[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75872-75878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30518]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0934; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-113-AD; 
Amendment 39-16537; AD 2010-25-04]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-
9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 Series Airplanes, Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-
9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) Airplanes, and Model 
MD-88 and MD-90-30 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the 
McDonnell Douglas Corporation airplanes listed above. This AD requires 
modifying the fuel boost pumps for the center wing, and forward or aft 
auxiliary fuel tanks. This AD results from fuel system reviews 
conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent 
possible sources of ignition in a fuel tank caused by an electrical 
fault in the fuel boost pumps. An ignition source in the fuel tank 
could result in a fire or an explosion and consequent loss of the 
airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective January 11, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 11, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: For Boeing service information identified in this AD,

[[Page 75873]]

contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 
Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, 
California 90846-0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-
766-5683; e-mail [email protected]; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. For Argo-Tech service information identified in 
this AD, contact Argo-Tech Corporation, 23555 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, 
Ohio 44117; telephone 216-692-6000.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, 
any comments received, and other information. The address for the 
Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, 
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; 
telephone (562) 627-5254; fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to 
certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series 
airplanes, Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and 
DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes, and Model MD-88 and MD-90-30 airplanes. That 
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2008 (73 FR 
50894). That NPRM proposed to require modifying the fuel boost pumps 
for the center wing, and forward or aft auxiliary fuel tanks.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletins DC9-28-212 (for Model DC-
9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes, and 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) 
and MD90-28-010 (for Model MD-90-30 airplanes), both Revision 1, both 
dated June 16, 2009. Revision 1 of the Boeing service information makes 
minor updates and specifies that no additional work is necessary on 
airplanes changed in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-212 
or MD90-28-010, both dated February 22, 2008 (referred to in the 
proposed AD as the appropriate sources of service information for 
accomplishing the modification).
    Boeing Service Bulletins DC9-28-212 and MD90-28-010, both Revision 
1, both dated June 16, 2009, recommend concurrent accomplishment of the 
modification specified in Argo-Tech Service Bulletin 398000-28-2, 
Revision 1, dated December 2, 2008. Argo-Tech Service Bulletin 398000-
28-2, dated November 8, 2007, was referred to in the proposed AD as the 
appropriate source of service information for accomplishing a 
concurrent modification of the fuel boost pumps.
    We have revised paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of this AD to 
reference Revision 1 of the applicable Boeing and Argo-Tech service 
information. We have also added a new paragraph (i) to this AD (and 
reidentified subsequent paragraphs) to give credit for actions done in 
accordance with the original issues of the Boeing and Argo-Tech service 
information.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request for Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC)

    American Airlines (AA) asks that we revise the modification 
requirements in the NPRM, and in lieu of the modification, a one-time 
inspection of each affected fuel boost pump be mandated to ensure that 
the stator lead wire is of proper length and positioned away from the 
pump rotor/shaft assembly. AA states that after operating the affected 
airplanes for over 24 years with over 75,000,000 flight hours in 
service, it has not found any chafing of the fuel pump lead wire during 
shop teardown.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. We have determined 
that a one-time inspection of the wiring leads would not be effective 
at preventing a single failure within the pump from creating an 
ignition source. Argo-Tech, the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), 
has reported two instances of lead wire contact with the rotor 
assembly, which could have resulted in chafing and energized rotor 
assembly. Therefore, the data provided by this commenter does not 
support the request to utilize one-time inspections in lieu of the 
modifications required by this AD. We have not changed the AD in this 
regard.

