Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 Airplanes, 2066-2067 [05-613]
Download as PDF
2066
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Authority for this Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
Section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701,
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the 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. 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 proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the
regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:43 Jan 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
December 30, 2004.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–614 Filed 1–11–05; 8:45 am]
Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2005–20026;
Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–150–AD.
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Comments Due Date
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) must receive comments on this AD
action by February 28, 2005.
Federal Aviation Administration
Affected ADs
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2000–NM–168–AD]
(b) None.
Applicability
RIN 2120–AA64
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767–
400ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, having Variable Numbers VQ071
through VQ076 inclusive; and Model 777–
200 and –300 series airplanes, certificated in
any category, as listed in Boeing Service
Bulletin 777–25–0217, dated July 17, 2003.
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell
Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–
9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–
9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 Airplanes
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by a report that
tie-down fitting studs were found damaged.
We are issuing this AD to prevent a galley,
purser work station, or closet from detaching
from the tie-down fitting studs during an
emergency landing, which could injure
passengers or crewmembers, or obstruct
escape routes and impede emergency
evacuation.
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.
Replacement
(f) Within 60 months after the effective
date of this AD: Replace, with new parts, the
existing tie-down fitting studs that secure
galleys, purser work stations, and floormounted closets to the seat tracks, by doing
all actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767–25–0338, dated October
9, 2003 (for Boeing Model 767–400ER series
airplanes); or Boeing Service Bulletin 777–
25–0217, dated July 17, 2003 (for Boeing
Model 777–200 and –300 series airplanes); as
applicable.
Replacements Accomplished According to
Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(g) For Boeing Model 777–200 and –300
series airplanes: Replacements accomplished
before the effective date of this AD according
to Boeing Service Bulletin 777–25–0217,
dated July 18, 2002, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding action specified in this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(h) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action withdraws a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that proposed a new airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to certain
McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81
(MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83
(MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD–
88 airplanes. That action would have
required installing shield assemblies for
power feeder cables in the forward and
aft lower cargo compartments, and
installing an additional shield for the
power feeder cable of the auxiliary
power unit in the aft lower cargo
compartment. Since the issuance of the
NPRM, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) has determined
that the proposed requirements are
included in the requirements of another
existing AD; the NPRM does not contain
any new requirements beyond those of
the existing AD. Accordingly, the
proposed rule is withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elvin K. Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–
130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5344;
fax (562) 627–5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A
proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to
add a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain McDonnell
Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–
9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–
9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 airplanes;
was published in the Federal Register
as a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) on October 30, 2003 (68 FR
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules
61772). The proposed rule would have
required installing shield assemblies for
power feeder cables in the forward and
aft lower cargo compartments, and
installing an additional shield for the
power feeder cable of the auxiliary
power unit in the aft lower cargo
compartment. That action was
prompted by several incidents of
migration of power feeder cable troughs
on McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81
(MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83
(MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD–
88 airplanes. The proposed actions were
intended to prevent a cable from chafing
against an edge of a lightening hole,
which could result in electrical arcing,
and consequent smoke/fire in the lower
cargo compartments.
Response to Comments
We have considered the comments
that have been submitted on the
proposed AD. One commenter points
out that an existing AD, AD 94–09–02,
amendment 39–8890 (59 FR 18720,
April 20, 1994), currently requires
accomplishment of the original issue of
Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–24–100.
The commenter further states that all
affected airplanes listed in Revision 04
of that service bulletin (referenced as
the appropriate source of service
information in the proposed rule) were
affected by the previous revisions of that
service bulletin, and that the proposed
rule contains no new requirements
beyond those required by the existing
AD.
We agree. We have determined that
the requirements of the proposed rule
are included in the requirements of
another existing AD. The existing AD,
AD 94–09–02, is applicable to certain
McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81
(MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83
(MD–83), and DC–9–87 (MD–87) series
airplanes; and Model MD–88 airplanes;
as listed in McDonnell Douglas MD–80
Service Bulletin 24–94, Revision 1,
dated May 28, 1987, and McDonnell
Douglas Model MD–80 Service Bulletin
24–100, dated March 30, 1988. That AD
requires an inspection to detect damage
of the auxiliary power unit (APU) power
feeder cable installation, repair of
damaged cables, modification of the
cable installation, and an inspection of
previously modified airplanes to
determine whether a spacer or ‘‘stand
off’’ has been installed, and installation
of those items, if necessary. That action
was prompted by reports of generator
power feeder cables electrically shorting
to the airplane structure due to chafing.
The requirements of that AD are
intended to prevent the APU power
feeder cable from chafing against
adjacent structures, which could result
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:43 Jan 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
in electrical shorting and arcing, and a
fire below the cabin floor.
Additionally, AD 94–09–02 references
McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service
Bulletin 24–100, dated March 30, 1988,
as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the
modification. The proposed rule
references McDonnell Douglas Alert
Service Bulletin MD80–24A100,
Revision 04, dated January 24, 2000, as
the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the
modification (installing shield
assemblies for power feeder cables).
Revision 04 was issued merely to
elevate the service bulletin to the ‘‘alert’’
status and to reference AD 94–09–02; no
additional work is required. All
airplanes affected by Revision 04 are
also affected by the previous revisions
of the service bulletin.
The proposed rule does not contain
any new requirements beyond those
required by AD 94–09–02.
