Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2041

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 30, 1994.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–306 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–175–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–11 Series

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 MD–11

series airplanes. This proposal would

require the installation of an electrically

controlled slat system. This proposal is

prompted by numerous incidents of

inadvertent deployment of the slats

while the airplane was in flight at cruise

altitude. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

inadvertent deployment of the slats

during flight, which could result in an

abrupt pitch up of the airplane and

consequent injury to crew and

passengers; it could also result in

significant vibrations and cause damage

to the elevators.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

175–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.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, P.O.

Box 1771, Long Beach, California

90801–1771, Attention: Business Unit

Manager, Technical Administrative

Support, Dept. L51, M.C. 2–98. 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, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (310)

627–5324; fax (310) 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 notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

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 notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 94–NM–175–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

94–NM–175–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA previously has issued

several AD’s, applicable to McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–11 series airplanes,

whose requirements have addressed the

problems associated with inadvertent

deployment of the slats during flight:

1. AD 92–13–03, amendment 39–8273

(57 FR 27155, June 18, 1992), requires

either modification or replacement of

the flap control module quadrant. That

action was prompted by an incident in

which a flightcrew member

inadvertently bumped the flap/slat

handle, which then placed the handle in

an improper position that allowed the

slats to extend during cruise.

2. AD 92–14–51, amendment 39–8325

(57 FR 38264, August 24, 1992), requires

a one-time inspection of the slat

mechanical input system for proper

clearance and rigging, and adjustment of

the system, if necessary. That action was

prompted by two incidents in which the

slats extended during flight at cruise

altitude because the rigging of the slat

input system was out of tolerance in

three separate places in the extended

position

3. AD 92–26–03, amendment 39–8430

(57 FR 57906, December 8, 1992),

requires installing a cover on the flap/

slat control module quadrant in the

flight compartment. That action was

prompted by an incident in which a

flightcrew member inadvertently

initiated slat deployment by

unintentionally depressing the zero

degree detent gate while the flap/slat

handle was stowed in the retracted

detent and the handle was not in the

proper position within the detent.

4. AD 93–15–03, amendment 39–8649

(58 FR 41421, August 4, 1993), requires

installing a retainer assembly on the

upper pedestal flap/slat control module

quadrant in the flight compartment.

That action was prompted by several

incidents in which flightcrew members

accidentally bumped the flap/slat

handle and the slats deployed during

cruise.

Deployment of the slats during flight

at cruise altitude could result in abrupt

pitch up of the airplane and consequent

injury to crew and passengers; it could

also create significant vibrations and

cause damage to the elevators.

In the preambles to those AD’s, the

FAA stated that the requirements of

each of the AD’s were considered to be

interim action until final action was

identified. The manufacturer had

undertaken a design review of the flap/

slat system of the Model MD–11 in an

effort to positively address the problems

associated with it, and the FAA

indicated that it would consider further

rulemaking once that design review was

completed.

The manufacturer’s design review has

now been completed and the

manufacturer has developed an

electrically controlled slat system.

Installation of this new system will

reduce the possibility of uncommanded

operation of the slats and inadvertent

displacement of the flap/slat handle.

The FAA has determined that the

system positively addresses the unsafe

condition addressed in the previouslyissued AD’s. In light of this, the FAA

has determined that further rulemaking

action is indeed necessary, and this
2042 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules

proposed AD follows from that

determination.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas MD–11 Service

Bulletin 27–36, Revision 1, dated

December 9, 1994, which describes

procedures for installation of the newlydesigned electrically controlled slat

system. This system involves:

1. modifying and reidentifying the

flap/slat module;

2. removing the slat control cables

and associated pulleys, pushrods, and

spring coupler;

3. modifying the input bellcrank;

4. removing the inboard follow-up

cable, drum, and pushrods to the

outboard valve;

5. removing the auto-slat actuator and

pushrod;

6. replacing the mechanical slat

control valves with electro-mechanical

slat control valves and installing

associated wiring;

7. installing nameplates on the

overhead circuit breaker panel;

8. installing circuit breakers and

nameplates on the avionics circuit

breaker panel;

9. installing relays at the electrical

and main avionics rack; and

10. installing lightplates on the

pedestal.

Besides its main purpose to reduce

the possibility of uncommanded slat

operation, other benefits of this new

system include greatly simplified flap/

slat operation with reduced handle

force, enhanced protection against

uncontained engine failure, and reduced

aircraft weight.