Request for Risk Assessment

    The Air Transport Association (ATA) on behalf of its member AA 
recommends that we update our risk assessment in view of service data 
provided in the AA comments, in addition to the current fleet size and 
remaining service lives of the affected airplanes. ATA also suggests 
correcting the deficiencies noted in the service instructions 
(specified under `Request to Revise Argo-Tech Service Information') and 
publishing a supplemental NPRM after those discrepancies are corrected.
    AA asks that prior to issuing the AD we accomplish a risk 
assessment regarding fuel tank system safety that takes into account 
the number of Model DC-9, MD-80 and MD-90 airplanes estimated to be 
operating within the compliance times required by the AD. AA also asks 
for the projected operational life of these airplanes after the AD 
compliance date and wants the results of this risk assessment reported 
to Boeing and affected operators. AA states that, when the FAA 
evaluated these design reviews, it established four criteria intended 
to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that 
require corrective actions. AA adds that the percentage of operating 
time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one 
of these criteria; the other three criteria address the failure types 
under evaluation. AA notes that the evaluation apparently did not take 
into consideration the number of Model DC-9, MD-80 and MD-90 airplanes 
in operation.
    We disagree with the commenters' request. Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) resulted in design approval holder (DAH) 
evaluation of the fuel tank system design and identification of 
failures within the fuel tank system that could result in ignition 
sources. We evaluated the analyses provided by the DAH and determined 
that foreseeable single failures of the fuel pump could result in an 
ignition source. As a result, we determined that mandatory corrective 
action is needed to correct single failures that could result in an 
ignition source. SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Decision Criteria 
Memorandum, dated February 25, 2003, specifies SFAR 88 AD determination 
is based on unsafe condition evaluation criteria, including single 
failures that can result in a catastrophic failure. We have made no 
change to the AD in this regard.

[[Page 75874]]

Request To Change NPRM Requirements

    ATA, on behalf of its member AA, requests that we do not require a 
design change that is a reliability enhancement. AA requests that the 
NPRM requirement to replace the current pump connectors with gold-
plated connector pins, as specified in the applicable service bulletins 
and NPRM, be changed. AA states that installation of gold-plated 
connector pins is not an SFAR 88-related design change intended for 
preventing an ignition source. AA adds that the installation of gold-
plated pins is intended to improve the reliability of the connector 
interface. AA also notes that the cost to install gold-plated pins is 
$1,352 per pump.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern and provide the following 
clarification. This AD does not require using gold-plated connector 
pins to install the pumps, although the Argo-Tech service information 
recommends installing the new pump assembly electrical connector using 
gold-plated connector pins; the accomplishment instructions do not 
specify that only gold-plated connector pins must be installed. 
Installation of gold-plated pins is a reliability improvement and is 
not identified as a design change solution to mitigate ignition source 
caused by an energized rotor assembly. Energized rotor assembly could 
result from chafing of fuel pump internal lead wires to the rotor 
assembly; therefore, we are not mandating the installation of gold-
plated connector pins. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Request To Identify Additional Guidance

    AA asks that the NPRM refer to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-62D, 
dated May 24, 1996, as guidance for acceptable, equivalent consumable 
materials and parts for use during modification of the fuel boost pumps 
in accordance with 14 CFR 43.13(c). AA states that the procedures in 
Argo-Tech Service Bulletin 398000-28-2 do not allow operators to use 
such materials. AA notes that in some cases it does not stock certain 
adhesives, conversion coatings, sealants, etc., due to supplier 
delivery issues, the identification of improved products, 
standardization efforts, and health and/or environmental issues. AA 
adds that it has identified acceptable, equivalent materials that meet 
or exceed the performance of the original materials; operation of the 
fleet depends on identifying and utilizing acceptable, equivalent 
materials for airplane maintenance. AA concludes that AC 20-62D 
provides information and guidance for use in determining the quality, 
eligibility, and traceability of aeronautical parts and materials 
intended for installation on U.S. type-certificated products and to 
enable compliance with the applicable regulations. AA notes that this 
AC does not exclude ADs or other regulatory actions from its 
applicability, and contends that the guidance in this AC is applicable 
to the NPRM.
    Although it is true that FAA AC 20-62D, dated May 24, 1996, in 
general applies to owner/operator maintenance and repair practices in 
use prior to issuance of SFAR 88, we do not agree that this AD should 
refer to AC 20-62D as guidance. During development of SFAR 88 we 
received reports of ignition sources being created by lack of control 
of past maintenance and overhaul practices. We included a requirement 
that critical design configuration control limitation be defined by the 
DAH so that doing maintenance or overhaul would not inadvertently 
bypass safety critical design features of the fuel tank system. We have 
determined that past maintenance practices for fuel systems using the 
guidelines of AC 20-62D are not applicable to the fuel system type 
design changes mandated by SFAR 88. The requirements of this AD take 
precedence over the guidelines of AC 20-62D. The commenter suggested it 
has identified ``acceptable equivalent materials that that meet or 
exceed the performance of the original materials.'' The commenter must 
request AMOC approvals from the FAA for these materials. Therefore, we 
have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Argo-Tech Service Information

