[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 142 (Thursday, July 24, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43690-43693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-18786]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000-NM-150-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 MD-88 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of 
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness 
directive (AD), applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 
airplanes, that would have required one-time inspections to detect 
discrepancies of electrical wiring installations in various areas of 
the airplane, and corrective action if necessary. This new action 
expands the area to be inspected. The actions specified by this new 
proposed AD are intended to prevent smoke and fire in various areas of 
the airplane due to heat damage and/or electrical arcing of improperly 
installed wiring. The actions specified in this action are intended to 
address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 18, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-150-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

[[Page 43691]]

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-150-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 K. 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-150-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-150-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all 
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-
83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes, was published as a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on September 5, 2002 
(67 FR 56768). That NPRM would have required one-time inspections to 
detect discrepancies of electrical wiring installations in various 
areas of the airplane, and corrective action if necessary. That NPRM 
was prompted by reports of damaged wiring insulation and chafed wiring 
in various areas on the affected airplanes. Investigation revealed that 
the damage and chafing might be attributed to improper wire 
installations and/or maintenance practices. This condition, if not 
corrected, could lead to heat damage and/or electrical arcing of the 
wiring, which could result in fire and smoke in various areas of the 
airplane.

Comments

    Due consideration has been given to the comments received in 
response to the original NPRM.

Support for the Original NPRM

    The Air Transport Association of America reports that its members 
generally support the intent of the original NPRM.

Request To Expand Areas To Be Inspected

    Boeing asserts that the list of service bulletins cited in the 
original NPRM is incomplete and requests that the original NPRM be 
revised to expand the area of inspection to include the flight 
compartment and forward drop ceiling and the electrical/electronic (E/
E) compartment, which may also be subject to the identified unsafe 
condition.
    The FAA agrees. Boeing Service Bulletins MD80-24-176 and MD80-24-
177, both Revision 02, both dated January 21, 2003, describe procedures 
for one-time nonintrusive inspections to detect discrepancies of 
exposed wiring in the flight compartment and forward drop ceiling and 
the E/E compartment, and, if necessary, corrective action (including 
replacing too-large clamps with smaller clamps, repositioning wires and 
clamps, replacing torn or broken clamps with new clamps, tightening 
loose wire terminations, and installing protective sleeving over 
wiring, as applicable). Those actions are intended to address the 
identified unsafe condition. This supplemental NPRM has been revised to 
add wiring inspections in those areas.

Request To Cite Most Recent Service Information

    One commenter asserts that the serviceability of the wiring 
grommets (proposed to be inspected per the original NPRM) is subject to 
interpretation. The commenter states that Boeing has recognized that it 
would be impossible to nonintrusively verify the integrity of the 
grommets. Boeing plans to revise the service bulletins to remove the 
grommet inspection. Therefore, the commenter requests that we delay 
issuance of the AD until the service bulletins have been revised.
    We agree. Boeing Service Bulletins MD80-24-178, MD80-24-179, MD80-
24-180, MD80-24-181, and MD80-24-182, all Revision 01, including 
Appendix, dated June 12, 2001, were cited in the original NPRM as the 
appropriate sources of service information for the inspections. Those 
service bulletins were revised (Revision 02 was issued January 21, 
2003) to remove the electrical component grommet inspection procedures. 
The remaining procedures were essentially unchanged. Therefore, this 
supplemental NPRM has been revised to cite Revision 02 of the service 
bulletins, but would provide credit for applicable inspections already 
done per the original issue or Revision 01 of the service bulletins.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    One commenter recommends that the compliance time be extended from 
5 years to 6 years to accommodate

[[Page 43692]]

accomplishment of the inspections at heavy maintenance visits, since 
extensive access is necessary to reach the inspection areas.
    We agree with the request. We find that extending the compliance 
time to 6 years for the inspections will better accommodate operators' 
schedules and still maintain an adequate level of safety. This 
supplemental NPRM has been revised accordingly.

Request To Revise Cost Estimate

    One commenter claims that the original NPRM understates the labor 
hours necessary to accomplish the detail of inspection specified in the 
service bulletins. Based on experience, the commenter suggests that the 
work hours for the proposed inspections is 66 work hours per airplane, 
not 33 work hours as stated in the original NPRM. The commenter states 
that the inspections alone on its fleet would take 23,892 work hours. 
The commenter asserts that material and labor costs to restore any 
condition that does not conform to the service bulletin requirements 
cannot be estimated due to the extent of possible deviations/
differences from airplane to airplane.
    We infer that the commenter is requesting that the Cost Impact 
section of the original NPRM be revised. We partially agree with the 
commenter's rationale. We agree that the specified work hours may not 
always accurately reflect the amount of time necessary to complete the 
required work for every airplane or for every operator. We also 
recognize that material and labor costs to fix any discrepancy cannot 
be accurately estimated for each airplane. However, as explained in the 
Cost Impact section of the original NPRM, the economic analysis of the 
AD is limited to the cost of actions that would actually be required by 
the AD. The economic analysis does not consider the costs of 
conditional actions, such as repairing discrepancies found during a 
required inspection. Such conditional actions would be required to be 
accomplished--regardless of AD direction--to correct an unsafe 
condition identified in an airplane and to ensure operation of that 
airplane in an airworthy condition, as required by the Federal Aviation 
Regulations. No change to this supplemental NPRM is necessary regarding 
this issue.

