[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38176-38178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17587]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99-NM-294-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes and C-9 (Military) 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 Model 
DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes and C-9 (military) 
airplanes. This proposal would require an inspection to detect chafing 
or damage at the conduit and support bracket interface in the forward 
electrical power center (EPC); and repair or replacement of wires with 
new wires, if necessary. For certain airplanes, this proposal also 
would require installation of grommets on the conduits of the forward 
EPC. This action is necessary to prevent chafing of electrical cables 
in the forward EPC and a possible short within a conduit, which could 
result in smoke and fire in the cockpit. This action is intended to 
address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-294-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: 
[email protected]. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must 
contain ``Docket No. 99-NM-294-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 Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data 
and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may 
be examined at the FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 
at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount 
Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elvin Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer, 
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 
90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5344; fax (562) 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 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 99-NM-294-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. 99-NM-294-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Background

    In July 1996, a Boeing Model 747 series airplane was involved in an 
accident. As part of re-examining all aspects of the service experience 
of the airplane involved in the accident, the FAA participated in 
design review and testing to determine possible sources of ignition in 
center fuel tanks. As part of the review, we examined fuel system 
wiring with regard to the possible effects that wire degradation may 
have on arc propagation.
    In 1997 in a parallel preceding, at the recommendation of the White 
House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, the FAA expanded its 
Aging Transport Program to include non-structural systems and assembled 
a team for evaluating these systems. This team performed visual 
inspections of certain transport category airplanes for which 20 years 
or more had passed since date of manufacture. In addition, the team 
gathered information from interviews with FAA Principal Maintenance 
Inspectors and meetings with representatives of airplane manufacturers. 
This evaluation revealed that the length of time in service is not the 
only cause of wire degradation; inadequate maintenance, contamination, 
improper repair, and mechanical damage are all contributing factors. 
From the compilation of this comprehensive information, we developed 
the Aging Transport Non-Structural Systems Plan to increase airplane 
safety by increasing knowledge of how non-structural systems degrade 
and how causes of degradation can be reduced.
    In 1998, an accident occurred off the coast of Nova Scotia 
involving a McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplane. 
Investigation indicates that a fire broke out in the cockpit and first 
class overhead area. Although the ignition source of the fire has not 
been determined, the FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of 
Model MD-11, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, and DC-9-80 series airplanes, is 
reviewing all

[[Page 38177]]

aspects of the service history of those airplanes to identify potential 
unsafe conditions associated with wire degradation due to various 
contributing factors (e.g., inadequate maintenance, contamination, 
improper repair, and mechanical damage) and to take appropriate 
corrective actions. We have issued a series of airworthiness directives 
(AD) that address unsafe conditions identified during that process. 
This process is continuing and we may consider additional rulemaking 
actions as further results of the review become available. The cause of 
the Nova Scotia MD-11 accident has not yet been determined.
    In 1999, the FAA Administrator established a formal advisory 
committee to facilitate the implementation of the Aging Transport Non-
Structural Systems Plan. This committee, the Aging Transport Systems 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC), is made up of representatives 
of airplane manufacturers, operators, user groups, aerospace and 
industry associations, and government agencies. As part of its mandate, 
ATSRAC will recommend rulemaking to increase transport category 
airplane safety in cases where solutions to safety problems connected 
to aging systems have been found and must be applied. Detailed analyses 
of certain transport category airplanes that have been removed from 
service, studies of service bulletins pertaining to certain wiring 
systems, and reviews of previously issued airworthiness directives (AD) 
requiring repetitive inspections of certain wiring systems, have 
resulted in valuable information on the cause and prevention of wire 
degradation due to various contributing factors (e.g., inadequate 
maintenance, contamination, improper repair, and mechanical damage).
    In summary, as a result of the investigations described above, the 
FAA has determined that corrective action may be necessary to minimize 
the potential hazards associated with wire degradation. Such corrective 
action can be addressed in future ADs to provide an acceptable level of 
safety for the transport airplane fleet.

Identification of Unsafe Condition

    The FAA has become aware that, during an electrical system test, 
smoke and a burning smell was detected in the cockpit on a McDonnell 
Douglas Model DC-9 series airplane. Investigation revealed that an 
electrical cable in the forward electrical power center (EPC) was 
chafed and shorted within a conduit. This condition, if not corrected, 
could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit.

Other Related Rulemaking

    This proposed AD is one of a series of actions identified as part 
of the ATSRAC program initiative to maintain continued operational 
safety of aging non-structural systems in transport category airplanes. 
The program is continuing and the FAA may consider additional 
rulemaking actions as further results of the review become available.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 
Bulletin DC9-24A115, Revision 01, dated April 24, 2000, which describes 
procedures for a general visual inspection to detect chafing or damage 
at the conduit and support bracket interface in the forward EPC; and 
repair or replacement of wires with new wires, if necessary. The 
service bulletin also describes, for certain airplanes, procedures for 
installation of grommets on the conduits of the forward EPC.

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 service bulletin described previously.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 403 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 
series airplanes and C-9 (military) airplanes of the affected design in 
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 380 airplanes of U.S. 
registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
    For all airplanes, it would take approximately 1 work hour per 
airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection, at an average labor 
rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of 
the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $22,800, or $60 
per airplane.
    For certain airplanes, it would take approximately 1 work hour per 
airplane to accomplish the proposed modification, at an average labor 
rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of 
the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to 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.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 99-NM-294-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series 
airplanes and C-9 (military) airplanes, as listed in McDonnell 
Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A115, Revision 01,

[[Page 38178]]

dated April 24, 2000; 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 request approval for an 
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) 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 prevent chafing of the electrical cables in the forward 
electrical power center (EPC) and a possible short within a conduit, 
which could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit, accomplish the 
following:

Inspection; Corrective Action, If Necessary; and Installation of 
Grommets, If Applicable

    (a) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, do the 
actions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, as 
applicable, per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A115, 
Revision 01, dated April 24, 2000.
    (1) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes identified in the service 
bulletin: Do a general visual inspection to detect chafing or damage 
at the conduit and support bracket interface in the forward EPC. If 
any chafing or damage is detected, before further flight, repair or 
replace wires with new wires, per the service bulletin.


    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection 
is defined as ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior 
area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, 
or irregularity. This level of inspection is made under normally 
available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, 
flashlight, or drop-light, and may require removal or opening of 
access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be 
required to gain proximity to the area being checked.''


    (2) For Group 1 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: 
Install grommets on the conduits of the forward EPC.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (b) 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. 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 3: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permit

    (c) 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 July 9, 2001.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-17587 Filed 7-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U