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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

34377

Vol. 66, No. 125

Thursday, June 28, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–239–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 767–300 Series Airplanes

Modified by Supplemental Type

Certificate SA7019NM–D

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 all

Boeing Model 767–300 series airplanes

modified by supplemental type

certificate SA7019NM–D. This proposal

would require modification of the inflight entertainment (IFE) system to

install a switch to remove power from

the IFE system and revision of flight

crew and cabin crew procedures. This

action is necessary to ensure that the

flight crew and cabin crew are able to

remove electrical power from the IFE

system when necessary and are advised

of appropriate procedures for such

action. Inability to remove power from

the IFE system during a non-normal or

emergency situation could result in

inability to control smoke or fumes in

the airplane flight deck or cabin. This

action is intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

239–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–239–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

BFGoodrich Aerospace, 3100 112th

Street SW., Everett, Washington 98204–

3500. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen S. 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–239–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–239–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) recently completed a review of

in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems

certified by supplemental type

certificate (STC) and installed on

transport category airplanes. The review

focused on the interface between the IFE

system and airplane electrical system,

with the objective of determining if any

unsafe conditions exist with regard to

the interface. STC’s issued between

1992 and 2000 were considered for the

review.

The type of IFE systems considered

for review were those that contain video

monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid

crystal displays; either hanging above

the aisle or mounted on individual seat

backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry

(i.e., power supplies, electronic

distribution boxes, extensive wire

routing, relatively high power

consumption, multiple layers of circuit

protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat

power supply systems that provide

power to more than 20 percent of the

total passenger seats were also

considered for the review. The types of

IFE systems not considered for review

include systems that provide only audio

signals to each passenger seat, ordinary

in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one

telephone handset per group of seats or

bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems

that only have a video monitor on the

forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection

system) to provide passengers with

basic airplane and flight information,

and in-seat power supply systems that

34378 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

provide power to less than 20 percent of

the total passenger seats.

Items considered during the review

include the following:

• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying

power to the IFE system be deenergized

when necessary without removing

power from systems that may be

required for continued safe flight and

landing?

• Can IFE system power be removed

when required without pulling IFE

system circuit breakers? (i.e., is there a

switch (dedicated to the IFE system or

a combination of loads) located in the

flight deck or cabin that can be used to

remove IFE power?)

• If the IFE system requires changes

to flight crew procedures, has the

airplane flight manual (AFM) been

properly amended?

• If the IFE system requires changes

to cabin crew procedures, have they

been properly amended?

• Does the IFE system require

periodic or special maintenance?

In all, approximately 180 IFE systems

approved by STC were reviewed by the

FAA. The review results indicate that

potential unsafe conditions exist on

some IFE systems installed on various

transport category airplanes. These

conditions can be summarized as:

• Electrical bus(es) supplying power

to the IFE system cannot be deenergized

when necessary without removing

power from systems that may be

required for continued safe flight and

landing.

• Power cannot be removed from the

IFE system when required without

pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e.,

there is no switch dedicated to the IFE

system or combination of systems for

the purpose of removing power).

• Installation of the IFE system has

affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin

crew) procedures, but the procedures

have not been properly revised.

FAA’s Determination

As part of its review of IFE systems,

the FAA has determined that an unsafe

condition exists on Boeing Model 767–

300 series airplanes modified by STC

SA7019NM–D, dated July 14, 1995. The

IFE system on these airplanes is

connected to an electrical bus that

cannot be deactivated without also

removing power from airplane systems

necessary for continued safe flight and

landing. There is no means available to

the flight or cabin crew to remove power

from the IFE system without pulling

circuit breakers for the system. Also, the

AFM and cabin crew manual do not

provide clear instructions on how to

remove power from the IFE system

when responding to an emergency. This

condition, if not corrected, could result

in inability to remove power from the

IFE system during a non-normal or

emergency situation, and consequent

inability to control smoke or fumes in

the airplane flight deck or cabin.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

BFGoodrich Engineering Order 23–32–

767–031, dated August 16, 2000, which

describes procedures for modification of

the IFE system. The modification

involves installation of a master power

control switch for the video system on

the video control center in the cabin and

installation of associated wiring.

The FAA has also reviewed and

approved BFGoodrich Flight Attendant

Manual Supplement D2000–160, dated

August 16, 2000, which advises the

cabin crew on the use of the master

power switch for the video system.

The FAA has also reviewed and

approved BFGoodrich AFM Supplement

D2001–025, dated February 26, 2001,

which revises the Emergency

Procedures section of the AFM to advise

the flight crew on procedures for

removing power from the IFE system

during an emergency situation related to

electrical smoke or fire.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the engineering order, and

revision of the flight attendant manual

and AFM by insertion of the manual

supplements, 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 engineering order

described previously, revision of the

flight attendant manual to ensure that

the cabin crew is advised of proper

procedures for use of the master power

switch for the video system, and

revision of the AFM to ensure that the

flight crew is advised of appropriate

procedures for removing power from the

IFE system during an emergency

situation related to electrical smoke or

fire.