Conclusion

    Since certain changes expand the scope of the original NPRM, we 
have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to 
provide additional opportunity for public comment.

Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on This Supplemental NPRM

    On July 10, 2002, we issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 
47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives 
system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered 
products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance 
(AMOCs). Therefore, in this supplemental NPRM, Note 1 and paragraph (c) 
of the original NPRM have been removed, paragraph (b) of the original 
NPRM has been revised to identify the office authorized to approve 
AMOCs, and the remaining notes and paragraphs have been reidentified 
accordingly.

Change to Labor Rate Estimate

    We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several 
years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various 
inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to 
increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work 
hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects 
this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 1,191 airplanes of the affected design in 
the worldwide fleet. Estimates of the costs of the proposed actions are 
provided in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Work hours per    Labor rate/      Cost per                       U.S. fleet
        Service bulletin             airplane          hour          airplane     U.S. airplanes       cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD80-24-176.....................               8             $65            $521             732        $380,640
MD80-24-177.....................               5              65             325             732         237,900
MD80-24-178.....................               8              65             520             732         380,640
MD80-24-179.....................               8              65             520             732         380,640
MD80-24-180.....................               8              65             520             732         380,640
MD80-24-181.....................               6              65             390             732         285,640
MD80-24-182.....................               3              65             195             732         142,740
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Manufacturer warranty 
remedies may be available for labor costs associated with this 
supplemental NPRM. As a result, the costs attributable to the 
supplemental NPRM 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.

[[Page 43693]]

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-150-AD.

    Applicability: All Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-
83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes; certificated in 
any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.

    Note 1: The FAA recommends that the actions required by this AD 
be accomplished after replacing the metallized 
polyethyleneteraphthalate (MPET) insulation blankets, as required by 
AD 2000-11-02, amendment 39-11750.

    To prevent smoke and fire in various areas of the airplane due 
to heat damage and/or electrical arcing of improperly installed 
wiring, accomplish the following:

Inspection

    (a) Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD: Perform 
a detailed inspection to detect discrepancies of exposed electrical 
wiring installations as specified in Table 1 of this AD. Specific 
discrepancies are listed in paragraph 3.B.3. of each service 
bulletin. Prior to further flight thereafter, perform corrective 
actions in accordance with the service bulletin, as applicable. 
Table 1 follows:

                    Table 1.--Inspection Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              In accordance with the
     Inspect the electrical wiring         following McDonnell Douglas
         installations in the--                 Service Bulletin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Flight compartment and forward drop  MD80-24-176, Revision 02, dated
 ceiling.                                 January 21, 2003.
(2) Electrical/electronic compartment..  MD80-24-177, Revision 02, dated
                                          January 21, 2003.
(3) Forward passenger compartment from   MD80-24-178, Revision 02, dated
 stations Y=218.000 to Y=846.000.         January 21, 2003.
(4) Aft passenger compartment from       MD80-24-179, Revision 02, dated
 stations Y=846.000 to Y=1338.000.        January 21, 2003.
(5) Forward and mid cargo compartments   MD80-24-180, Revision 02, dated
 from stations Y=218.000 to Y=811.000.    January 21, 2003.
(6) Aft cargo compartment from stations  MD80-24-181, Revision 02, dated
 Y=1033.000 to Y=1338.000.                January 21, 2003.
(7) Forward accessory compartment from   MD80-24-182, Revision 02, dated
 stations Y=41.000 to Y=70.000.           January 21, 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is 
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific 
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, 
failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally 
supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity 
deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, 
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate 
access procedures may be required.''

    (b) Although the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this 
AD specify that operators provide a report of inspection findings, 
this AD does not require such information.
    (c) An inspection done before the effective date of this AD is 
acceptable for compliance with the inspection requirements of this 
AD, if accomplished in accordance with the corresponding service 
bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD, original version, dated 
July 14, 2000; or Revision 01, dated June 12, 2001.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve 
alternative methods of compliance for this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 18, 2003.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-18786 Filed 7-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P