Accomplishment of the requirements of
AD 94–09–02 adequately addresses the
identified unsafe condition.
FAA’s Conclusions
Upon further consideration, the FAA
has determined that the proposed
requirements are included in the
requirements of another existing AD; the
proposed rule does not contain any new
requirements beyond those of the
existing AD. Accordingly, the proposed
rule is hereby withdrawn.
Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes
only such action, and does not preclude
the agency from issuing another action
in the future, nor does it commit the
agency to any course of action in the
future.
Regulatory Impact
Since this action only withdraws a
notice of proposed rulemaking, it is
neither a proposed nor a final rule and
therefore is not covered under Executive
Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
The Withdrawal
Accordingly, the notice of proposed
rulemaking, Docket 2000–NM–168–AD,
published in the Federal Register on
October 30, 2003 (68 FR 61772), is
withdrawn.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2067
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January
3, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–613 Filed 1–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–20025; Directorate
Identifier 2004–NM–208–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model
A330, A340–200, and A340–300 Series
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A330, A340–200, and
A340–300 series airplanes. This
proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections of a certain bracket that
attaches the flight deck instrument
panel to the airplane structure,
replacement of the bracket with a new,
improved bracket, and related
investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. This proposed AD is
prompted by reports of cracking of a
certain bracket that attaches the flight
deck instrument panel to the airplane
structure. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct a cracked bracket.
Failure of this bracket, combined with
failure of the horizontal beam, could
result in collapse of the left part of the
flight deck instrument panel, and
consequent reduced controllability of
the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by February 11, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to submit comments on this
proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
https://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.
• By fax: (202) 493–2251.
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2066-2067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-613]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2000-NM-168-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-
83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. That action would have
required installing shield assemblies for power feeder cables in the
forward and aft lower cargo compartments, and installing an additional
shield for the power feeder cable of the auxiliary power unit in the
aft lower cargo compartment. Since the issuance of the NPRM, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that the proposed
requirements are included in the requirements of another existing AD;
the NPRM does not contain any new requirements beyond those of the
existing AD. Accordingly, the proposed rule is withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elvin K. Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5344; fax (562) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add a new airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81
(MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88
airplanes; was published in the Federal Register as a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October 30, 2003 (68 FR
[[Page 2067]]
61772). The proposed rule would have required installing shield
assemblies for power feeder cables in the forward and aft lower cargo
compartments, and installing an additional shield for the power feeder
cable of the auxiliary power unit in the aft lower cargo compartment.
That action was prompted by several incidents of migration of power
feeder cable troughs on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-
82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. The
proposed actions were intended to prevent a cable from chafing against
an edge of a lightening hole, which could result in electrical arcing,
and consequent smoke/fire in the lower cargo compartments.
Response to Comments
We have considered the comments that have been submitted on the
proposed AD. One commenter points out that an existing AD, AD 94-09-02,
amendment 39-8890 (59 FR 18720, April 20, 1994), currently requires
accomplishment of the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-
24-100. The commenter further states that all affected airplanes listed
in Revision 04 of that service bulletin (referenced as the appropriate
source of service information in the proposed rule) were affected by
the previous revisions of that service bulletin, and that the proposed
rule contains no new requirements beyond those required by the existing
AD.
We agree. We have determined that the requirements of the proposed
rule are included in the requirements of another existing AD. The
existing AD, AD 94-09-02, is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas
Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87
(MD-87) series airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes; as listed in
McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 24-94, Revision 1, dated May
28, 1987, and McDonnell Douglas Model MD-80 Service Bulletin 24-100,
dated March 30, 1988. That AD requires an inspection to detect damage
of the auxiliary power unit (APU) power feeder cable installation,
repair of damaged cables, modification of the cable installation, and
an inspection of previously modified airplanes to determine whether a
spacer or ``stand off'' has been installed, and installation of those
items, if necessary. That action was prompted by reports of generator
power feeder cables electrically shorting to the airplane structure due
to chafing. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent the APU
power feeder cable from chafing against adjacent structures, which
could result in electrical shorting and arcing, and a fire below the
cabin floor.
Additionally, AD 94-09-02 references McDonnell Douglas MD-80
Service Bulletin 24-100, dated March 30, 1988, as the appropriate
source of service information for accomplishing the modification. The
proposed rule references McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
24A100, Revision 04, dated January 24, 2000, as the appropriate source
of service information for accomplishing the modification (installing
shield assemblies for power feeder cables). Revision 04 was issued
merely to elevate the service bulletin to the ``alert'' status and to
reference AD 94-09-02; no additional work is required. All airplanes
affected by Revision 04 are also affected by the previous revisions of
the service bulletin.
The proposed rule does not contain any new requirements beyond
those required by AD 94-09-02. Accomplishment of the requirements of AD
94-09-02 adequately addresses the identified unsafe condition.
FAA's Conclusions
Upon further consideration, the FAA has determined that the
proposed requirements are included in the requirements of another
existing AD; the proposed rule does not contain any new requirements
beyond those of the existing AD. Accordingly, the proposed rule is
hereby withdrawn.
Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes only such action, and does not
preclude the agency from issuing another action in the future, nor does
it commit the agency to any course of action in the future.
Regulatory Impact
Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking,
it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered
under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Withdrawal
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket 2000-NM-168-
AD, published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2003 (68 FR
61772), is withdrawn.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 3, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-613 Filed 1-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P