Calculation of Compliance Time

In developing an appropriate

compliance time for this action, the

FAA considered not only the degree of

urgency associated with addressing the

subject unsafe condition, but the

amount of time necessary to accomplish

the proposed actions, and the practical

aspect of accomplishing the proposed

actions within an interval of time that

parallels normal scheduled maintenance

for the affected operators. In

consideration of these factors, the FAA

has determined that 18 months after the

effective date of this AD represents an

appropriate interval of time allowable

wherein an acceptable level of safety

can be maintained.

Other Relevant Proposed Rulemaking

This proposed action is one of a

number of proposed AD’s on airplanes

modified by STC’s that have been

determined to be subject to similar

unsafe conditions. Other currently

proposed AD’s include the following

airplanes and STC’s:

Model/Series STC No. Docket No.

Boeing 757–200 ............................................................................................................. SA1727GL 2000–NM–228–AD

McDonnell Douglas DC–9–51 and DC–9–83 ................................................................ SA8026NM 2000–NM–229–AD

McDonnell Douglas DC–10–30 ..................................................................................... ST00054SE 2000–NM–231–AD

Boeing 767–300 and 767–300ER ................................................................................. SA5765NM

SA5978NM

2000–NM–232–AD

Boeing 767–300 ............................................................................................................. ST00157SE 2000–NM–233–AD

Boeing 747–100 and –200 ............................................................................................ ST00196SE 2000–NM–234–AD

Boeing 767–200 ............................................................................................................. SA5134NM 2000–NM–235–AD

Boeing 767–300 ............................................................................................................. ST00118SE 2000–NM–236–AD

Boeing 737–300 ............................................................................................................. ST00171SE 2000–NM–237–AD

Boeing 767–200 ............................................................................................................. SA4998NM 2000–NM–238–AD

Boeing 747–100 and –200 ............................................................................................ SA8622SW 2000–NM–240–AD

McDonnell Douglas DC–10–30 ..................................................................................... SA8452SW 2000–NM–241–AD

Boeing 737–700 ............................................................................................................. ST09100AC–D

ST09105AC–D

ST09104AC–D

2000–NM–242–AD

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34379

Model/Series STC No. Docket No.

ST09106AC–D

Boeing 767–200 ............................................................................................................. ST09022AC–D 2000–NM–243–AD

Boeing 747SP ................................................................................................................ ST09097AC–D 2000–NM–244–AD

Boeing 747–400 ............................................................................................................. SA8843SW 2000–NM–245–AD

Airbus A340–211 ........................................................................................................... ST0902AC–D 2000–NM–246–AD

Cost Impact

None of the airplanes affected by this

action are on the U.S. Register. All

airplanes included in the applicability

of this rule currently are operated by

non-U.S. operators under foreign

registry; therefore, they are not directly

affected by this AD action. However, the

FAA considers that this rule is

necessary to ensure that the unsafe

condition is addressed in the event that

any of these subject airplanes are

imported and placed on the U.S.

Register in the future.

Should an affected airplane be

imported and placed on the U.S.

Register in the future, it would take

approximately 40 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

modification, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $2,740 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the proposed modification

would be $5,140 per airplane.

Should an affected airplane be

imported and placed on the U.S.

Register in the future, it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed manual

revisions, at an average labor rate of $60

per work hour. Based on these figures,

the cost impact of the proposed manual

revisions would be $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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–239–AD.

Applicability: Model 767–300 series

airplanes modified by supplemental type

certificate (STC) SA7019NM–D, dated July

14, 1995; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 (c) 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 ensure that the flight crew and cabin

crew are able to remove electrical power from

the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system when

necessary and are advised of appropriate

procedures for such action, accomplish the

following:

Modification and Manual Revisions

(a) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1)

and (a)(2) of this AD.

(1) Install a master power control switch

for the video system and associated wiring,

in accordance with BFGoodrich Engineering

Order 23–32–767–031, dated August 16,

2000.

(2) Following installation of the master

power control switch in accordance with

paragraph (a)(1) of this AD, prior to further

flight, insert BFGoodrich Flight Attendant

Manual Supplement D2000–160, dated

August 16, 2000, into the Flight Attendant

Manual, and insert BFGoodrich Airplane

Flight Manual (AFM) Supplement D2001–

025, dated February 26, 2001, into the

Emergency Procedures section of the AFM.

Spares

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

person shall install an IFE system in

accordance with STC SA7019NM–D, dated

July 14, 1995, on any airplane, unless it is

modified, and the Flight Attendant Manual

and AFM are revised, in accordance with this

AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) 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 2: 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

(d) 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.

34380 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21,

2001.

