[Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 75430-75435]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de05-26]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2003-NM-198-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

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

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

SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness 
directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, 
-20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), -82 
(MD-82), -83 (MD-83), and -87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 
airplanes. That proposed AD would have required repetitive inspections 
and functional tests of the static port heater assemblies, an 
inspection of the static port heaters and insulators, and corrective 
actions if necessary. This new action revises the proposed AD by adding 
repetitive inspections of the static port heaters and insulators and 
revising the functional test of the static port heater. The actions 
specified by this new proposed AD are intended to prevent an electrical 
short of the static port heater from sparking and igniting the 
insulation blanket adjacent to the static port heater, which could 
result in smoke and/or fire in the cabin area. This action is intended 
to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NM-198-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: 
9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must 

contain ``Docket No. 2003-NM-198-AD'' in the subject line and need not 
be submitted

[[Page 75431]]

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 AD may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 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 AD 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 AD. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Submit comments using the following format:
     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.
     For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed 
AD is being requested.
     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 AD. 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 2003-NM-198-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. 2003-NM-198-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) was published as a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on March 
8, 2004 (69 FR 10636). That NPRM was applicable to certain McDonnell 
Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model 
DC-9-81 (MD-81), -82 (MD-82), -83 (MD-83), and -87 (MD-87) airplanes; 
and Model MD-88 airplanes. That NPRM would have required repetitive 
inspections and functional tests of the static port heater assemblies, 
an inspection of the static port heaters and insulators, and corrective 
actions if necessary. That NPRM was prompted by studies that revealed 
that the wiring of the static port heater assembly may be damaged. That 
condition, if not corrected, could result in an electrical short of the 
static port heater and consequent sparking and ignition of the 
insulation blanket adjacent to the static port heater, which could 
result in smoke and/or fire in the cabin area.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Proposal

    The airplane manufacturer informed the FAA that the functional test 
of the left and right primary and alternate static port heater 
assemblies must be revised to prevent damaging the aircraft fuselage 
skin. An operator informed the airplane manufacturer that performing 
the current functional test would overheat and damage the aircraft 
fuselage skin. Therefore the airplane manufacturer has revised the 
functional test and issued Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-30-097, Revision 
2, dated May 27, 2005, which references the revised functional test 
(Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-30-097, Revision 01, dated January 24, 
2003, is cited as the appropriate source of service information for 
doing functional tests specified in the original NPRM). We have revised 
this supplemental NPRM to reference Revision 2 of Boeing Service 
Bulletin DC9-30-097 as the appropriate source of service information 
for accomplishing certain proposed inspections, replacements, and 
functional tests.
    We have also considered the following comments we received in 
response to the original NPRM:

Agrees With Original NPRM

    One commenter generally agrees with the original NPRM.

Request To Add Repetitive Inspections

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) requests that the 
inspection specified in paragraph (b)(2) of the original NPRM be 
changed from a one-time inspection to a repetitive inspection. The NTSB 
is concerned that incorrect stacking of the heater and insulator may 
occur after the one-time inspection. The NTSB states that repetitive 
inspections at the same interval as the inspection specified in 
paragraph (b)(1) of the original NPRM would identify incorrect stacking 
without placing an undue burden on operators.
    We agree with the NTSB that the inspection specified in paragraph 
(b)(2) of the supplemental NPRM be changed to a repetitive inspection. 
Incorrect stacking of the heater and insulator will cause higher-than-
normal operating temperature locally in the insulation blanket, which 
would lead to quicker deterioration and aging of the rubber, causing it 
to crack and lead to electrical shorting or arcing. In consideration of 
this unsafe condition and the potential for incorrect stacking, we have 
determined that a repetitive inspection of the heater and insulator for 
incorrect stacking is necessary. We have revised paragraph (b) of the 
supplemental NPRM accordingly.

Request To Withdraw the Original NPRM

    Two commenters request that the original NPRM be withdrawn. One 
commenter, the airplane manufacturer, contends that the unsafe 
condition no longer exists. The commenter states that the unsafe 
condition was addressed by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-30A023, 
including Appendix, dated March 14, 2001 (for Model MD-90-30 
airplanes); and by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-30A092, including 
Appendix, dated March 14, 2001 (for Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 
airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes). The commenter notes that those 
service bulletins were mandated by AD 2001-10-11, amendment 39-12237 
(66 FR 28651, May 24, 2001), and by AD 2001-10-10, amendment 39-12236 
(66 FR

[[Page 75432]]

