[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19348-19350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8829]
[[Page 19348]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-93-AD; Amendment 39-9193; AD 95-08-04]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 Series
Airplanes and Model MD-88 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model MD-88
airplanes, that requires an inspection to detect damage, burn marks, or
discoloration at certain electrical plugs and receptacles of the
sidewall lighting in the passenger cabin, and correction of
discrepancies. This amendment would also require modification of the
electrical connectors, which, when accomplished, would terminate the
inspection requirement. This amendment is prompted by reports of
failures of the electrical connectors in the sidewall fluorescent
lighting, which resulted in smoke or lighting interruption in the
passenger cabin. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent failures of the electrical connectors, which could result in
poor socket/pin contact, excessive heat, electrical arcing, and
subsequently, connector burn through and smoke in the passenger cabin.
DATES: Effective on May 18, 1995.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 18, 1995.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elvin K. Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (310) 627-5344; fax
(310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Model DC-9-80 series
airplanes and Model MD-88 airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on September 14, 1994 (59 FR 47103). That action proposed to
require a visual inspection to detect damage, burn marks, or black or
brown discoloration at certain electrical plugs and receptacles of the
sidewall lighting in the passenger cabin, and correction of
discrepancies. It also proposed to require the eventual modification of
the electrical connectors of the sidewall lighting, which, when
accomplished, would terminate the inspection requirement.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
One commenter supports the proposed rule.
One commenter requests that, prior to issuing a final rule, the FAA
investigate the possibility of problems (i.e., overheated connectors,
smoke in the cabin, etc.) resurfacing at another connector location.
The commenter bases this request upon service history following
accomplishment of the requirements of AD 91-10-08, amendment 39-6990
(55 FR 51427, December 14, 1990). AD 91-10-08 requires modification of
the sidewall lighting system on these same airplanes to preclude
overheated connectors, smoke in the cabin, etc., which is similar to
the modification described in the proposal (reference McDonnell Douglas
MD-80 Service Bulletin 33-99, dated May 24, 1994). This commenter
points out that, since accomplishing the modification required by AD
91-10-08, the same problems (i.e., overheated connectors, smoke in the
cabin, etc.) have resurfaced at the sidewall lighting connectors
located ``downstream'' at the bag bins. Therefore, the commenter
assumes these problems will resurface either at the new disconnects
being installed in accordance with the proposal, or at the cabin
lighting ballast connectors.
The FAA has re-evaluated the modification required by this AD, and
reviewed other relevant data currently available. The FAA finds no
basis to support the commenter's suggestion that this problem could
resurface at another connection location in the airplane. However, the
FAA may consider further rulemaking action if service history indicates
that the modification required by this AD produces questionable
results.
Another commenter requests that the proposed modification be
revised to retrofit a 115 volt electronic ballast system, instead of
removing the existing 230 volt system and installing separate wire
splice-connectors or hard splice at the 230 VAC (400 Hz) power wires.
The commenter considers this suggested method to be superior to the
proposed modification for addressing failures of the electrical
connectors in the sidewall fluorescent lighting. The commenter states
that failures in this system were fixed previously in a similar manner
(reference AD 91-10-08), but at a different location. The commenter
suggests that failures in this system could occur again, but in another
location. The commenter states that the root cause of this problem is
the high energy level required by the current magnetic ballasts for the
sidewall lights.
The FAA does not concur that the rule should be revised to include
this suggested action since sufficient data were not provided. As
indicated previously, the FAA finds no basis at this time to support
any suggestion that this problem could resurface at another connection
location in the airplane, or that the proposed modification is
inappropriate. However, the FAA also recognizes that alternative
methods of compliance with the intent of this rule may also exist; a
provision for the approval of such methods is contained in paragraph
(c) of the final rule.
One commenter requests that the proposal be revised to require
improvement of the existing connector, rather than the proposed action
that would break out the 230 volt wire from the bundle and make a
second connection to alleviate the problem in the existing connector.
Again, the FAA does not concur with this suggestion since sufficient
justification and service data was not presented. The FAA has
determined that the existing current technology adequately addresses
the identified unsafe condition by minimizing the possibility of
failure of the electrical connectors. However, under provisions of
paragraph (c) of the final rule, operators may apply for the approval
of an alternative method of compliance, such as use of a different
connector, if sufficient data are presented to the FAA that would
justify such approval.
