AD 2001-24-19

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64125-64128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 01-30195]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99-NM-297-AD; Amendment 39-12536; AD 2001-24-19]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes; C-9 Airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -
83, and -87 Series Airplanes; and Model MD-88 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, 
and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -
87 series airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes, that requires an 
inspection to detect chafing or overheat damage of the electrical wires 
located at fuselage station Y=110.000 bulkhead of the lower nose left 
tunnel; and corrective actions, if necessary. This AD also requires 
replacing the external power ground stud with a new ground stud using 
new attaching parts, torquing new attachments, and installing a 
nameplate. This action is necessary to prevent loose external power 
ground wires, which could cause arcing and overheated wire insulation 
and consequent smoke/fire in the cockpit. This action is intended to 
address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective January 16 2002.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of January 16, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD 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; 
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

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: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness 
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model 
DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; Model 
DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes 
was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38183). 
That action proposed to require an inspection to detect chafing or 
overheat damage of the electrical wires located at fuselage station 
Y=110.000 bulkhead of the lower nose left tunnel; and corrective 
actions, if necessary. That action also proposed to require replacing 
the external power ground stud with a new ground stud using new 
attaching parts, torquing new attachments, and installing a nameplate.

[[Page 64126]]

Comments

    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
the comments received. Although the commenters generally support the 
proposed rule, they have made a number of recommendations, as described 
in the following paragraphs.

Requests for More Specific Inspection and Repair/Replacement 
Instructions

    On behalf of its members, the Air Transport Association of America 
requests that the proposed AD be modified to include more specific 
details for wire location, bundle numbers, and allowable damage limits. 
The commenters' specific requests are described in the following 
paragraphs.
    <bullet> One commenter requests that more detailed work 
instructions for the specific area or wire bundle be included either in 
Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000, or 
the proposed AD. The commenter states that Figure 1 in the service 
bulletin does not include specific details as to the location of the 
wiring within the left tunnel and does not specify the bundle numbers. 
In addition, that figure includes details for only the ground stud 
location, buildup, and placard location, and does not include the 
necessary details for wiring installation.
    <bullet> One commenter requests that either the proposed AD or 
Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000, be 
revised to clearly identify the wiring damage limits used to determine 
whether to repair or replace the wiring. The commenter contends that 
the service bulletin should at least provide specific chapter, page, 
and task number references in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) and 
Standard Wiring Practices Manual (SWPM). The work instructions in the 
service bulletin provide only a general reference to the AMM and SWPM.
    The FAA does not concur. We point out that the Accomplishment 
Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, 
Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000, provides a specific reference to 
Chapter 20 of the AMM and Chapter 20 of the SWPM for repair of 
electrical wiring. We consider that the procedures referenced in those 
documents include the specific details required to enable operators to 
accomplish any necessary corrective actions. Therefore, no change to 
the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise the Compliance Time for the Corrective Actions

    One commenter requests revising the compliance time for the 
corrective actions in the proposed AD. The proposed AD would require 
those actions to be accomplished in conjunction with the wiring 
inspection before further flight. However, the commenter contends that, 
if wiring damage is found, continued operation of the airplane should 
be allowed provided external electrical power is not used, as provided 
for in the master minimum equipment list (MMEL). This would allow 
operators to accomplish any extensive wiring repairs at maintenance 
stations where the required tools and materials are available. If no 
damage is found, replacement of ground studs and installation of 
nameplates should be allowed prior to the compliance deadline. This 
would allow inspections to be accomplished at the maximum number of 
stations while allowing operators to concentrate on the required 
materials at a limited number of stations.
    The FAA partially concurs. We agree that the compliance time in 
paragraph (b) of the final rule should be changed to allow operators 
that do not find any chafing or damage during the inspection required 
by paragraph (a) of this AD to accomplish the corrective actions within 
18 months after the effective date of this AD instead of before further 
flight. We consider that such a change still provides an adequate level 
of safety for the fleet. However, because of the safety implications 
and consequences associated with chafing or overheat damage of the 
electrical wires located at fuselage station Y=110.000 bulkhead of the 
lower nose left tunnel, the corrective actions specified by paragraphs 
(c) and (d) of this AD must be accomplished before further flight. 
Further, we do not consider it appropriate to allow continued operation 
on a revenue-bearing flight when the external electrical power is not 
used. Paragraph (b) of the final rule has been changed accordingly.