28643, May 24, 2001). The commenter states that those ADs require 
inspecting the wiring of the primary and alternate static port heaters, 
determining if the type of insulation blanket installed is metallized 
Mylar, and modifying the insulation blankets if necessary.
    The commenter also states that a review of operators' reports 
indicates that only two events resulted in smoke in the cabin, both on 
one operator's Model MD-88 airplanes. One event resulted in the 
issuance of the service bulletins described previously, and the other 
event report stated that a smoke smell was ``evident.'' The commenter 
notes that ``in the three years since the release of these service 
bulletins and the related ADs, no other static port heater smoke/fire 
events have been reported from the entire MD-80/90 fleet.'' The 
commenter believes that the actions in the original NPRM are purely an 
enhancement; thus, the NPRM should be withdrawn.
    The other commenter states that the cause of the smoke in the cabin 
was determined to be an electrical short of the static port heater, 
which caused a spark that ignited the metallized Mylar insulation 
blanket adjacent to the heater. The commenter contends that Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin MD80-30A092 was issued to address the unsafe 
condition by inspecting the static port heater wiring and modifying or 
removing the metallized Mylar insulation blankets. The commenter notes 
that it accomplished this service bulletin to comply with AD 2001-10-10 
and found no faults in any of the static port heaters. The commenter 
believes this addresses the unsafe condition and therefore the original 
NPRM is not needed.
    We do not agree with the commenters' requests to withdraw the 
original NPRM. Although no other static port heater smoke/fire events 
have been reported since we issued ADs 2001-10-10 and 2001-10-11, the 
potential for sparks from an electrical short of the static port heater 
to ignite the insulation blanket adjacent to the static port heater and 
result in smoke and/or fire in the cabin area still exists. While ADs 
2001-10-10 and 2001-10-11 require only a one-time inspection of the 
wiring of the static port heaters, this supplemental NPRM would require 
repetitive functional tests and inspections of the static port heater 
assemblies and wiring. The proposed repetitive inspections are required 
to identify and remove marginal static port heaters before they fail 
and generate sparks. Therefore, we have not withdrawn this supplemental 
NPRM.

Request To Revise Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Reference

    One commenter requests that the reference to AMM 30-32-00 be 
revised to AMM 30-30-00. The commenter believes the reference in 
paragraph (b)(2) of the original NPRM is in error as it is not 
reflected in either the DC-9 or the MD-80 AMMs.
    We agree with the commenter that the reference should be revised to 
Boeing Model DC-9 AMM 30-30-00 for Model DC-9 airplanes only. For Model 
DC-9 airplanes, AMM 30-30-00 contains the instructions for performing a 
general visual inspection of the left and right primary and alternate 
static port heater and insulator for proper installation. For Model MD-
80 airplanes, Boeing Model MD-80 AMM 30-30-01 contains the same 
instructions. We have revised paragraph (b)(2) of the supplemental NPRM 
accordingly.

Request To Remove Model DC-9 Airplanes From the Applicability

    One commenter requests that Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 
series airplanes be removed from the applicability of the original 
NPRM. The commenter states that the original NPRM addresses known 
problems on the Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), -82 (MD-82), -83 (MD-83), and -
87 (MD-87) airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes, and extends a proposed 
solution to Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes. The 
commenter notes that the shorted wiring at the static port heater 
blanket caused or contributed to an instance of a metallized Mylar 
insulation blanket being ignited. The commenter believes the unsafe 
condition does not apply to Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 
series airplanes because those models do not use metallized Mylar 
insulation blankets.
    We do not agree with the commenter to remove Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 series airplanes from the applicability in this 
supplemental NPRM. The unsafe condition exists for airplanes on which 
there is a static port heater regardless of the type of insulation 
blanket adjacent to the heater. An electrical short of the static port 
heater from sparking could ignite the insulation blanket adjacent to 
the static port heater and result in smoke and/or fire in the cabin 
area. We have not revised the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Revise Compliance Times

    The same commenter requests that the compliance times specified in 
paragraph (b) of the original NPRM be revised. The commenter notes that 
the initial inspection specified in the original NPRM is to be done 
within 18 months. However, the commenter proposes that the initial 
inspection be done within 36 months. The commenter contends that the 
area of inspection is not normally opened during the light checks that 
occur every 18 months and that the area would be open for the heavy 
checks that occur every 36 months. The commenter also suggests doing 
the repetitive inspections at intervals not to exceed 36 months instead 
of intervals not to exceed 48 months as specified in paragraph (b) of 
the original NPRM. The commenter concludes that their proposed 
compliance times would alleviate much of its labor impact.
    We do not agree with the commenter to revise the compliance times 
in paragraph (b) of the supplemental NPRM. In developing an appropriate 
compliance time, we considered the safety implications, and normal 
maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the inspections 
specified in the supplemental NPRM. In consideration of all of these 
factors, we determined that the compliance times, as proposed, 
represent an appropriate interval in which the inspections can be 
accomplished, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. 
Operators are always permitted to accomplish the requirements of an AD 
at a time earlier than the specified compliance time; therefore, an 
operator may choose to do the repetitive inspections at intervals 
earlier than 48 months. We have not revised the supplemental NPRM in 
this regard.

Request To Allow Further Flight Subject to the Conditions of the 
Maintenance Equipment List (MEL)

    One commenter requests that provisions should be made to allow 
further flight subject to the conditions of the MEL when damaged or 
inoperative static port heater assemblies are found during an 
inspection specified by the original NPRM. The commenter notes that the 
original NPRM specifies that, if damage is found or the heater fails a 
functional test, the damaged or inoperative static port heater assembly 
must be replaced before further flight. The commenter states that the 
FAA-approved MEL item 30-6 allows the static port heaters to be 
inoperative for takeoff and landing under certain conditions, for up to 
10 days. The commenter believes that provisions to allow the operator 
to collar the circuit breaker and permit further flight subject to the 
MEL should be made in the event of parts shortages or other unforeseen 
circumstances.

[[Page 75433]]

    We do not agree with the commenter to make provisions to allow 
further flight subject to the conditions of the MEL when damaged or 
inoperative static port heater assemblies are found. MEL item 30-6 is 
based on meteorological conditions, which are subject to change, during 
takeoff and landing. We have not revised the supplemental NPRM in this 
regard. However, under the provisions of paragraph (e) of the 
supplemental NPRM, we may approve requests for adjustments to the 
compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an 
adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Exclude Certain Airplanes From Initial Inspection

    One commenter requests that airplanes on which the metallized Mylar 
insulation blankets have been replaced be excluded from the initial 
inspection specified in paragraph (b) of the original NPRM. The 
commenter notes that it is well into its metallized Mylar insulation 
blanket replacement program for its Model MD-80 fleet. The commenter 
states that the reason to exclude these airplanes is because of the 
lack of findings during the inspection of the static port heaters in 
all of its airplanes in 2001.
    We disagree with the commenter. As stated previously, the 
identified unsafe condition is on all airplanes specified in the 
applicability of the supplemental NPRM regardless of whether the 
insulation blankets are made of metallized Mylar. Therefore, even if 
the metallized Mylar insulation blankets have been removed or replaced, 
operators must do the inspections specified in paragraph (b) of the 
supplemental NPRM to inspect both the wiring in the static port 
connecter for damage and to inspect for proper installation of the 
static port heater and insulator. These inspections are required in 
order to address the identified unsafe condition. We have not revised 
the supplemental NPRM in this regard. However, under the provisions of 
paragraph (e) of the supplemental NPRM, we may consider requests for 
approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate 
that such an AMOC would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Allow Replacement of a Heater as a Means of Compliance With 
the Initial Inspection

    One commenter requests that replacing a static port heater in 
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-34-289 be allowed as a 
means of compliance with the initial inspection specified in paragraph 
(b) of the original NPRM. The commenter states that most of its primary 
static ports and primary static port heaters were replaced during the 
accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-34-289 to comply with 
the requirements for domestic reduced vertical separation minimums 
(RVSM).
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to allow replacement 
of the static port heater in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 
MD80-34-289, dated February 25, 1997, as a means of compliance with the 
initial inspection specified in paragraph (b) of the supplemental NPRM. 
The service bulletin, titled ``Navigation--Attitude Indication--Inspect 
for Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (RVSM) Requirements,'' is for 
RVSMs that started being implemented March 27, 1997. However, the 
replacement procedure specified in the service bulletin does not comply 
with paragraph (b)(2) of the supplemental NPRM, which requires 
performing a general visual inspection of the static port heater and 
insulator for proper installation. We have not revised the supplemental 
NPRM in this regard. However, under the provisions of paragraph (e) of 
the final rule, we may approve requests for an alternate method of 
compliance (AMOC) if data are submitted to substantiate that such an 
AMOC would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Clarify Drawing That Is Not Applicable to Certain Airplanes

    One commenter notes that ``Condition 2'' of the service bulletin 
refers to McDonnell Douglas drawing SR09340158. However, the commenter 
states that the drawing is applicable to Model MD-80 airplanes, not to 
Model DC-9 airplanes. We infer from this that the commenter is 
requesting clarification of a drawing specified in Boeing Service 
Bulletin DC9-30-097, Revision 01, dated January 24, 2003.
    We do not agree with the commenter that the drawing is not 
applicable to Model DC-9 airplanes. McDonnell Douglas drawing 
SR09340158 is applicable to both Model MD-80 airplanes and Model DC-9 
airplanes. Because Model DC-9-80 (MD-80) airplanes are a derivative of 
the Model DC-9 airplanes, Boeing uses DC-9 and MD-80 drawings 
interchangeably. We have not revised the supplemental NPRM in this 
regard.

