[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 50 (Thursday, March 14, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11453-11455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-6097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000-NM-166-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81, -82, 
and -83 Series Airplanes, and Model MD-88 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-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes. This 
proposal would require an inspection of the disconnect panel area above 
the aft left lavatory for chafed or damaged wires or unacceptable 
clearance between the wires and adjacent structure, and corrective 
actions, if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent chafing of 
wires at the disconnect panel above the aft left lavatory, which could 
result in electrical arcing, and consequent fire in the cabin. This 
action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 29, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-166-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this 
location between 9 a.m. and 3 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. 2000-NM-166-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, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 2000-NM-166-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

[[Page 11454]]

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket 
No. 2000-NM-166-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-
4056.

Discussion

    As part of its practice of re-examining all aspects of the service 
experience of a particular aircraft whenever an accident occurs, the 
FAA has become aware of an incident of uncommanded deployment of the 
cabin oxygen masks on a McDonnell Douglas Model MD-88 airplane. This 
deployment occurred as the airplane was in flight climbing through 
19,000 feet. The oxygen mask deployment was isolated to the aft 
lavatories, aft flight attendant seat, and passenger seats aft of the 
aft galley. No oxygen system/mask deployment cockpit indication lights 
illuminated. Inspection revealed 30 burnt wires in the area of a 
disconnect panel above the aft left lavatory. The burnt wires were 
attributed to chafing against the disconnect panel structure due to 
slack in the wires from the module blocks to a wire bundle riding 
against the disconnect panel. Additional inspections revealed two 
airplanes with chafed wires, three airplanes with wiring coming into 
contact with surrounding structure, and seven airplanes with slack 
wiring.
    Chafing of wires at the disconnect panel above the aft left 
lavatory, if not corrected, could result in electrical arcing, and 
consequent fire in the cabin.
    The disconnect panel above the aft left lavatory on certain 
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes is 
identical to that on the affected Model MD-88 airplanes. Therefore, all 
of these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of Model DC-9-81, 
-82, and -83 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes, is continuing 
to review all aspects of the service history of those airplanes to 
identify potential unsafe conditions and to take appropriate corrective 
actions. This proposed airworthiness directive (AD) is one of a series 
of actions identified during that process. The process 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 Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
MD80-24A184, including Appendix, dated October 26, 2000, which 
describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the disconnect 
panel area above the aft left lavatory for chafed or damaged wires or 
unacceptable clearance between the wires and adjacent structure; and 
corrective actions, if necessary. The corrective actions include 
securing wires using tie-wraps to obtain a 0.50-inch minimum clearance, 
and repairing or replacing any chafed or damaged wire with a new wire; 
as applicable. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service 
bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe 
condition.

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 1,198 airplanes of the affected design in 
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 586 airplanes of U.S. 
registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take 
approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed 
inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based 
on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators 
is estimated to be $35,160, or $60 per airplane.
    The cost impact figure discussed above is 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. However, the FAA has been 
advised that manufacturer warranty remedies are available for some 
airplanes for labor costs associated with accomplishing the actions 
required by this proposed AD. Therefore, the future economic cost 
impact of this rule on U.S. operators may be less than the cost impact 
figure indicated above.

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 2000-NM-166-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes, and 
Model MD-88 airplanes; certificated in any category; as listed in 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-24A184, dated October 26, 2000; 
equipped with Jamco lavatories.

    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

[[Page 11455]]

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 wires at the disconnect panel above the 
aft left lavatory, which could result in electrical arcing, and 
consequent fire in the cabin, accomplish the following:

Inspection and Corrective Action, If Necessary

    (a) Within 120 days from the effective date of this AD, perform 
a general visual inspection of the disconnect panel area above the 
aft left lavatory for damaged or chafed wires or unacceptable 
clearance between the wires and structure, in accordance with Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin MD80-24A184, including Appendix, dated 
October 26, 2000.

    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.''

    (1) Condition 1. If no damaged or chafed wire and if acceptable 
clearance (i.e., 0.50 inch minimum) between the wires and adjacent 
structure is found, no further action is required by this AD.
    (2) Condition 2. If no chafed or damaged wire and if 
unacceptable clearance between the wires and adjacent structure is 
found, before further flight, secure wires using tie-wraps to obtain 
a 0.50-inch minimum clearance, in accordance with the service 
bulletin.
    (3) Condition 3. If any chafed or damaged wire and unacceptable 
clearance between the wires and adjacent structure is found, before 
further flight, repair or replace any chafed or damaged wire with a 
new wire and secure wires using tie-wraps to obtain a 0.50-inch 
minimum clearance, in accordance with the service bulletin.

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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 7, 2002.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-6097 Filed 3-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U