister replacement. We do not find it necessary to change the AD in this regard. However, the commenter may request approval of an alternative method of compliance from the FAA, in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if technical justification, substantiation of need, and a satisfactory retrofit status of the commenter's fleet with the new canister are provided.
Clarification of Terminating Action
One commenter states that paragraph (d) of the proposed AD (New Requirements of This AD) specifies that accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6069, Revision 01, dated May 28, 2002 (modification of the canisters of the center tank fuel pumps) ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. The commenter adds that initial accomplishment of the paragraph (b) inspection would terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (a) of the proposed AD. The commenter notes that, as written, the proposed AD seems to require the initial accomplishment of the inspection required by paragraph (b) to terminate the repetitive inspections. The commenter asks for clarification of the intent of the AD.
As requested, we provide the following clarification: The AD does require accomplishment of the initial inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD to terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD. The repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the AD are required by AD 99-27-07 (Restatement of Requirements of AD 99-27-07), and continue to be required by this AD until the terminating action is done. The new requirements that mandate modification of the canisters of the center tank fuel pumps, as specified in paragraph (d) of this AD, terminate those repetitive inspections.
Request To Change Terminating Action to Optional
One commenter states that AD 99-27-07 addresses the unsafe condition identified by that rule, and adds that the proposed AD does not provide justification for mandating the terminating action. The commenter provides the following reasons for changing the terminating action in the proposed AD to an optional action.
The proposed AD does not specifically identify an additional unsafe condition, so there is no need to add further financial burden for operators without justifiable cause.
Operators favor the use of terminating action in lieu of repetitive inspections; however, where either solution offers the same level of safety, this decision becomes a matter of economics.
There is no safety benefit identified for the terminating action, so the decision to continue to inspect, or implement the terminating action, should remain at the option of the operator.
The commenter adds that there is no reasonable basis for the 18-month compliance time for the terminating action, as it appears arbitrary. Due to the current economic conditions of the airline industry, operators should be given the option of replacing the canister with the improved design, or continuing the scheduled inspections and replacing the canister only if a crack is found during the inspection. The commenter adds that the scheduled inspections, when done in accordance with AD 99-27-07, will provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the proposed AD.
We do not agree. The unsafe condition specified in AD 99-27-07 has not been corrected; therefore, an additional unsafe condition does not need to be added to this AD, as there has been no final fix until now. Although we acknowledge the commenter's concerns regarding further financial burden on operators, the FAA, in conjunction with the Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, is mandating the terminating action based on the determination that, in this case, long-term continued operational safety would be better assured by a modification to remove the source of the problem, rather than by continued repetitive inspections. We consider the existing canisters of the center fuel tank to be a safety issue of sufficient significance to warrant modification of the canisters. Relying on continued repetitive inspections as an option to the modification does not ensure that affected airplanes will receive appropriately modified canisters in a timely manner, or at all.
The fuel pump canister is intended to contain or trap any potential fuel pump ignition sources and consequent flames in the canister, and keep them from entering the fuel tank. A crack in the fuel pump canister has the potential to eliminate the canister fire trap capability and provide an ignition source to the center tank fuel pump. The new, improved canisters have been strengthened by thicker and re-profiled webs, the fuel aperture corner radius has been increased, the non-return valve has been strengthened, and the attachment fasteners have been increased from four to six inches. A canister locating pin (foolproofing pin) is also installed by this modification, which will prevent the installation of unmodified fuel booster-pump canisters. Accordingly, no change to the AD is made in this regard.
Request To Change Cost Analysis
The same commenter states that the proposed AD lacks adequate cost analysis. The commenter states that the cost of the canister is omitted, and specifies the cost as $4,660 per canister. The commenter adds that the actual cost of the proposed AD, using actual industry wages and the omitted cost for parts, would be $10,548 per airplane or$886,032; not the $76,660 cost calculated by the FAA.
After considering the data presented by the commenter, we agree that the parts cost for the canisters was omitted. The cost of each canister is $4,660. The cost impact information, below, has been revised to indicate this higher amount.
Economic Analysis
The same commenter states that it appreciates the FAA economic analysis for using work time estimates consistent with industry experience; however, the FAA labor rate remains much lower than actual industry costs. The commenter adds that the average airline industry labor rate is currently $98 per work hour.
We point out that our estimate of $65 per work hour is the current burdened labor rate established for use by the Office of Aviation Policy, Plans, and Management Analysis. (The burdened labor rate includes the actual labor cost, overhead, and other related costs.) Because the labor rate used in our calculations accounts for the variations in costs among those in the airline industry, we consider that $65 per work hour is appropriate. Accordingly, no change to the AD is made in this regard.
Explanation of Change Made to Proposed AD
We have clarified the inspection requirement contained in the proposed AD. Whereas the proposed AD specifies a visual inspection, we have revised this final rule to clarify that our intent is to require a detailed inspection. Additionally, a new note has been added to the final rule to define that inspection.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been submitted, and 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 significantly increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Cost Impact
This AD will affect about 84 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The inspections that are required by AD 99-27-07 take about 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions is estimated to be $130 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The inspections required by AD 99-27-07 were applicable to about 67 airplanes. Based on the figures discussed above, the cost impact of the current requirements of that AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $8,710.
In this AD, the inspections are applicable to about 17 additional airplanes. Based on the figures discussed above, the new costs to U.S. operators that will be imposed by this AD are estimated to be $2,210.
The new modification required by this AD action will take about 11 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $9,620 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be $868,140, or $10,335 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a "significant regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a "significant rule" under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39-AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES1. 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 removing amendment 39-11488 (65 FR 213, January 4, 2000), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), amendment 39-13863, to read as follows: