900 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

accordance with Part II of the service 

bulletin. 

(v) Within 10,000 flight cycles after 

accomplishment of the time-limited repair: 

Make the repair permanent in accordance 

with Part III of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the service bulletin. 

Permanent repair of an area terminates the 

repetitive inspections specified in this AD for 

that repaired area only. 

(2) Do a permanent repair (including an 

inspection using external subsurface eddy 

current or magneto optical imaging methods 

to detect cracks at the chem-milled step in 

each adjacent bay of the fuselage skin, a 

detailed inspection of the skin in the area of 

the repair for corrosion and doubler 

disbonding, and applicable corrective action) 

of the cracked area, in accordance with Part 

II of the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

service bulletin. Permanent repair of an area 

terminates the repetitive inspections 

specified in this AD for that repaired area 

only. 

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Procedures 

(e) During any inspection required by this 

AD, if any discrepancy (including cracking) 

is detected for which the service bulletin 

specifies to contact Boeing for appropriation 

action: Before further flight, repair in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO; or in accordance with 

data meeting the type certification basis of 

the airplane approved by a Boeing Company 

Designated Engineering Representative who 

has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make such findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, as required by this 

paragraph, the approval letter must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

(f) Although Boeing Service Bulletin 737–

53–1065, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001, 

recommends that cracks found in Zone 2 be 

reported to Boeing, this AD does not require 

such a report. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(g)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, is authorized to 

approve alternative methods of compliance 

(AMOCs) for this AD. 

(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by a 

Boeing Company Designated Engineering 

Representative who has been authorized by 

the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such 

findings.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 30, 2003. 

Michael J. Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–272 Filed 1–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2001–NM–226–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas MD–90–30 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes the 

adoption of a new airworthiness 

directive (AD) that is applicable to 

certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD–

90–30 airplanes. For some airplanes, the 

proposal would require replacing one 3-

phase limiter block assembly, 6 current 

limiters, and hardware for 9 electrical 

cables with new parts. For other 

airplanes, this proposal would require 

inspecting 6 current limiters and 3 spare 

current limiters and replacing any 

defective current limiters with new 

current limiters. These actions are 

necessary to prevent overheating of the 

terminal studs on the 3-phase limiter 

blocks and associated current limiters, 

which could cause a fire in the airplane. 

This action is intended to address the 

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 23, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

triplicate to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, 

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–

226–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–226–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 

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:

George Mabuni, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5341; 

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–226–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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 901

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 

2001–NM–226–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 

Discussion 

The FAA has received reports of 

overheating of the terminal studs on the 

3-phase limiter block and associated 

current limiters on MD–90 airplanes. 

Investigation has determined that 

incorrect manufacturing or assembly 

procedures were used during 

manufacture of the 3-phase limiter 

blocks or the current limiters. If the 

defective 3-phase limiter blocks or 

current limiters are not replaced, 

overheating of the terminal studs on the 

3-phase limiter blocks and associated 

current limiters could occur. 

Overheating of the terminal studs causes 

the casing of the current limiters 

attached to the limiter block to melt and 

deform. Such overheating could cause a 

fire in the airplane. 

Explanation of Relevant Service 

Information 

The FAA has reviewed and approved 

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 

Bulletin MD90–24A031, Revision 01, 

dated February 28, 2001, which 

describes procedures for replacing (1) 

The 3-phase limiter block assembly, (2) 

the 6 current limiters and attaching 

parts located on the limiter block, and 

(3) hardware for 9 electrical cables 

attached to the limiter block. 

The FAA has also reviewed and 

approved McDonnell Douglas Alert 

Service Bulletin MD90–24A043, 

Revision 01, dated March 12, 2001, 

which describes procedures for (1) 

inspecting the 6 current limiters and 

attaching hardware and the 3 spare 

current limiters located in the electrical 

power center and (2) replacing the 

current limiters which have 

manufacturing defects with new current 

limiters. This service bulletin specifies 

that the actions required by McDonnell 

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD90–

24A031, Revision 01, dated February 28, 

2001, are to be accomplished prior to or 

concurrent with those described in 

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 

Bulletin MD90–24A043, Revision 01, 

dated March 12, 2001. 

Accomplishment of the actions 

specified in the service bulletins 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 

require accomplishment of the actions 

specified in the service bulletins 

described previously, except as 

indicated below. 

Difference Between Proposed Rule and 

Referenced Service Bulletin 

Operators should note that, although 

the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

referenced alert service bulletins 

describe procedures for recording 

certain data regarding replacement of 

the 3-phase limiter block assembly and 

forwarding the data to the FAA, this 

proposed AD would not require those 

actions. The FAA does not need this 

information from operators. 

Cost Impact 

There are approximately 29 airplanes 

in the worldwide fleet which are listed 

in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 

Bulletin MD90–24A031, Revision 01, 

dated February 28, 2001. The FAA 

estimates that 18 airplanes of U.S. 

registry would be affected by this 

proposed AD, that it would take 

approximately 3 work hours per 

airplane to accomplish the actions 

proposed in paragraph (b) of this AD, 

and that the average labor rate is $65 per 

work hour. Based on these figures, the 

cost impact of the actions proposed in 

paragraph (b) of this AD on U.S. 

operators is estimated to be $5,655, or 

$195 per airplane. 