    AA asks that we direct Argo-Tech to revise Argo-Tech Service 
Bulletin 398000-28-2, dated November 8, 2007, to include the following 
specific tolerances to avoid potential AD enforcement issues for AA and 
other operators.
     Include an appropriate minimum radius for the noted 
dimension in Figure 1, ``Machining Mask,'' of that Argo-Tech service 
bulletin. AA notes that it does not have a tolerance call-out on the 
1.25 diameter drill or cut-through dimension.
     Include an appropriate minimum radius in Figure 2, 
``Housing Machine Details,'' of that Argo-Tech service bulletin. AA 
notes that it does not have a minimum dimension for the ``R 0.010 Max'' 
radius dimension. AA adds that some amount of radius (greater than R 
0.000) is necessary at the locations shown; therefore the minimum 
radius should be specified.
     Include an appropriate maximum dimension in Step 3.D.16 of 
that Argo-Tech service bulletin which specifies ``Etch wire insulation 
of 4 stator lead wires and ground lead wire ends a minimum of 0.75 inch 
(19 mm) using Teflon etchant (Tetra-Etch).'' AA infers that there is a 
corresponding maximum dimension for this task.
     Correct and clarify Step 3.D.17 of that Argo-Tech service 
bulletin, which specifies ``Strip 0.25 +/- 0.625 inch.'' AA notes that 
the tolerance for this dimension is greater than the nominal dimension. 
AA adds that it is not common practice to have .XXX tolerance on .XX 
dimension.
     Include appropriate dimension for Step 3.D.19 of that 
Argo-Tech service bulletin which specifies ``1 inch (25 mm) maximum 
exposed lead wire length permissible at connector end after potting.'' 
AA infers that there is a corresponding minimum dimension to adhere to 
for this task.
     Include an appropriate tolerance for Step 3.D.21 of that 
Argo-Tech service bulletin which specifies ``Lead wires must exit 
potting cup at 45 degree angle.'' AA requests the following additional 
changes:
     Allow ``industry accepted'' alternative methods of 
compliance for part reidentification (including vibro-etch, if 
acceptable) and permanent marker (Sharpie). AA notes that Step 3.D.31 
of that Argo-Tech service bulletin specifies ``Ink stamp new stator and 
housing assembly part number (219980-1) on stator and housing 
assembly.'' AA adds that many repair stations and operators (including 
AA) do not reidentify parts using ink stamps; an ink stamp 
identification process would typically be used by a type certificate 
holder (TCH) or OEM, but not by an operator. AA states that there are 
many acceptable ``industry standard'' methods for reidentification of 
parts, including vibro-etch (for ``non-fatigue'' critical parts) and 
permanent marker (Sharpie).
     Remove the type of material specified on page 5, paragraph 
C.(2) of that Argo-Tech service bulletin, ``Parts and Material Supplied 
by the Operator'' which references ``Primer, Yellow, Zinc Chromate, P/N 
TT-P-1757.'' AA notes that the reference to this material should be 
removed because it is not called out in the Accomplishment Instructions 
of that Argo-Tech service bulletin. AA adds that this material is 
called out in the component maintenance manual (CMM 28-20-6), but only 
for protecting pins used in the Volute assembly, which is not affected 
by the NPRM. AA states that this product is a known carcinogen and many 
operators (including AA) and