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 installation of an electrically

controlled slat system. The actions

would be required to be accomplished

in accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

Installation of this new system

necessarily entails removal of the items

that previously were required to be

installed in accordance with AD’s 92–

13–03, 92–14–51, 92–26–03, and 93–15–

03. Therefore, once the installation of

the new system is completed on an

airplane, the requirements of the

previously-issued AD’s are considered

terminated.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that some operators may misunderstand

the legal effect of AD’s on airplanes that

are identified in the applicability

provision of the AD, but that have been

altered or repaired in the area addressed

by the AD. The FAA points out that all

airplanes identified in the applicability

provision of an AD are legally subject to

the AD. If an airplane has been altered

or repaired in the affected area in such

a way as to affect compliance with the

AD, the owner or operator is required to

obtain FAA approval for an alternative

method of compliance with the AD, in

accordance with the paragraph of each

AD that provides for such approvals. A

note has been included to this notice to

clarify this requirement.

There are approximately 124 Model

MD–11 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 43 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 68 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would be supplied by the manufacturer

at no charge to operators. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $175,440, or $4,080 per

airplane.

The total 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 regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

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,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 94–NM–175–AD.

Applicability: Model MD–11 series

airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas

MD–11 Service Bulletin 27–36, Revision 1,

dated December 9, 1994; 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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (c) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent inadvertent deployment of the

slats during flight, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 24 months after the effective

date of this AD, modify the airplane and

install an electrically controlled slat control

system in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas MD–11 Service Bulletin 27–36,

Revision 1, dated December 9, 1994.

(b) Accomplishment of the actions required

by paragraph (a) of this AD constitutes

terminating action for the requirements of the

following AD’s:

AD No. Amendment No.

Federal Register

citation

92–13–03 ....... 39–8273 (57 FR 27155,

June 18, 1992).

92–14–51 ....... 39–8325 (57 FR 38264,

Aug. 24, 1992).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2043

AD No. Amendment No.

Federal Register

citation

92–26–03 ....... 39–8430 (57 FR 57906,

Dec. 8, 1992).

93–15–03 ....... 39–8649 (58 FR 41421,

Aug. 4, 1993).

(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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 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

December 30, 1994.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–308 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 94–AGL–36]

Proposed Modification of Class D

Airspace Areas; Detroit, MI, and Alton,

IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

modify the Class D airspace areas at

Willow Run Airport, Detroit, MI, and St.

Louis Regional Airport, Alton, IL. The

Class D airspace area at Willow Run

Airport, Detroit, MI, would be modified

by lowering the vertical limit of the

Class D airspace area up to but not

including the base altitude of the

overlying Detroit, MI, Class B airspace

area. The Class D airspace area

description at St. Louis Regional

Airport, Alton, IL, would be modified

by excluding that airspace within the

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport,

MO, Class B airspace area. The intended

effect of this proposal is to eliminate

pilot confusion by modifying the

controlled airspace areas at Willow Run

Airport, Detroit, MI, and St. Louis

Regional Airport, Alton, IL.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL–7, Rules

Docket No. 94–AGL–36, 2300 East

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Federal Aviation

Administration, 2300 E. Devon Avenue,

Des Plaines, Illinois. An informal docket

may also be examined during normal

business hours at the Air Traffic

Division, System Management Branch,

Federal Aviation Administration, 2300

East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,

Illinois.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey L. Griffith, Air Traffic Division,

System Management Branch, AGL–530,

Federal Aviation Administration, 2300

East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018, telephone (708) 294–7568.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 94–

AGL–36.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Rules Docket, FAA,

Great Lakes Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, 2300 East

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois,

both before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of

Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry

Center, APA–220, 800 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591,

or by calling (202) 267–3485.

Communications must identify the

notice number of this NPRM. Persons

interested in being placed on a mailing

list for future NPRM’s should also

request a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A, which describes the application

procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to

modify the Class D airspace areas at

Willow Run Airport, Detroit, MI, and St.

Louis Regional Airport, Alton, IL. The

Class D airspace area at Willow Run

Airport, Detroit, MI, would be modified

by lowering the vertical limit of the

class D airspace area up to but not

including the base altitude of the

overlying Detroit, MI, Class B airspace

area. The Class D airspace area

description at St. Louis Regional

Airport, Alton, IL, would be modified

by excluding that airspace within the

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport,

MO, Class B airspace area. Airspace

reclassification, effective September 16,

1993, has necessitated new guidelines

for depicting and describing Class D

airspace areas that underlie Class B

airspace areas. The intended effect of

this proposal is to eliminate pilot

confusion by modifying the controlled

airspace areas at Willow Run Airport,

Detroit, MI, and St. Louis Regional

Airport, Alton, IL.

The coordinates for this airspace

docket are based on North American

Datum 83. Class D airspace designations

are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA

Order 7400.9B dated July 18, 1994, and

effective September 16, 1994, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class D airspace designations

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore—(1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies