Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F Airplanes, 20842-20844 [05-8094]

Download as PDF 20842 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 77 Friday, April 22, 2005 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 2001–NM–359–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC– 10A and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10– 40F, MD–10–10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11, and MD–11F Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC– 10A and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10– 40F, MD–10–10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11, and MD–11F airplanes, that would have required repetitive operation of the exterior emergency door handle of the forward passenger door to determine if binding exists in the exterior emergency control handle mechanism, and corrective action, if necessary. This new action revises the proposed rule by requiring revised procedures for the operational test. The actions specified by this new proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the forward passenger doors to operate properly in an emergency condition, which could delay an emergency evacuation and possibly result in injury to passengers and flightcrew. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. Comments must be received by May 17, 2005. ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, DATES: VerDate jul<14>2003 15:26 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 205001 Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM– 359–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-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain ‘‘Docket No. 2001–NM–359–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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Sujishi, Aerospace Engineer; Cabin Safety, Mechanical, and Environmental Branch; ANM–150L; FAA; Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office; 3960 Paramount Boulevard; Lakewood, California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5353; 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: • 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. PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • 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 Number 2001–NM–359–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. 2001–NM–359–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 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 McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC– 10–30F (KC–10A and KDC–10), DC–10– 40, DC–10–40F, MD–10–10F, MD–10– 30F, MD–11, and MD–11F airplanes, was published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on November 12, 2003 (68 FR 64006). That NPRM would have required repetitive operation of the exterior emergency door handle of the forward passenger door to determine if binding exists in the exterior emergency control handle mechanism, and corrective action if necessary. That NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that the exterior emergency function of one forward passenger door was inoperative. That condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the forward passenger doors to operate properly in an emergency condition, which could delay an emergency E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 77 / Friday, April 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules evacuation and possibly result in injury to passengers and flightcrew. Actions Since Issuance of Previous Proposal Since the issuance of that NPRM, the manufacturer has updated the service information to specify revised procedures for the operational test of the exterior emergency door handle mechanism of the forward passenger door. We have reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin MD11–52–046, Revision 03, dated October 27, 2004 (for Model MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes); and Boeing Service Bulletin DC10–52– 221, Revision 02, dated October 27, 2004 (for Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC– 10A and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10– 40F, MD–10–10F, and MD–10–30F airplanes). Both service bulletins describe procedures for repetitive functional testing of the exterior emergency door handle of the forward passenger door to determine if binding exists in the exterior emergency control handle mechanism, and corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions consist of replacing existing steel bearings with new, corrosion resistant bearings. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition, except as discussed under ‘‘Differences Between Proposed Rule and Service Bulletins.’’ Other Related Rulemaking Operators should note that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), docket identifier 2004–NM–241–AD, applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC– 10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A and KDC– 10), DC–10–40, DC–10–40F, MD–10– 10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2005 (70 FR 17618). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive operation of the exterior emergency door handle of the mid, overwing, and aft passenger doors to determine if binding exists in the exterior emergency control handle mechanism, and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM is related to this proposed AD. Differences Between Proposed Rule and Service Bulletins Operators should note that, although the service bulletins include a procedure to replace the lower torque shaft bearings, this proposed AD does not mandate such replacement. Replacement of the lower torque shaft VerDate jul<14>2003 15:26 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 205001 bearings does not address the identified unsafe condition of this AD. We have changed the manufacturer name on the service bulletins cited in this proposed AD from McDonnell Douglas to Boeing to reflect current guidelines established by the Office of the Federal Register for material incorporated by reference. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. Several comments were submitted; however, the subjects of those comments have all been addressed by the revised service information. Therefore, those comments are not addressed in this proposed AD. Conclusion Since this change revises and clarifies the actions of the originally proposed rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment. Cost Impact There are approximately 604 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 396 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed repetitive operation of the exterior emergency door handle of the forward passenger door, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $25,740, or $65 per airplane, per operation. The cost impact figure discussed above is 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 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 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, PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 20843 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: McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2001–NM–359– AD. Applicability: Model MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11–52–046, Revision 03, dated October 27, 2004; and Model DC–10–10, DC– 10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10– 40F, MD–10–10F, and MD–10–30F airplanes; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC10–52–221, Revision 02, dated October 27, 2004; certificated in any category. Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. To prevent failure of the forward passenger doors to operate properly in an emergency condition, which could delay an emergency evacuation and possibly result in injury to passengers and flightcrew, accomplish the following: Functional Test (a) Within 6,000 flight hours or 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform a functional test of the exterior emergency control handle assemblies E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1 20844 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 77 / Friday, April 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules of the forward passenger doors, by doing all actions specified in Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. (1) If the functional test reveals no noisy operation or binding: At intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever occurs later, repeat the functional test until the terminating action of paragraph (b) of this AD has been accomplished. (2) If any functional test required by this AD reveals noisy operation or binding: Prior to further flight, replace the steel bearings with bearings made from corrosion-resistant material, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Optional Terminating Action (b) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (a)(2) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive tests required by paragraph (a)(1) of this AD. Actions Accomplished Per Previous Issue of Service Bulletin (c) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Boeing service bulletins listed in Table 2 of this AD are considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD. TABLE 2.—BOEING SERVICE BULLETINS Boeing service bulletin Revision DC10–52–221 DC10–52–221 MD11–52–046 MD11–52–046 MD11–52–046 Original .. 1 ............. Original .. 1 ............. 2 ............. Date of issue Nov. 5, 2001. May 6, 2002. Nov. 5, 2001. May 6, 2002. Oct. 8, 2002. Alternative Methods of Compliance (d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) for this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13, 2005. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 05–8094 Filed 4–21–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P VerDate jul<14>2003 15:26 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 205001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 2002–NM–332–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Model 650 Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Cessna Model 650 airplanes, that would have required repetitive replacement of the horizontal stabilizer primary trim actuator assembly (HSTA) with a repaired assembly. This new action revises the proposed rule by removing the requirement for repetitive replacement of the HSTA; adding a requirement to inspect to determine the part number of the actuator control unit (ACU) and replace the ACU with a new, improved ACU if necessary; and adding a requirement to revise the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual. This new action also revises the applicability to include all Model 650 airplanes. The actions specified by this new proposed AD are intended to prevent uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. DATES: Comments must be received by May 17, 2005. ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002–NM– 332–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-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain ‘‘Docket No. 2002–NM–332–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. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at or at the FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert P. Busto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE– 116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone (316) 946–4157; fax (316) 946–4107. 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 Number 2002–NM–332–AD.’’ The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 77 (Friday, April 22, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20842-20844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8094]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 77 / Friday, April 22, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 20842]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NM-359-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-
10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, 
DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of 
comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness 
directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, 
DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, 
DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes, that 
would have required repetitive operation of the exterior emergency door 
handle of the forward passenger door to determine if binding exists in 
the exterior emergency control handle mechanism, and corrective action, 
if necessary. This new action revises the proposed rule by requiring 
revised procedures for the operational test. The actions specified by 
this new proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the forward 
passenger doors to operate properly in an emergency condition, which 
could delay an emergency evacuation and possibly result in injury to 
passengers and flightcrew. This action is intended to address the 
identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by May 17, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-359-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-359-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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Sujishi, Aerospace Engineer; Cabin 
Safety, Mechanical, and Environmental Branch; ANM-150L; FAA; Los 
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office; 3960 Paramount Boulevard; 
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5353; 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:
     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 Number 2001-NM-359-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. 2001-NM-359-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

