[Federal Register: September 8, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 173)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52864-52865]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08se03-18]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2000-NM-192-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain
McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes. That action would have
required an inspection to detect arcing damage of the electrical cables
leading to the terminal strips and surrounding structure in the wing
areas inboard of the pylons 1 and 3 and the No. 2 engine; and
corrective actions, if necessary. That action also would have required
revising the cable connection stackup of the terminal strips on the
wings and No. 2 engine. Since the issuance of the NPRM, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has received new data indicating that the
identified unsafe condition specified in NPRM does not exist on the
affected airplanes. Accordingly, the proposed rule is withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (562) 627-5350; fax (562) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add a new airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11
series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register as a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10844). The
proposed rule would have required an inspection to detect arcing damage
of the electrical cables leading to the terminal strips and surrounding
structure in the wing areas inboard of the pylons 1 and 3 and the No. 2
engine; and corrective actions, if necessary. The proposed rule also
would have required revising the cable connection stackup of the
terminal strips on the wings and No. 2 engine. That action was prompted
by an incident in which arcing occurred between the power feeder cables
and support bracket of the terminal strips on a McDonnell Douglas Model
MD-11 series airplane. The proposed actions were intended to prevent
arcing damage to the terminal strips and damage to the adjacent
structure in the wing areas inboard of the pylons 1 and 3 and the No. 2
engine, which could result in a fire inboard of the pylons 1 and 3 or
the No. 2 engine.
Actions That Occurred Since the NPRM Was Issued
Since the issuance of that NPRM, the results of an FAA analysis
have revealed that there is a lack of materials and fuels in the
vicinity of the terminal strips and
[[Page 52865]]
surrounding structure in the wing areas inboard of the pylons 1 and 3
and the No. 2 engine, and that a fire in that area is highly unlikely.
The probable result is that a power feed arc in the pylon area would
typically damage and pit the feeder line and, perhaps, damage and pit
the terminal bracket at the chafing location. As the arc current level
increases, the electrical power system differential fault protection
would detect this condition and disconnect electrical loads supplied to
that particular feeder. In addition, the flightcrew would be alerted to
this condition, allowing the operator/owner to correct the problem at
the next maintenance interval. On the basis of this analysis, we have
determined that the potential arcing on the terminal strips in the wing
areas inboard of the pylons 1 and 3 and the No. 2 engine does not
constitute an unsafe condition.
FAA's Conclusions
Upon further consideration, we have determined that the identified
unsafe condition does not exists on the affected airplanes.
Accordingly, the proposed rule is hereby withdrawn.
Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes only such action, and does not
preclude the agency from issuing another action in the future, nor does
it commit the agency to any course of action in the future.
Regulatory Impact
Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking,
it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered
under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Withdrawal
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket 2000-NM-192-
AD, published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR
10844), is withdrawn.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 29, 2003.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-22707 Filed 9-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P