Request To Revise Cost Impact

    Two commenters request that the Cost Impact section in the original 
NPRM be revised. One commenter notes that Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-
30-097 estimates the labor to do the visual inspections and functional 
tests of the left and right primary and alternate static port heater 
assemblies to be 3.2 hours. The commenter estimates 6.0 labor hours to 
be more accurate. The other commenter notes that the service bulletin 
estimates either 2.8 or 3.2 labor hours to gain access, do the general 
visual inspection, and do the test. The commenter states that the 
original NPRM specifies only one labor hour to do the general visual 
inspection and test, and one labor hour to do the other inspection. The 
commenter also points out that the original NPRM does not include labor 
hours to do repairs ``as required'' and does not include the cost to 
replace any damaged or inoperative blankets, at approximately $500 to 
$1,000 each.
    While we do not object to the figures provided by the commenters, 
we do not agree to revise the Cost Impact section in the supplemental 
NPRM. The cost information describes only the direct costs of the 
specific actions in the supplemental NPRM that will be required, based 
on data provided by the manufacturer for the number of work hours 
necessary to do the proposed actions. We recognize that, in doing the 
actions required by an AD, operators may incur incidental costs in 
addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking 
actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as 
the time required to gain access and close up, time necessary for 
planning, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those 
incidental costs, which may vary significantly among operators, are 
almost impossible to calculate. The economic analysis of an AD also 
does not consider the costs of ``on-condition'' actions (that is, 
actions needed to correct an unsafe condition and costs of associated 
parts) because, regardless of AD direction, those actions would be 
required to correct an unsafe condition identified in an airplane and 
ensure operation of that airplane in an airworthy condition, as 
required by the Federal Aviation Regulations. We have not revised the 
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Clarification of AMOC Paragraph

    We have revised this supplemental NPRM to clarify the appropriate 
procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any 
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

Conclusion

    Since the changes described above expand the scope of the original 
NPRM, the FAA has determined that it is

[[Page 75434]]

necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional 
opportunity for public comment.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 1,836 airplanes of the affected design in 
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,125 airplanes of U.S. 
registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
    It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish 
the proposed general visual inspection for wire damage and functional 
test, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these 
figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection for wire damage and 
functional test on U.S. operators is estimated to be $73,125, or $65 
per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    It would also take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to 
accomplish the proposed general visual inspection for proper 
installation, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection for proper 
installation on U.S. operators is estimated to be $73,125, or $65 per 
airplane, per inspection cycle.
    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.

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 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 2003-NM-198-AD.
    Applicability: McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-
13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, DC-9-15F, DC-9-21, DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 
(VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-
9B), 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) airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes; 
certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service 
Bulletin DC9-30-097, Revision 2, dated May 27, 2005.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent an electrical short of the static port heater from 
sparking and igniting the insulation blanket adjacent to the static 
port heater, which could result in smoke and/or fire in the cabin 
area, accomplish the following:

Service Bulletin References

    (a) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-30-097, 
Revision 2, dated May 27, 2005.

Inspection and Functional Test

    (b) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do the 
actions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD. Repeat the 
actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed 48 months.
    (1) Perform a general visual inspection of the left and right 
primary and alternate static port heater assemblies for wire damage; 
and perform a functional test of the left and right primary and 
alternate static port heater assemblies; in accordance with the 
service bulletin.


    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection 
is: ``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 
ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This 
level of inspection is made under normal 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.''


    (2) Perform a general visual inspection of the left and right 
primary and alternate static port heater and insulator for proper 
installation in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, 
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). Inspecting for 
proper installation in accordance with ``Heater, Static--Removal/
Installation'' of Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) 30-30-01 for 
Model MD-80 airplanes or ``Pitot and Static--Maintenance Practices'' 
of AMM 30-30-00 for Model DC-9 airplanes, as applicable, is one 
approved method. Before further flight, correct any improper 
installation in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, 
Los Angeles ACO. Correcting improper installation in accordance with 
AMM 30-30-01 or AMM 30-30-00, as applicable, is one approved method. 
For an inspection method or corrective method to be approved by the 
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, as required by this paragraph, the 
Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

Wire Damage or Heater Failures

    (c) If wire damage is found and/or the heater assembly fails the 
functional test during the general visual inspection and functional 
test required by paragraph (b)(1) of this AD: Before further flight, 
replace the damaged or inoperative static port heater assembly with 
a new or serviceable static

[[Page 75435]]

port heater assembly in accordance with the service bulletin.

Actions Accomplished In Accordance With Previous Issue of Service 
Bulletin

    (d) Inspections, functional tests, and corrective actions 
accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with 
Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-30-097, dated February 15, 2002; and 
Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-30-097, Revision 01, dated January 24, 
2003; are considered acceptable for compliance with the 
corresponding actions specified in this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (e)(1) 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.
    (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 14 CFR 
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the 
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards 
Certificate Holding District Office.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 12, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-24246 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P