30114 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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:

Boeing: Docket 2000–NM–19–AD.

Applicability: Model 767 series airplanes

as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 767–73–

0051, dated December 20, 2000, certificated

in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance per

paragraph (e) of this AD. The request should

include an assessment of the effect of the

modification, alteration, or repair on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and,

if the unsafe condition has not been

eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent the potential for dual wire

faults from grounded, separated, or shorted

wires; which could result in inadvertent

takeoff thrust overboost, in-flight loss of

thrust, or engine shutdown, accomplish the

following:

Detailed Visual Inspection

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 10,000

hours time-in-service or within 180 days after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later: Do a one-time detailed visual

inspection of the wire bundles located in the

aft section of the strut forward fairing panel

of both engine struts to detect chafing

damage, per Boeing Service Bulletin 767–

73A0049, Revision 3, dated December 20,

2000, or Revision 4, dated April 5, 2001.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

Corrective Action

(1) If any chafing damage of any wire

bundle is detected: Before further flight,

repair the wire bundle per the service

bulletin, except as provided by paragraph

(a)(2) of this AD.

(2) Replace all spliced wires with new

wires per the service bulletin, concurrent

with accomplishment of the terminating

action required by paragraph (b)(2) of this

AD.

Terminating Action

(b) Within 6,000 flight hours or 18 months

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, do the actions specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD per the

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing

Service Bulletin 767–73–0051, dated

December 20, 2000.

(1) Do a detailed visual inspection of the

wire bundles to detect chafing damage; if any

damaged wires are found, replace the wires

that require a splice repair with new wires

concurrent with accomplishment of the

terminating action specified in paragraph

(b)(2) of this AD.

(2) Replace the existing support bracket of

the wire bundle with a new bridge bracket,

support bracket, and wire bundle clamps.

Accomplishment of this replacement

terminates the requirements of this AD.

Report Inspection Results

(c) Following accomplishment of

paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD: Report

inspection results, as described in Boeing

Service Bulletin 767–73A0049, Revision 3,

dated December 20, 2000, or Revision 4,

dated April 5, 2001, to Boeing Commercial

Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207.

Spares

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

person shall install on any airplane any

bracket identified in the ‘‘Existing Part

Number’’ column of Paragraph 2.E. of Boeing

Service Bulletin 767–73–0051, dated

December 20, 2000.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permit

(f) Special flight permits may be issued per

§§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to

operate the airplane to a location where the

requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 30,

2001.

Vi L. Lipski,

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14041 Filed 6–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–146–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737 Series 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 Boeing

Model 737–100, –200, –300, –400, and

–500 series airplanes, that would have

required inspection of wire bundles in

two junction boxes in the main wheel

well to detect chafing or damage, and

follow-on actions. This new action

revises the proposed rule by expanding

the applicability to include additional

airplanes and models, and by adding

new inspections for chafing or damage

of two additional junction boxes in the

main wheel well and follow-on actions

for those boxes. This action is necessary

to prevent wire damage, which could

result in arcing and consequent fire in

the main wheel well or passenger cabin,

or inability to stop the flow of fuel to an

engine or to the auxiliary power unit in

the event of a fire. This action is

intended to address the identified

unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

146–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

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. 2000–NM–146–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 Airplane Group,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30115

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Oshiro, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2793; fax (425) 227–1181.

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 2000–NM–146–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.

2000–NM–146–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

Boeing Model 737–100, –200, –300,

–400, and –500 series airplanes, was

published as a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal

Register on June 27, 2000 (65 FR 39574).

That NPRM would have required

inspection of wire bundles in two

junction boxes in the main wheel well

to detect chafing or damage, and followon actions. That NPRM was prompted

by reports indicating that damaged

electrical wiring has been found in a

junction box formed by electrical

disconnect brackets on the right side of

the main wheel well on certain Boeing

Model 737 series airplanes. That

condition, if not corrected, could result

in arcing and consequent fire in the

main wheel well or passenger cabin, or

inability to stop the flow of fuel to an

engine or to the auxiliary power unit in

the event of a fire.

Comments

Due consideration has been given to

the comments received in response to

the NPRM. One comment has resulted

in changes to the proposed rule, which

are discussed below.

Expand Inspection Area, Applicability

One commenter, the airplane

manufacturer, requests that the FAA

revise the NPRM in the following ways:

• Expand applicability to include all

Boeing Model 737–100, –200, –300,

–400, and –500 series airplanes; and

Boeing Model 737–600, –700, –800, and

–900 series airplanes, with line numbers

1 through 706 inclusive.