Kalene C. Yanamura,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–16204 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Honolulu 01–047]

RIN 2115–AA97

Safety Zone; Japanese Fisheries High

School Training Vessel EHIME MARU

Relocation and Crew Member

Recovery, Pacific Ocean, South Shores

of the Island of Oahu, HI

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish four temporary safety zones

south of Oahu, Hawaii to protect vessels

and mariners from the hazards

associated with vessel relocation and

crew member recovery operations of the

Japanese Fisheries High School Training

Vessel EHIME MARU, which sank after

being struck by the submarine USS

GREENEVILLE (SSN 772). Entry into

these zones will be prohibited unless

authorized by the Captain of the Port

Honolulu, HI.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Coast Guard on or before

July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments

and related material to U.S. Coast Guard

Marine Safety Office Honolulu, 433 Ala

Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, HI, 96813,

who maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents indicated in this preamble as

being available in the docket, will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at

Coast Guard Marine Safety Office

Honolulu between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT

Mark Willis, U.S. Coast Guard Marine

Safety Office Honolulu, Hawaii at (808)

522–8260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related material. If you

do so, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number for

this rulemaking [COTP Honolulu 01–

047], indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit all comments

and related material in an unbound

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,

suitable for copying. If you would like

to know your comments reached us,

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed

postcard or envelope. We will consider

all comments and material received

during the comment period. We may

change this proposed rule in view of

them. We are providing a 30-day

comment period on this proposal so that

we can seek public input on the

proposed safety zones and still publish

the final rule before the start of the

vessel relocation and crew member

recovery operation. We anticipate the

rule will be effective less than 30 days

after its publication in the Federal

Register.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. But you may submit a request

for a meeting by writing to U.S. Coast

Guard Marine Safety Office Honolulu,

HI, at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be

beneficial. If we determine that one

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold

one at a time and place announced by

a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

On February 9, 2001, the Japanese

Fisheries High School Training Vessel

EHIME MARU was struck by the

submarine USS GREENEVILLE (SSN

772) approximately 9 nautical miles

south of Diamond Head on the island of

Oahu, Hawaii. The EHIME MARU sank

in approximately 2,000 feet of water. At

the time of the sinking, 26 of the 35

crewmembers were successfully

rescued. An extensive search failed to

locate additional personnel and it is

assumed that some, or all, of the nine

missing crewmembers were trapped

inside the vessel. The EHIME MARU is

resting upright on the seafloor at

position 21°–04.8′N, 157°–49.5′W. The

U.S. Navy plans to recover

crewmembers, personal effects, and

certain unique characteristic

components from the EHIME MARU. In

its present location, the vessel is beyond

diver capability to safely conduct

recovery operations. Therefore, the

current recovery plan calls for use of a

specially equipped offshore

construction vessel to lift the EHIME

MARU from the bottom and transport

the vessel to a shallow water work site.

The EHIME MARU would then be

placed back on the seafloor, in

approximately 115 feet of water, where

Navy divers would enter the hull and

attempt to recover crewmembers,

personal effects, and uniquely

characteristic components found inside.

To limit the impact on the marine

environment, diesel fuel, lubricating oil,

loose debris, and any other hazardous

materials will be removed to the

maximum extent practicable at the

shallow water work site. The hull will

then be lifted back off the ocean floor

and moved to a deep water relocation

site approximately 13 nautical miles

south of Barbers Point on the island of

Oahu, Hawaii. To support the vessel

relocation and crew member recovery

operation, the Coast Guard proposes to

establish safety zones as follows:

1. A fixed safety zone, with a radius

of 1 nautical mile, centered at 21°–

04.8′N, 157°–49.5′W; the present

location of the EHIME MARU.

2. A moving safety zone, with a radius

of 1 nautical mile, will be in effect

during the transit of the EHIME MARU

and associated recovery vessels from the

present location of the EHIME MARU to

the shallow water work site, located

within the Naval Defensive Sea Area at

approximate position 21°–17.5′N, 157°

–56.4′W.

3. A moving safety zone, with a radius

of 1 nautical mile, will be in effect

during transit of the EHIME MARU and

associated recovery vessels from the

shallow water work site to the deep

water relocation site at approximate

position 21°–05.0′N, 157°–07.0′W.

4. A fixed safety zone, with a radius

of 1 nautical mile, centered at the

coordinates of the deep water relocation

site, will be in effect until the EHIME

MARU is placed back on the ocean

floor. The portion of the safety zone

extending beyond the territorial

boundary is advisory only.

The safety zones would be enforced

sequentially, the exact dates will be

dependent on the phase of the

operation. The safety zones would

become effective at the beginning of

August, 2001, and would remain in

effect until the operation, which will

take about 31⁄2 months, ends in midNovember. The purpose of these safety

zones is to protect vessels and mariners

from hazards associated with vessel

relocation and crew member recovery

operations of the Japanese Fisheries

High School Training Vessel EHIME

MARU. Since oil spills may result due

to damaged and ruptured fuel tanks, the

safety zone would also protect vessels

and mariners from the hazards of any

pollution response operations that may

be necessary. Entry into these safety

zones will be prohibited unless