[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36518-36520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-15333]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000-NM-169-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), 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 
airplanes. This proposal would require reversing the ground stud 
installation of the main

[[Page 36519]]

battery, and installing a new nameplate on the cover of the battery. 
This action is necessary to prevent damage to equipment or possible 
fire in the electrical/electronics equipment compartment due to 
electrical arcing between the ground stud of the main battery and 
adjacent structure. This action is intended to address the identified 
unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 4, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-169-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-169-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 or 2000 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:
    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed 
AD is being requested.
    [sbull] 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-169-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. 2000-NM-169-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 a report indicating that heat damage had been 
detected on the ground stud of the main battery and on adjacent 
structure of a Model DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplane. The heat damage has been 
attributed to a loose or inadequately tightened ground stud of the main 
battery, which resulted in electrical arcing. Such electrical arcing 
could result in damage to equipment or possible fire in the electrical/
electronics equipment compartment.
    The ground stud of the main battery on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-
9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes is 
identical to that on the affected Model. Therefore, all of these models 
may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

Other Related Rulemaking

    The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of Model Douglas 
DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and 
Model MD-88 airplanes, has reviewed 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 corrective actions identified during that 
process. We have previously issued several other ADs and may consider 
further rulemaking actions to address the remaining identified unsafe 
conditions.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 
Bulletin MD-80-24A159, Revision 01, dated January 24, 2000, which 
describes procedures for reversing the ground stud of the main battery 
and installing a nameplate at stations Y=110.000 and Z=39.000 in the 
lower nose frame area. The manufacturer advises that reversing the 
ground stud installation will allow easier access to tighten the ground 
stud nut to proper torque, which will minimize the possibility of the 
ground stud coming loose and causing arcing or further damage. 
Installation of the nameplate will clarify installation and torque 
requirements for future maintenance. 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.

Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the Proposed AD

    On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 
(67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness 
directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to 
altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of 
compliance (AMOC). Because we have now included this material in part 
39, we no longer need to include it in each individual AD; however, 
this

[[Page 36520]]

proposed AD identifies the office authorized to approve AMOCs.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 1,224 Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-
82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and Model MD-88 airplanes of the 
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 600 
airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that 
it would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the 
proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. 
Required parts would cost approximately $38, per airplane. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is 
estimated to be $94,800, or $158 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. The manufacturer may 
cover the cost of parts associated with this proposed AD, subject to 
warranty conditions. Manufacturer warranty remedies also may be 
available for labor costs associated with this proposed AD. As a 
result, the costs attributable to the proposed AD may be less than 
stated 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-169-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 
(MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and Model MD-88 airplanes, as listed in 
McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80-24A159, Revision 01, 
dated January 24, 2000; certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent damage to equipment or possible fire in the 
electrical/electronics equipment compartment due to electrical 
arcing between the ground stud of the main battery and adjacent 
structure; accomplish the following:
    (a) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, reverse 
the installation of the ground stud for the main battery, and 
install a new nameplate on the cover of the battery; per McDonnell 
Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80-24A159, Revision 01, dated 
January 24, 2000.
    (b) Accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (a) of 
this AD before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80-24A159, dated March 15, 
1996, is considered to be an acceptable method of compliance with 
paragraph (a) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (c) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 
California, is authorized to approve alternative methods of 
compliance for this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 12, 2003.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-15333 Filed 6-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P