[[Page 75875]]

repair stations have removed it from inventory.
    We acknowledge the inconsistencies in Argo-Tech Service Bulletin 
398000-28-2, dated November 8, 2007, as noted above by the commenter. 
As specified under ``Explanation of Relevant Service Information,'' 
above, Argo-Tech has revised the subject service bulletin to provide 
clarification and address all of the inconsistencies noted. We have 
revised this AD to refer to the revised Argo-Tech service bulletin.
    AA also requests that there be a change in the language in Step 
3.D.18 of Argo-Tech Service Bulletin 398000-28-2, dated November 8, 
2007, which specifies ``Solder leads to receptacle connector (50) per 
MIL-STD-2000 * * *'' to read ``Solder leads to receptacle connector 
(50) per MIL-STD-2000 (or equivalent procedure).'' AA notes that in 
some cases it utilizes internal process specifications to accomplish 
the equivalent of industry standard processes. AA adds that its 
Material and Process Specification P17-1 STD-2000 provides soldering 
processes equivalent to MIL-STD-2000.
    We do not agree that the language in Step 3.D.18 of that Argo-Tech 
service bulletin should be changed. The process specified reflects the 
pump design standard as qualified by Boeing and Argo-Tech, and 
certified by the FAA in accordance with Boeing compliance data. In 
addition, the process is CDCCL controlled in the associated fuel pump 
component maintenance manual. Argo-Tech has revised Argo-Tech Service 
Bulletin 398000-28-2 to provide clarification for the language in Step 
3.D.18 of that service bulletin.
    In addition, AA points out that page 5, paragraph C.(2) of that 
Argo-Tech service bulletin specifies in ``Parts and Material Supplied 
by the Operator'' under ``Curing Agent, Epoxy Resin, P/N Versamid 125'' 
that ``EPI-CURE-3125'' is equivalent to ``Versamid 125.'' AA notes that 
the specified curing agent is no longer procurable under the name 
``Versamid 125,'' and according to its purchasing department ``EPI-CURE 
3125'' is the same product. AA asks that this clarification be 
included.
    We do not agree that the requested clarification should be included 
in that Argo-Tech service bulletin. Argo-Tech continues to use and 
procure Versamid 125, which is also a CDCCL-controlled consumable in 
the associated fuel pump component maintenance manual. We have made no 
change to the AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Boeing Service Information

    AA asks that we direct Boeing to revise Boeing Service Bulletins 
DC9-28-212 and MD90-28-010, both dated February 22, 2008, to accurately 
depict the physical boundaries of the center wing tank. AA states that 
page 7 of Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-212 illustrates a typical 
``twinjet'' airplane and shows the correct locations of the forward and 
aft auxiliary tanks for Model DC-9 and MD-80 airplanes. AA notes that 
the center wing tank is not illustrated properly because the drawing 
points to what appears to be a small access panel on the right wing. AA 
adds that past experience indicates that service bulletin illustrations 
can often be inconsistent with the configuration of the actual 
airplanes, engines, or components. AA indicates that this issue was 
found during an FAA audit of ADs on Model MD-80 fleet in April 2008; 
the findings indicated that some of the illustrations used to conduct 
the audit did not accurately reflect the production or post-production 
configuration of the airplane affected by the AD.
    We do not agree with the commenter. As specified under 
``Explanation of Relevant Service Information,'' above, Boeing has 
revised the Boeing service bulletins referred to in the NPRM. However, 
per the Boeing type design and maintenance manual data, the center wing 
tank pumps and access door are located on the right wing, not the left, 
as inferred by the commenter. Therefore, we have made no change to the 
AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Certain Sections in the Argo-Tech Service Information

    AA asks that we direct Argo-Tech to revise the illustrations in the 
figures depicted in the stator and housing assembly modification 
procedure in Argo-Tech Service Bulletin 398000-28-2, dated November 8, 
2007, to include the following note:

    Note:  The configuration illustrated in this figure is for 
reference only, and may vary from the operator's configuration. Any 
discrepancies between the illustration and the operator's 
configuration do not necessarily constitute non-compliance with the 
requirements of this SB.

