[Federal Register: August 27, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 166)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51523-51526]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27au03-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2003-NM-68-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas
Model MD-11 airplanes, that currently requires repetitive general
visual inspections of the power feeder cables, terminal strip,
fuseholder, and fuses of the galley load control unit (GLCU) within the
No. 3 bay electrical power center (EPC) to detect damage; and
corrective actions, if necessary. For certain airplanes, this action
would require replacement of the electrical wiring of the galley in the
EPC. For certain other airplanes, this action would require an
inspection to detect damage of the electrical wiring of the galley in
the EPC; corrective actions if necessary; modification of the wiring
support; and removal of spare fuses; as applicable. These new actions
would terminate the repetitive inspection requirements. This action
also limits the applicability of the existing AD. This proposal is
prompted by the FAA's determination that additional rulemaking is
necessary. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
prevent chafing damage to the wire assembly, and consequent arcing and
smoke and fire in the EPC, and to prevent damage to the wire assembly
terminal lugs and overheating of the power feeder cables on the No. 3
and No. 4 GLCU, which could result in smoke and fire in the center
accessory compartment.
DATES: Comments must be received by October 14, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NM-68-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
[[Page 51524]]
the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax
or the Internet must contain ``Docket No. 2003-NM-68-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 or 2000 or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data
and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5350; fax (562) 627-5210.
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:
[sbull] 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.
[sbull] For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed
AD is being requested.
[sbull] 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 Number 2003-NM-68-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 No. 2003-NM-68-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On August 23, 2002, the FAA issued AD 2002-17-06, amendment 39-
12872 (67 FR 55716, August 30, 2002), applicable to certain McDonnell
Douglas Model MD-11 airplanes, to supersede AD 2002-14-05, amendment
39-12805 (67 FR 47640, July 19, 2002) to require repetitive general
visual inspections of the power feeder cables, terminal strip,
fuseholder, and fuses of the galley load control unit (GLCU) within the
No. 3 bay electrical power center (EPC) to detect damage; and
corrective actions, if necessary. That action was prompted by
information from the airplane manufacturer that accomplishment of the
replacement required by AD 2002-14-05 could result in additional wire
chafing damage in the EPC due to insufficient clearance from structure.
The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent such chafing, and
consequent arcing and smoke and fire in the EPC, and to prevent damage
to the wire assembly terminal lugs and overheating of the power feeder
cables on the No. 3 and No. 4 GLCU, which could result in smoke and
fire in the center accessory compartment.
Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule
In the preamble of AD 2002-17-06, the FAA indicated that the
actions required by that AD were considered ``interim action,'' and
that further rulemaking action would be considered once the airplane
manufacturer developed a replacement that addresses the identified
unsafe condition and once we approved that replacement. We now have
determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this
proposed AD follows from that determination.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed and approved Revision 02 of Boeing Service
Bulletin MD-11-24-184, dated January 7, 2003. Revision 02 of the
service bulletin incorporates engineering data released subsequent to
Revision 01 of the service bulletin (referenced in AD 2002-17-06 as the
appropriate source of service information for the required actions) to
provide additional details for ensuring proper wire clamping and
support. Revision 02 also removes airplanes from the effectivity.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is
intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would supersede AD 2002-17-06 to continue to require
repetitive general visual inspections of the power feeder cables,
terminal strip, fuseholder, and fuses of the GLCU within the No. 3 bay
EPC to detect damage; and corrective actions, if necessary. The
proposed AD would also require accomplishment of the actions specified
in Revision 02 of the service bulletin described previously, which
would terminate the repetitive inspection requirements.
Explanation of Change to Applicability
The applicability of the proposed AD references Boeing Service
Bulletin MD11-24-184, Revision 02, dated January 7, 2003, as the
appropriate source of service information for determining the affected
airplanes (AD 2002-17-06 referenced Revision 01 of the service
bulletin). The service bulletin reflects the most current listing of
airplanes subject to the requirements of this proposed AD.
Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the AD
On July 10, 2002, we issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR
47997, July 22, 2002), which governs our AD system. The regulation now
includes material that relates to altered products, special flight
permits, and alternative methods of compliance (AMOC). Because we have
now included this material in part 39, for purposes of this proposed
AD, it is only necessary to identify the office authorized to approved
AMOCs and previously approved AMOCs that are acceptable for compliance
with the applicable requirements of this proposed AD.
[[Page 51525]]
Cost Impact
There are approximately 112 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 32 airplanes of U.S. registry
would be affected by this proposed AD.
