[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64129-64132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99-NM-295-AD; Amendment 39-12534; AD 2001-24-17]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes; C-9 Airplanes; and Model DC-9-81, -
82, and -83 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40,

[[Page 64130]]

and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; and Model DC-9-81, -82, and -
83 series airplanes. This AD requires modification of the light switch 
for the cargo compartment(s). This action is necessary to prevent 
generation of smoke and fire in a cargo compartment due to an 
illuminated light with a missing cover contacting cargo contents for an 
extended period of time. This action is intended to address the 
identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective January 16, 2002.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of January 16, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport 
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington; at the FAA, 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 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: 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 McDonnell Douglas Model 
DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; and 
Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes; was published in the 
Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38178). That action proposed 
to require modification of the light switch of the applicable cargo 
compartments.

Comments

    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
the comments received.

Request To Withdraw the Proposed AD

    The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its members, 
recommends that the FAA withdraw the proposed AD. The commenter states 
that the proposed AD does not increase the level of safety, because it 
does not address the root cause of the incident (i.e., the missing 
cover from the cargo compartment light). The commenter suggests that, 
instead of the proposed modification, the FAA should mandate scheduled 
maintenance action. In an attached comment, one ATA member recommends 
repetitive inspections to verify that the light cover is installed, as 
well as rewiring of the cargo door switch to the cargo light switch, so 
the cargo light cannot stay on. In another attached comment, another 
ATA member recommends changes to the Master Minimum Equipment List 
(MMEL) to prohibit operation of the airplane with a missing light 
cover, unless the exposed bulb is removed or the lighting system for 
the cargo compartment(s) is deactivated. The ATA and one of its members 
also point out that all airplanes that would be subject to the proposed 
AD are required by Federal Aviation Regulations to have a smoke and 
fire detection and suppression system installed in the cargo 
compartment(s) of the airplane.
    The FAA does not concur with the request to withdraw the proposed 
AD. In the ``Identification of Unsafe Condition'' section of the 
proposed AD, we explain that the identified unsafe condition related 
not only to the cover missing from the cargo compartment light, but 
also the fact that the light did not automatically shut off when the 
cargo compartment was closed. Thus, we have determined that the action 
required by this AD (i.e., modification of the light switch in the 
cargo compartment) is adequate to address the identified unsafe 
condition. Under paragraph (b) of this AD, we may consider a request 
for approval of an alternative means of compliance (AMOC) with this AD, 
provided that data are submitted that show that the means of compliance 
provides an acceptable level of safety.
    With regard to the commenters' suggestions to mandate scheduled 
maintenance action or revise the MMEL, the mechanism that exists to 
rectify an FAA finding that an unsafe condition exists is an amendment 
to part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39). In 
addition, under existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we are 
obligated to advise foreign airworthiness authorities of unsafe 
conditions relating to products produced in the United States, and the 
means of doing this is an amendment to part 39.
    No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise Applicability of Proposed AD

    One commenter requests that, if the FAA does not agree to withdraw 
the proposed AD, it revise the applicability of the proposed AD to 
exclude airplanes equipped with a certain smoke and fire detection and 
suppression system installed in the cargo compartment(s) by a certain 
supplemental type certificate (STC). The commenter points out that the 
unsafe condition addressed by the proposed AD requires three events to 
occur: a missing cover on the cargo compartment light, cargo stacked 
against that light, and the light being illuminated for the entire 
flight. The commenter states that the STC for installing the referenced 
smoke and fire detection and suppression system specifies a restriction 
against stacking cargo within two inches of the ceiling of the cargo 
compartment. Thus, there would be no contact with the cargo compartment 
light located in the ceiling, and the unsafe condition addressed by the 
proposed AD would not occur.
    We do not concur with the request to revise the applicability of 
this AD. Note 1 of this AD specifies that, if an airplane has been 
modified in such a manner that the service information referenced in 
this AD does not apply, the owner/operator must request approval of an 
AMOC in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. For us to approve 
such a request, the owner/operator must provide data that show that an 
acceptable level of safety is achieved through installation of the 
smoke and fire detection and suppression system and the procedural 
changes to which the commenter refers. No change to the final rule is 
necessary in this regard.

Request To Add Repetitive Inspections

    One commenter requests that the FAA require repetitive inspections 
following the proposed modification of the light switch for the cargo 
compartment(s). The inspections would ensure that the guard is still 
installed over the light switch. The commenter suggests that these 
inspections could be added to the maintenance program. The commenter's 
request is based on maintenance reports from its fleet of airplanes, 
which have been modified per the service bulletin referred to in the 
proposed AD. The maintenance reports show that the guard over the light 
switch breaks frequently because of chafing between the guard and the 
door structure during the numerous opening and closing

[[Page 64131]]

cycles of the cargo compartment door during daily ground handling.
    We acknowledge the concerns of the commenter, but do not concur 
with its request. We have received information indicating that breakage 
of the guard over the light switch, such as that noted by the 
commenter, may occur if cargo handlers rely upon the guard to 
extinguish the light in the cargo compartment, rather than MANUALLY 
extinguishing the cargo compartment light and closing the switch guard 
before closing the cargo door. We also have received information that 
the cargo loading document for the airplanes subject to this AD will be 
revised in the near future to specifically state that the cargo 
compartment light must be manually extinguished before closing the 
door. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

    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 as proposed.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 1,068 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 
series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; and Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series 
airplanes; of the affected designs in the worldwide fleet. The FAA 
estimates that 525 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this 
AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to 
accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 
per work hour. Required parts will cost between $1,147 and $2,332 per 
airplane depending on the airplane configuration. Based on these 
figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to 
be between $633,675 and $1,255,800, or $1,207 and $2,392 per airplane, 
depending on the airplane configuration.
    The 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 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 adopted herein will 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 final rule does not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    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. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

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

2001-24-17  McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-12534. Docket 99-NM-295-
AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series 
airplanes; C-9 airplanes; and Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series 
airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin 
DC9-33A081, Revision 01, dated November 8, 1999; 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 generation of smoke and fire in a cargo compartment 
due to an illuminated light with a missing cover contacting cargo 
contents for an extended period of time, accomplish the following:

Modification

    (a) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, modify 
the light switch for the cargo compartment(s) per McDonnell Douglas 
Alert Service Bulletin DC9-33A081, Revision 01, dated November 8, 
1999.

    Note 2: Modification before the effective date of this AD per 
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 33-81, dated January 19, 
1987, is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements 
of this AD.

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 Permits

    (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.

Incorporation by Reference

    (d) The actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell 
Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-33A081, Revision 01, dated 
November 8, 1999. 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 Boeing 
Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood 
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service 
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be inspected at the 
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington; at the FAA, 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.

[[Page 64132]]

Effective Date

    (e) This amendment becomes effective on January 16, 2002.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 28, 2001.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-30193 Filed 12-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P