    AA adds that past experience indicates that service bulletin 
illustrations can often be inconsistent with the configuration of the 
actual airplane, engine, or components. AA notes that this issue was 
brought to light during an FAA audit of ADs on the Model MD-80 fleet in 
April 2008; the findings indicated that some of the illustrations used 
to conduct the audit did not accurately reflect the production or post-
production configuration of the airplane affected by the AD. AA adds 
that the FAA claimed these discrepancies were findings of non-
compliance.
    We do not agree with the commenter. The figures included in that 
Argo-Tech service bulletin reflect the pump design standard qualified 
by Boeing and Argo-Tech and certified by the FAA in accordance with 
Boeing compliance data. A review of that Argo-Tech service bulletin 
shows that none of the figures contain ``reference only'' information; 
therefore, it would not be consistent to label some parts of the 
figures and not others. Including a ``reference only'' note may allow 
an obvious part discrepancy to escape further scrutiny. Therefore, we 
have made no change to the AD in this regard.
    AA also asks that we direct Argo-Tech to revise Figure 2 [``Housing 
Machining Details''] of that Argo-Tech service bulletin, to include the 
following note regarding deviations:

    Note: Deviations to the requirements of Argo-Tech SB 398000-28-2 
that are reviewed and approved in writing by Argo-Tech are 
considered FAA-approved Alternative Means of Compliance (AMOCs) to 
the requirements of this AD.

    AA states that, Figure 2 includes specific machining dimensions for 
the housing; during the process of machining and inspecting parts in 
its shops, it occasionally finds discrepancies between the dimensional 
specifications contained in the repair or modification procedures and 
the actual measured dimensions on the part. AA adds that in these 
cases, it contacts the TCH or the OEM, as applicable, to request and 
obtain technical concurrence to deviate from dimensional 
specifications. AA notes that since that Argo-Tech service bulletin is 
a subject of the NPRM, it would also need to request and obtain an AMOC 
approval for this deviation. AA concludes that if the published AD has 
provisions to allow the OEM to review, disposition, and approve minor 
deviations to the dimensional specifications contained in that Argo-
Tech service bulletin, it would alleviate the need for operators to 
request individual AMOC approvals from the FAA for these deviations.
    We do not agree with the commenter. Dimensional tolerances, as 
provided by the OEM, must be maintained to make sure a part is within 
the design specification limits and is maintained and operated in 
accordance with the instructions for continued airworthiness

[[Page 75876]]

(ICA) of the certificated product. Any deviations must be reviewed and 
approved; therefore, we can not pre-approve an AMOC procedure for 
addressing all future unforeseeable quality issues in any AD. We have 
made no change to the AD in this regard.

Request To Include Revisions to Component Maintenance Manual (CMM)

    AA asks that we direct Argo-Tech to revise any references to CMM 
28-20-6 to include ``Revision 6,'' which is the mandated revision level 
specified in related rulemaking (AD 2008-11-15). AA states that 
paragraphs 1.K.1 and L. of Argo-Tech Service Bulletin 398000-28-2, 
dated November 8, 2007, list ``Component Maintenance Manual 28-20-6'' 
with no revision level specified, and there are several references to 
``CMM'' in paragraph 3., ``Accomplishment Instructions,'' with no 
revision level specified. AA adds that, to ensure consistency and 
strict legal compliance in regard to work accomplished on the subject 
fuel boost pumps (and volutes), that Argo-Tech service bulletin should 
specify that all work be done in accordance with CMM 28-20-6, Revision 
6.
    We do not agree with the commenter. The CMM revision level is not 
specified in that Argo-Tech service bulletin since the special 
compliance item (SCI) is the controlling critical design configuration 
control limitation (CDCCL) definition document, so the need for AMOCs 
related to CMM revisions is not an issue. The compliance time in this 
AD is 5 years, and the CMM could be revised several times during that 
period. Specifying the CMM revision level in Argo-Tech Service Bulletin 
398000-28-2 would necessitate revising both the Argo-Tech and Boeing 
service bulletins after every revision of the CMM, which would require 
operators to request an AMOC for each Boeing service bulletin revision. 
In light of these facts, we have made no change to the AD.