• Expand subject area of inspections

and follow-on actions to include two

additional junction boxes in the main

wheel well.

• Reference revised service

information.

The commenter explains that, though

the NPRM specified inspections and

follow-on actions for only two junction

boxes in the main wheel well on certain

Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, there

are four junction boxes in the main

wheel well area that have the same

design. Also, junction boxes of the same

design are installed on certain Boeing

Model 737–600, –700, –800, and –900

series airplanes. The commenter

requests that the FAA revise the NPRM

to reference new service information

that addresses these issues.

The FAA concurs with the

commenter’s requests. Since the

issuance of the proposed rule, the FAA

has reviewed and approved Boeing

Service Letter 737–SL–24–111–B, dated

January 16, 2001. (The NPRM

referenced Boeing Service Letter 737–

SL–24–111, dated February 27, 1996, as

the appropriate source of service

information for the actions described in

the NPRM.) Boeing Service Letter 737–

SL–24–111–B differs from the original

issue by featuring an expanded

effectivity (including Model 737–600,

–700, –800, and –900) and an expanded

inspection area (four junction boxes

instead of two). The new service letter

also incorporates new instructions for

rerouting the wiring that are intended to

better protect the wiring from future

damage due to chafing than would the

instructions in the original service

letter. Also, the revised service letter

refers only to Boeing Standard Wiring

Practices Manual D6–54446, Subject 20–

10–13, as an appropriate source of

repair instructions if any damaged

wiring is found. Accomplishment of the

actions in the revised service letter

described above is intended to

adequately address the unsafe

condition.

Conclusion

Since these changes expand the scope

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.

Explanation of New Requirements of

Supplemental NPRM

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the supplemental NPRM

would require accomplishment of the

actions specified in the revised service

letter described previously, except as

discussed below.

Difference Between Service Letter and

This Proposed AD

Operators should note that, while the

service letter does not specify the type

of inspection of the wire bundles to

detect chafing, this proposed AD would

require a detailed visual inspection to

detect chafing of the wire bundles. A

note has been included in this proposed

rule to define that inspection.

Operators also should note that this

proposed AD would require the

inspection be accomplished within 12

months after the effective date of the

AD. The service letter specifies that the

actions therein should be accomplished

‘‘at a convenient opportunity when

30116 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

facilities and manpower are available.’’

In developing an appropriate

compliance time for this proposed AD,

the FAA considered the degree of

urgency associated with addressing the

subject unsafe condition, the average

utilization of the affected fleet, and the

time necessary to perform the actions

(approximately 4 hours). In light of all

of these factors, the FAA finds a 12-

month compliance time for initiating

the required actions to be warranted, in

that it represents an appropriate interval

of time allowable for affected airplanes

to continue to operate without

compromising safety.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 3,719

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

1,467 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 8 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. The cost of

required parts would be negligible.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $704,160, or $480 per

airplane.

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:

Boeing: Docket 2000–NM–146–AD.

Applicability: All Model 737–100, –200,

–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes; and

Model 737–600, –700, –800, and –900 series

airplanes, line numbers 1 through 706

inclusive; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent chafing of wire bundles in four

junction boxes in the main wheel well,

which could result in arcing and consequent

fire in the main wheel well or passenger

cabin, or inability to stop the flow of fuel to

an engine or to the auxiliary power unit in

the event of fire, accomplish the following:

Inspection

(a) Within 12 months after the effective

date of this AD, perform a detailed visual

inspection of the wire bundles in the four

junction boxes formed by electrical

disconnect brackets on the left and right

sides of the main wheel wells to detect

damage or chafing, as specified in Boeing

Service Letter 737–SL–24–111–B, dated

January 16, 2001.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

(1) If no chafing is detected, prior to further

flight, protect the wire bundles from chafing

against the cover plate of the junction box,

according to the service letter.

(2) If any chafing is detected, prior to

further flight, repair the wiring in accordance

with the service letter, and protect the wire

bundles from chafing against the cover plate

of the junction box, according to the service

letter.

Note 3: Boeing Service Letter 737–SL–24–

111–B, dated January 16, 2001, refers to

Boeing Standard Wiring Practices Manual

D6–54446, Subject 20–10–13, as the

appropriate source of repair instructions if

any damaged wiring is found.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 30,

2001.

Vi L. Lipski,

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14042 Filed 6–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P