There are approximately 4 airplanes 

in the worldwide fleet which are listed 

in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 

Bulletin MD90–24A031, Revision 01, 

dated February 28, 2001, and are also 

listed as Group 1 airplanes in 

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 

Bulletin MD90–24A043, Revision 01, 

dated March 12, 2001. None of those 

airplanes are on the U.S. registry. 

There are approximately 5 airplanes 

in the worldwide fleet which are listed 

as Group 2 airplanes in McDonnell 

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD90–

24A043, Revision 01, dated March 12, 

2001. The FAA estimates that one 

airplane of U.S. registry would be 

affected by this proposed AD, that it 

would take approximately 3 work hours 

per airplane to accomplish the actions 

proposed in paragraph (c) of this AD, 

and that the average labor rate is $65 per 

work hour. The manufacturer may cover 

the cost of replacement parts associated 

with this proposed AD, subject to 

warranty conditions. Based on these 

figures, the cost impact of the actions 

proposed in paragraph (c) of this AD on 

U.S. operators is estimated to be $195.

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 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. 

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:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2001–NM–226–

AD.

902 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Applicability: Model MD–90–30 airplanes, 

as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 

Bulletin MD90–24A031, Revision 01, dated 

February 28, 2001, or McDonnell Douglas 

Alert Service Bulletin MD90–24A043, 

Revision 01, dated March 12, 2001; 

certificated in any category. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

To prevent overheating of the terminal 

studs on the 3-phase limiter blocks and 

associated current limiters, which could 

cause a fire in the airplane, accomplish the 

following: 

Inspection and Replacement 

(a) For those airplanes listed as Group 1 

airplanes in McDonnell Douglas Alert 

Service Bulletin MD90–24A043, Revision 01, 

dated March 12, 2001, which are also listed 

in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin 

MD90–24A031, Revision 01, dated February 

28, 2001: Within 6 months after the effective 

date of this AD, accomplish the following 

actions: 

(1) Inspect the 3 spare current limiters 

located in the electrical power center (EPC) 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Alert 

Service Bulletin MD90–24A043, Revision 01, 

dated March 12, 2001. If the inspection 

reveals that any of the current limiters 

located in the electrical power unit are 

defective, before further flight replace the 

defective current limiter(s) with new current 

limiter(s) in accordance with the alert service 

bulletin. 

(2) Prior to or concurrent with 

accomplishment of paragraph (a)(1) of this 

AD, accomplish the following actions in 

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert 

Service Bulletin MD90–24A031, Revision 01, 

dated February 28, 2001: 

(i) Replace the 3-phase limiter block 

assembly and associated clear cover of the 

EPC with a serialized 3-phase limiter block 

assembly and a new clear cover. 

(ii) Replace the six current limiters and 

attaching parts on the limiter block with new 

current limiters and attaching parts. 

(iii) Replace hardware for nine electrical 

cables attached to the limiter block with new 

attaching hardware. 

Replacement 

(b) For those airplanes listed in McDonnell 

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD90–

24A031, Revision 01, dated February 28, 

2001: Within 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD, accomplish the following actions 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the alert service bulletin: 

(1) Replace the 3-phase limiter block 

assembly and associated clear cover of the 

EPC with a serialized 3-phase limiter block 

assembly and a new clear cover. 

(2) Replace the six current limiters and 

attaching parts on the limiter block with new 

current limiters and attaching parts. 

(3) Replace hardware for nine electrical 

cables attached to the limiter block with new 

attaching hardware. 

Other Inspection 

(c) For those airplanes listed as Group 2 

airplanes in McDonnell Douglas Alert 

Service Bulletin MD90–24A043, Revision 01, 

dated March 12, 2001: Within 6 months after 

the effective date of this AD, accomplish the 

following actions in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the alert 

service bulletin. 

(1) Inspect the 6 current limiters and 

attaching hardware on the 3-phase limiter 

blocks and the 3 spare current limiters 

located in the EPC to determine whether any 

of the current limiters are defective. 

(2) If the inspection required by paragraph 

(c)(1) of this AD reveals that any of the 

current limiters are defective, before further 

flight replace the defective current limiters 

with new current limiters, in accordance 

with Figure 1 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions. 

Parts Installation 

(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person shall install on any airplane a Tri-Star 

3-phase limiter block assembly having part 

number (P/N) C–1301–3 or a Burndy 3-phase 

limiter block assembly having P/N F6H–2, 

unless that 3-phase limiter block assembly 

has serial number 3015 or higher. 

Information Submission 

(e) Although the service bulletin referenced 

in this AD specifies that certain information 

is to be submitted to the FAA, this AD does 

not include such a requirement. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(f) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, is 

authorized to approve alternative methods of 

compliance for this AD.

Note 1: Information concerning the 

existence of approved alternative methods of 

compliance with this AD, if any, may be 

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 30, 2003. 

Michael J. Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–273 Filed 1–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P