Request To Clarify Certain Actions in Paragraph (g)

    Northwest Airlines (NWA) agrees with the intent of the NPRM. NWA 
asks that we include a clarification in paragraph (f) of the NPRM that 
excludes post-production removal of an auxiliary fuel tank to release 
operators from doing actions in the Boeing service information that no 
longer apply. NWA states that this would prevent the need for an AMOC 
request.
    We agree with the commenter. The actions required by paragraph (g) 
of this AD (referred to as paragraph (f) in the NPRM) do not apply to 
certain airplanes; therefore, we have clarified the language in 
paragraph (g) to specify that, for airplanes on which the auxiliary 
fuel tanks have been removed, the actions do not apply.

Request To Clarify Unsafe Condition

    Boeing asks that we clarify the description of the unsafe condition 
to note that the potential fuel tank ignition source, an energized fuel 
pump rotor assembly, is not caused by uncommanded or dry operation of 
the fuel boost pumps. Boeing states that uncommanded running of a fuel 
pump results from failures in its command and control electrical 
circuit and does not contribute to development of an energized rotor 
assembly condition. Boeing adds that a fuel pump inlet exposed to the 
ullage (dry operation of a fuel pump) is a necessary condition for 
propagation of an ignition source into the fuel tank, but does not 
contribute to development of an energized rotor assembly condition.
    We agree with the commenter for the reasons provided. We have 
changed the description of the unsafe condition accordingly.

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance Section

    AA asks that we incorporate more accurate labor estimates. AA 
states that for Group 1, Configurations 1 and 2, the NPRM specifies 1 
work hour for a total cost per product of between $1,550 and $16,118. 
AA notes that the cost impact estimates do not take into account the 
cost to accomplish the modification in the shop. AA adds that for those 
airplanes the estimate should be 9 work hours at an average rate of $90 
per work hour; for a total cost of $2,385 and $2,940 for parts per MD-
82 airplane. Total labor and parts cost would be $5,325 per MD-82 
airplane. AA concludes that the total fleet cost would be $1,262,025.
    AA also states that for Group 3, Configurations 1 and 2, the NPRM 
specifies 3 work hours for a total cost per product of between $1,710 
and $16,278. AA notes that the cost impact estimates do not take into 
account the cost to accomplish the modification in the shop. AA adds 
that for those airplanes the estimate should be 27 work hours at an 
average labor rate of $90 per work hour, for a total cost of $2,430 and 
$8,820 for parts per MD-83 airplane. AA concludes that the total fleet 
cost would be $1,035,000.
    After considering the data presented by commenter, we agree that 
the number of work hours required is higher than our previous estimate, 
although not as high as provided by the commenter. Depending on 
operator's capabilities to change (modify and reinstall) a pump we have 
provided two estimates; a minimum and a maximum cost per airplane. The 
minimum cost represents the cost for operators who have repair shop 
resources and the capability to modify a pump and reinstall it. The 
maximum cost represents the cost for operators who choose to replace 
the pump with an OEM pump. The total labor hours to change (modify and 
reinstall) a pump by operators is approximately 7 hours. The total 
labor hours for replacing a pump with an OEM pump is approximately 3 
hours. Depending on airplane grouping, there may be a minimum of 2 
pumps or as many as 6 pumps per airplane. The cost impact information, 
below, has been revised to add a second table to indicate this higher 
amount.

Explanation of Change to Applicability

    We have changed the applicability in this AD to identify model 
designations as published in the most recent type certificate data 
sheet for the affected models.