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 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-
30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-
10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes, was published as a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on November 12, 2003 
(68 FR 64006). That NPRM would have required repetitive operation of 
the exterior emergency door handle of the forward passenger door to 
determine if binding exists in the exterior emergency control handle 
mechanism, and corrective action if necessary. That NPRM was prompted 
by a report indicating that the exterior emergency function of one 
forward passenger door was inoperative. That condition, if not 
corrected, could result in failure of the forward passenger doors to 
operate properly in an emergency condition, which could delay an 
emergency

[[Page 20843]]

evacuation and possibly result in injury to passengers and flightcrew.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Proposal

    Since the issuance of that NPRM, the manufacturer has updated the 
service information to specify revised procedures for the operational 
test of the exterior emergency door handle mechanism of the forward 
passenger door.
    We have reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-52-046, 
Revision 03, dated October 27, 2004 (for Model MD-11 and MD-11F 
airplanes); and Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-52-221, Revision 02, dated 
October 27, 2004 (for Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, 
DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-
10-30F airplanes). Both service bulletins describe procedures for 
repetitive functional testing of the exterior emergency door handle of 
the forward passenger door to determine if binding exists in the 
exterior emergency control handle mechanism, and corrective actions if 
necessary. Corrective actions consist of replacing existing steel 
bearings with new, corrosion resistant bearings. Accomplishing the 
actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately 
address the unsafe condition, except as discussed under ``Differences 
Between Proposed Rule and Service Bulletins.''

Other Related Rulemaking

    Operators should note that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 
docket identifier 2004-NM-241-AD, applicable to certain McDonnell 
Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-
10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11 and 
MD-11F airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on April 7, 
2005 (70 FR 17618). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive operation 
of the exterior emergency door handle of the mid, overwing, and aft 
passenger doors to determine if binding exists in the exterior 
emergency control handle mechanism, and corrective actions if 
necessary. That NPRM is related to this proposed AD.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and Service Bulletins

    Operators should note that, although the service bulletins include 
a procedure to replace the lower torque shaft bearings, this proposed 
AD does not mandate such replacement. Replacement of the lower torque 
shaft bearings does not address the identified unsafe condition of this 
AD.
    We have changed the manufacturer name on the service bulletins 
cited in this proposed AD from McDonnell Douglas to Boeing to reflect 
current guidelines established by the Office of the Federal Register 
for material incorporated by reference.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the 
development of this AD. Several comments were submitted; however, the 
subjects of those comments have all been addressed by the revised 
service information. Therefore, those comments are not addressed in 
this proposed AD.

Conclusion

    Since this change revises and clarifies the actions of the 
originally proposed rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary 
to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for 
public comment.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 604 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 396 airplanes of U.S. registry 
would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 
1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed repetitive 
operation of the exterior emergency door handle of the forward 
passenger door, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. 
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. 
operators is estimated to be $25,740, or $65 per airplane, per 
operation.
    The cost impact figure discussed above is 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 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 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 adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2001-NM-359-AD.

    Applicability: Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes; as identified 
in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-52-046, Revision 03, dated October 
27, 2004; and Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-
30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-10-
30F airplanes; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-52-221, 
Revision 02, dated October 27, 2004; certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent failure of the forward passenger doors to operate 
properly in an emergency condition, which could delay an emergency 
evacuation and possibly result in injury to passengers and 
flightcrew, accomplish the following:

Functional Test

    (a) Within 6,000 flight hours or 18 months after the effective 
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform a functional test 
of the exterior emergency control handle assemblies

[[Page 20844]]

of the forward passenger doors, by doing all actions specified in 
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.
    (1) If the functional test reveals no noisy operation or 
binding: At intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, 
whichever occurs later, repeat the functional test until the 
terminating action of paragraph (b) of this AD has been 
accomplished.
    (2) If any functional test required by this AD reveals noisy 
operation or binding: Prior to further flight, replace the steel 
bearings with bearings made from corrosion-resistant material, in 
accordance with the applicable service bulletin.

Optional Terminating Action

    (b) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (a)(2) 
of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive tests 
required by paragraph (a)(1) of this AD.

Actions Accomplished Per Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

    (c) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with the Boeing service bulletins listed in Table 2 of 
this AD are considered acceptable for compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.


                   Table 2.--Boeing Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Boeing service bulletin          Revision         Date of issue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC10-52-221.....................  Original.......  Nov. 5, 2001.
DC10-52-221.....................  1..............  May 6, 2002.
MD11-52-046.....................  Original.......  Nov. 5, 2001.
MD11-52-046.....................  1..............  May 6, 2002.
MD11-52-046.....................  2..............  Oct. 8, 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve 
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) for this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13, 2005.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-8094 Filed 4-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.