The inspection that is currently required by AD 2002-17-06 and
retained in this AD takes approximately 1 work hour 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 inspection on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,080, or $65 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
Table 1 of this proposed AD shows the estimated cost impact of the
new actions for airplanes affected by this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $65 per work hour. Table 1 is as follows:
Table 1.--Cost Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For group 1 airplanes For group 2 airplanes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task Work Cost per Work Cost per
hours Required parts airplane hours Required parts airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..................... 18 $15,276......... $16,446 19 $17,261......... $18,496
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 3 airplanes For group 4 airplanes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task Work Cost per Work Cost per
hours Required parts airplane hours Required parts airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...................... 1 None............ $65 1 None............ $65
Modification.................... 2 $190............ $320 1 $9.............. $74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
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. The manufacturer may
cover the cost of replacement parts associated with this proposed AD,
subject to warranty conditions. Manufacturer warranty remedies may also
be available for labor costs associated with this proposed AD. As a
result, the costs attributable to the proposed AD may be less than
stated above.
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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-12872 (67 FR
55716, August 30, 2002), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2003-NM-68-AD. Supersedes AD 2002-17-06,
Amendment 39-12872.
Applicability: Model MD-11 airplanes, as listed in Boeing
Service Bulletin MD11-24-184, Revision 02, dated January 7, 2003;
certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent chafing damage to the wire assembly, and consequent
arcing and smoke and fire in the electrical power center (EPC), and
to prevent damage to the wire assembly terminal lugs and overheating
of the power feeder cables on the No. 3 and No. 4 galley load
control unit (GLCU), which could result in smoke and fire in the
center accessory compartment; accomplish the following:
Certain Requirements of AD 2002-17-06, Amendment 39-12872
Initial Inspection
(a) Do a general visual inspection of the power feeder cables,
terminal strip, fuseholder, and fuses of the GLCU within the No. 3
bay EPC to detect damage (i.e., discoloration of affected parts or
loose attachments), per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin
MD11-24A160, dated August 30, 1999; or Revision 01, dated November
11, 1999; at the applicable time specified in paragraph (a)(1) or
(a)(2) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes on which the replacement required by paragraph
(c) of AD 2002-14-05, amendment 39-12805, has been done: Inspect
within 60 days after September 16, 2002 (the effective date AD 2002-
17-06, amendment 39-12872).
(2) For airplanes on which the replacement required by paragraph
(c) of AD 2002-14-05 has not been done: Inspect within 600 flight
hours from the last inspection required by AD 2002-14-05, or within
60 days after September 16, 2002, whichever occurs later.
Note: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection
is defined as: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior
area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure,
or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within
touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be
necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the
inspection area. This level of inspection is
[[Page 51526]]
made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight,
hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or
opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may
be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.''
No Damage Detected: Repetitive Inspections
(b) If no damage is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, repeat the general visual inspection every
600 flight hours.
Damage Detected: Replacement and Repetitive Inspections
(c) If any damage is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, before further flight, replace the power
feeder cables, fuseholder, and/or fuses, as applicable, with new parts,
per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A160, dated August
30, 1999; or Revision 01, dated November 11, 1999. Repeat the general
visual inspection every 600 flight hours.
New Requirements of This AD
Group 1 and Group 2 Airplanes: Replacement of Electrical Wiring
(d) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin MD11-24-184, Revision 02, dated January 7, 2003: Within 12
months after the effective date of this AD, replace the electrical
wiring of the galley in the EPC in bays 1, 2, and 3, per the service
bulletin. Accomplishment of the replacement terminates the requirements
of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this AD.
Group 3 and Group 4 Airplanes: Inspection for Damage, Modification
of Wiring Support, Removal of Fuses; and Corrective Action; As
Applicable
(e) For Group 3 and Group 4 airplanes identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin MD11-24-184, Revision 02, dated January 7, 2003:
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) of this AD per
the service bulletin. Accomplishment of the applicable actions in
those paragraphs terminates the requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this AD.
(1) Do a general visual inspection to detect damage of the
electrical wiring of the galley in the EPC in bays 1, 2, and 3. If
any damage is detected, before further flight, repair or replace
damaged wiring with new or serviceable wiring per the service
bulletin.
(2) Modify wiring support in bay 1.
(3) Remove spare fuses and modify wiring support in bays 2 and
3.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(f)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is authorized to approve
alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved previously per
AD 2002-17-06, amendment 39-12872, are approved as alternative
methods of compliance with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 20, 2003.
Kyle L. Olsen,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-21872 Filed 8-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P