Explanation of Additional Paragraph in the AD

    We have added a new paragraph (e) to this AD to provide the Air 
Transport Association (ATA) of America subject code 28; Fuel. This code 
is added to make this AD parallel with other new AD actions. We have 
reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that 
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or 
increase the scope of the AD.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have increased the labor rate in the 
Costs of Compliance from $80 per work hour to $85 per work hour. The 
Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in the 
specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 804 airplanes of U.S. registry. 
The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to 
comply with the modification specified in this AD.

[[Page 75877]]



                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average
  Airplane group-- number of pumps   Configuration               Work hours               labor rate            Parts               Cost per product
                                                                                           per hour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1--2 pumps...................              1  7 per pump.........................          $85  Between $1,470 and        Between $4,130 and
                                                                                                       $7,600.                   $16,390.
Group 1--2 pumps...................              2  3 per pump.........................           85  $16,038 (per new pump)..  $32,586.
Group 3--6 pumps...................              1  7 per pump.........................           85  Between $1,470 and        Between $12,390 and
                                                                                                       $7,600.                   $49,170.
Group 3--6 pumps...................              2  3 per pump.........................           85  $16,038 (per new pump)..  $97,758.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: For Group 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 airplanes, the costs are calculated by the number of pumps per airplane; the range in the table above includes the
  fewest to the greatest number of pumps per airplane. Group 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 airplanes are included in that range.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation 
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's 
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 
13132. This AD 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of 
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-25-04 McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Amendment 39-16537. Docket 
No. FAA-2008-0934; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-113-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 11, 
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-9-
31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B), DC-9-
33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, DC-9-41, DC-9-51, DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 
(MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87), MD-88, and MD-90-30 
airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing 
Service Bulletins DC9-28-212 and MD90-28-010, both Revision 1, both 
dated June 16, 2009.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the 
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible sources of 
ignition in a fuel tank caused by an electrical fault in the fuel 
boost pumps. An ignition source in the fuel tank could result in a 
fire or an explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Subject

    (e) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Compliance

    (f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

Modification

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify 
the fuel boost pumps for the center wing, and forward or aft 
auxiliary fuel tanks, as applicable, by doing all the applicable 
actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 
Service Bulletins DC9-28-212 (for Model DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-
50 series airplanes); and 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) and MD90-28-
010 (for Model MD-90-30 airplanes), both Revision 1, both dated June 
16, 2009. For airplanes on which the auxiliary fuel tanks have been 
removed before the effective date of this AD, the actions for the 
auxiliary fuel tanks specified in this paragraph are not required.

Prior or Concurrent Action

    (h) Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the modification 
required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Do the modification specified 
in Argo-Tech Service Bulletin 398000-28-2, Revision 1, dated 
December 2, 2008.

Credit for Actions Done In Accordance With Previous Issue of the 
Service Information

    (i) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with the service information identified in Table 1 of 
this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding 
requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

                   Table 1--Credit Service Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Document                               Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argo[dash]Tech Service Bulletin        November 8, 2007.
 398000-28-2.

[[Page 75878]]

 
Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-212...  February 22, 2008.
Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-010..  February 22, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA, ATTN: Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion 
Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone 
(562) 627-5254; fax (562) 627-5210; has the authority to approve 
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 
39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different 
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. 
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC 
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or 
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a 
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. 
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use the applicable service information contained in 
Table 2 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the 
AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

               Table 2--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Document               Revision              Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argo[dash]Tech Service Bulletin           1  December 2, 2008.
 398000-28-2.
Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-           1  June 16, 2009.
 212.
Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-          1  June 16, 2009.
 010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, 
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 
Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, 
California 90846-0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-
766-5683; e-mail [email protected]; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. For Argo-Tech service information identified 
in this AD, contact Argo-Tech Corporation, 23555 Euclid Avenue, 
Cleveland, Ohio 44117; telephone 216-692-6000.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at 
the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that 
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 24, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-30518 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P