[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