Request To Revise the Torque Value and Modify the Nameplate

    One commenter requests revising the torque value in the proposed AD 
to require the standard torque value of 85 to 95 in-lb, and 
modification of the nameplate to indicate the higher torque value for 
the jam nut. The commenter states that it began inspections and 
modifications on some of its fleet per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 
Bulletin DC9-24-135 in 1999, but discontinued those inspections after 
it was notified that the jam nut torque seemed inadequate to keep the 
wire connection from moving. Investigation revealed that the 70 in-lb 
torque value specified in the service bulletin was lower than that 
specified in both Douglas Process Standard 1.834-6 and Section 20-20-03 
of the SWPM, which show the standard torque value for an AN315 jam nut 
to have a torque value of 85 to 95 in-lb. The commenter states that it 
was informed by the manufacturer, Boeing, that the 70-in-lb torque 
value is adequate, but that it has no technical objection to a 90-in-lb 
torque value. The commenter considers it necessary to comply with the 
70-in-lb torque value specified in the service bulletin. However, since 
the intent of the proposed AD and the service bulletin is to prevent 
loose external power ground wires and consequent arching and 
overheating of the wire installation, the commenter does not understand 
why the service bulletin requires a lower torque value than the 
standard torque value cited in the referenced Boeing documents.
    The FAA does not concur. After careful review of the referenced 
service bulletin, we have determined that the torque values specified 
in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin are 
adequate. In addition, we point out that the commenter has not provided 
substantial evidence regarding the necessity of requiring a higher 
torque value for the ground stud installation. For these reasons, we 
have determined that no change to the final rule is necessary in this 
regard.

Explanation of Changes Made to This Final Rule

    The FAA has revised paragraphs (c) and (d) of the final rule to 
clarify that the limits of any chafing or damage are referenced in 
McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated 
May 1, 2000. In addition, in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the proposed AD, 
we inadvertently included the phrase ``if necessary'' instead of ``as 
applicable,'' and have revised those paragraphs in the final rule to 
reflect this clarification.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the available data, including the comments 
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public 
interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously 
described. The FAA has determined that this change will neither 
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of 
the AD.

[[Page 64127]]

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 1,908 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 
series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 
series airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes of the affected design in 
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 967 airplanes of U.S. 
registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 
work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that 
the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost 
approximately $35 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact 
of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $149,885, or $155 per 
airplane.
    The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that 
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD 
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the 
future if this 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.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action 
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained 
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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:

2001-24-19  McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-12536. Docket 99-NM-297-
AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series 
airplanes; C-9 airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series 
airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas 
Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000; 
certificated in any category.

    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 (e) of 
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of 
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition 
addressed by 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 loose external power ground wires, which could cause 
arcing and overheated wire insulation and consequent smoke/fire in 
the cockpit, accomplish the following:

Inspection

    (a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do a 
general visual inspection to detect chafing or overheat damage of 
the electrical wires located at fuselage station Y=110.000 bulkhead 
of the lower nose left tunnel, per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 
Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 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.''

Condition 1 (No Chafing or Damage)

    (b) If no chafing or overheat damage is detected during the 
inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, within 18 months 
after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD per McDonnell 
Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 
2000.
    (1) Replace the external power ground stud with a new ground 
stud using new attaching parts.
    (2) Torque the new attachments.
    (3) Install nameplate (includes applying silicone primer and 
adhesive/sealant).

    Note 3: Accomplishment of the actions identified in paragraphs 
(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD per McDonnell Douglas DC-9 
Service Bulletin 24-135, dated April 14, 1993, before the effective 
date of this AD, is considered acceptable for compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.

Condition 2 (Chafing or Damage Within Limits)

    (c) If any chafing or damage is detected within the limits 
referenced in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, 
Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000, before further flight, repair 
damage; perform a continuity test to check the integrity of the 
wiring, and repair as applicable; and do the actions required by 
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD; per the alert 
service bulletin.

Condition 3 (Chafing or Damage Beyond Limits)

    (d) If any chafing or damage is detected beyond the limits 
referenced in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, 
Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000, before further flight, replace any 
damaged wire with a new wire; perform a continuity test to check the 
integrity of the wiring, and repair as applicable; and do the 
actions required by paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this 
AD; per the alert service bulletin.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (e) 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 4: 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 Permit

    (f) 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.

[[Page 64128]]

Incorporation by Reference

    (g) The actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell 
Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 
2000. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51. Copies 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). Copies may be inspected 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; or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 
Washington, DC.

Effective Date

    (h) This amendment becomes effective on January 16, 2002.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 28, 2001.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-30195 Filed 12-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U