Two commenters request that the applicability of the proposal be
limited. One of these commenters requests that the applicability be
limited to ``* * * [[Page 19349]] Model MD-88 airplanes equipped with
magnetic ballasts.'' This commenter suggests that McDonnell Douglas MD-
80 Service Bulletin 33-99, dated May 24, 1994, referenced in the
proposal as the appropriate source of service information, is not the
optimal solution to the sidewall connector problem. This commenter, in
conjunction with McDonnell Douglas and Page Aerospace, has successfully
completed testing of the Page electronic ballast, which has been
approved as an equivalent level of safety to the modification described
in Service Bulletin 33-99. The other commenter requests that the
applicability of the proposal be limited to ``* * * Model MD-88
airplanes equipped with inter-bin electrical connectors described (or
similar to those described) in McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin
33-99, dated May 24, 1994.'' This commenter suggests that the
effectivity listing of Service Bulletin 33-99 does not accurately
reflect the fleet configuration.
The FAA does not concur with these commenters' request to limit the
applicability of the proposal. The FAA does not consider it appropriate
to include various provisions in an AD applicable to a single
operator's unique configuration of an affected airplane. Paragraph (c)
of this AD provides for the approval of an alternative method of
compliance to address these types of unique configurations.
Two commenters question the FAA's cost and work hour estimate in
the preamble of the proposal. One commenter has determined that it
would take approximately 100 work hours per airplane to accomplish the
proposed requirements. This commenter also states that McDonnell
Douglas is not supplying required parts at no cost to the operators, as
stated in the proposal, but is charging $1,870 per kit. Another
commenter suggests that 75 work hours per airplane would be more
appropriate than the 50 work hours stated in the proposal. After
considering the data presented by these commenters, the FAA finds it
necessary to revise its previous estimates. The FAA concurs that 75
work hours is closer to the actual number of labor hours necessary for
accomplishing the required actions. The FAA also has verified with the
manufacturer that the required parts will cost operators $1,870 per
kit. In light of this, the economic impact information, below, has been
revised to indicate the higher number of work hours and the price of
required parts.
Additionally, the FAA has recently reviewed the figures it has used
over the past several years in calculating the economic impact of AD
activity. In order to account for various inflationary costs in the
airline industry, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to
increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $55 per work
hour to $60 per work hour. The economic impact information, below, has
been revised to reflect this increase in the specified hourly labor
rate.
As a result of recent communications with the Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America, the FAA has learned that, in general,
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 added to this final rule to clarify this long-standing
requirement.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously
described. The FAA has determined that this change will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
There are approximately 907 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 series
airplanes and Model MD-88 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 490 airplanes of U.S. registry
will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 75 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost
approximately $1,870 per airplane. Based on these figures, the total
cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,121,300,
or $6,370 per airplane.
The total cost impact figure discussed above is based on
assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will 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 final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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:
95-08-04 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9193. Docket 94-NM-93-AD.
Applicability: Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83
(MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) series airplanes; and Model MD-88
airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 33-
99, dated May 24, 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 [[Page 19350]] 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 poor socket/pin contact, excessive heat, electrical
arcing, and subsequently, connector burn through and smoke in the
passenger cabin, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD,
perform a visual inspection to detect damage, burn marks, or black
or brown discoloration caused by electrical arcing at electrical
plugs, having part number (P/N) MS3126F-15P, and receptacles, having
P/N MS3124E-15S, of the sidewall lighting in the passenger cabin, in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 33-99,
dated May 24, 1994.
(1) If no discrepancies are found, no further action is required
by this paragraph.
(2) If any discrepancy is found, prior to further flight,
replace the damaged connectors, pins, sockets, or wire with new
parts, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(b) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the electrical connectors of the sidewall lighting in the passenger
cabin in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 33-99,
dated May 24, 1994. Accomplishment of this modification constitutes
terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
(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.
(e) The inspection, replacement, and modification shall be done
in accordance with McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 33-99,
dated May 24, 1994. This incorporation by reference was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 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. Copies may be inspected 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; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on May 18, 1995.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 5, 1995.
S. R. Miller,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-8829 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U