[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44491-44493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19194]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000-NM-170-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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness 
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas airplane 
models. This proposal would require a one-time inspection for chafing 
of wiring in the left-hand tunnel area of the forward cargo 
compartment, repair if necessary, and coiling and stowing of excess 
wiring. This action is necessary to prevent wire chafing and subsequent 
shorting to structure in the forward cargo compartment, which could 
result in smoke or fire in the airplane. This action is intended to 
address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 12, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-170-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-170-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-170-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-170-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 incidents of wire chafing and a subsequent 
short to structure in the left-hand tunnel area of the forward cargo 
compartment on a McDonnell Douglas Model MD-88 airplane. Investigation 
of the incidents revealed that excess wiring and improper routing of 
wiring resulted in wire chafing. Such wire chafing, if not corrected, 
could result in shorting to structure and consequent smoke or fire in 
the airplane.
    The subject area on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes is 
similar to that on the affected Model MD-88 airplane. Therefore, those 
airplanes may be subject to the unsafe condition revealed on the Model 
MD-88 airplane.

Other Related Rulemaking

    The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of 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, has reviewed all aspects of the service history of those 
airplanes to

[[Page 44492]]

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 MD80-24A158, Revision 01, dated February 23, 2000. That 
service bulletin describes procedures for a one-time visual inspection 
for chafing of wiring in the left-hand tunnel area of the forward cargo 
compartment, repair if necessary, and coiling and stowing of excess 
wiring. 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 (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in part 
39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each 
individual AD.

Explanation of Cost Impact

    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 1,116 airplanes of the affected design in 
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 655 airplanes of U.S. 
registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take 
approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed 
actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is 
estimated to be $127,725, or $195 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. Manufacturer warranty 
remedies 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-170-AD.
    Applicability: 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; as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin 
MD80-24A158, Revision 01, dated February 23, 2000.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent wire chafing and subsequent shorting to structure in 
the forward cargo compartment, which could result in smoke or fire 
in the airplane, accomplish the following:

Inspection and Follow-On Actions

    (a) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, perform a 
one-time general visual inspection for chafing of wiring in the 
left-hand tunnel area of the forward cargo compartment between Y = 
237.000 and Y = 256.000, per the Accomplishment Instructions of 
McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80-24A158, Revision 01, 
dated February 23, 2000. Then, do paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 
this AD, as applicable.
    (1) If any chafing is found, before further flight, repair per 
the service bulletin.
    (2) Before further flight, coil and stow excess wiring per the 
service bulletin.

    Note 1: 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 from within 
touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be 
necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the 
inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally 
available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, 
flashlight, or droplight 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.''

Inspections Accomplished Per Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

    (b) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD 
per McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80-24-158, dated October 
27, 1995, are considered acceptable for compliance with the 
corresponding action specified in this AD.

[[Page 44493]]

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (c) 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 22, 2003.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-19194 Filed 7-28-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P