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; and Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes; was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38178). That action proposed to require modification of the light switch of the applicable cargo compartments. \n\nComments \n\n\tInterested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received. \n\nRequest To Withdraw the Proposed AD \n\n\tThe Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its members, recommends that the FAA withdraw the proposed AD. The commenter states that the proposed AD does not increase the level of safety, because it does not address the root cause of the incident (i.e., the missing cover fromthe cargo compartment light). The commenter suggests that, instead of the proposed modification, the FAA should mandate scheduled maintenance action. In an attached comment, one ATA member recommends repetitive inspections to verify that the light cover is installed, as well as rewiring of the cargo door switch to the cargo light switch, so the cargo light cannot stay on. In another attached comment, another ATA member recommends changes to the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) to prohibit operation of the airplane with a missing light cover, unless the exposed bulb is removed or the lighting system for the cargo compartment(s) is deactivated. The ATA and one of its members also point out that all airplanes that would be subject to the proposed AD are required by Federal Aviation Regulations to have a smoke and fire detection and suppression system installed in the cargo compartment(s) of the airplane. \n\n\tThe FAA does not concur with the request to withdraw the proposed AD. In the"Identification of Unsafe Condition'' section of the proposed AD, we explain that the identified unsafe condition related not only to the cover missing from the cargo compartment light, but also the fact that the light did not automatically shut off when the cargo compartment was closed. Thus, we have determined that the action required by this AD (i.e., modification of the light switch in the cargo compartment) is adequate to address the identified unsafe condition. Under paragraph (b) of this AD, we may consider a request for approval of an alternative means of compliance (AMOC) with this AD, provided that data are submitted that show that the means of compliance provides an acceptable level of safety. \n\n\tWith regard to the commenters' suggestions to mandate scheduled maintenance action or revise the MMEL, the mechanism that exists to rectify an FAA finding that an unsafe condition exists is an amendment to part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39). In addition,under existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we are obligated to advise foreign airworthiness authorities of unsafe conditions relating to products produced in the United States, and the means of doing this is an amendment to part 39.\n \n\tNo change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. \n\nRequest To Revise Applicability of Proposed AD \n\n\tOne commenter requests that, if the FAA does not agree to withdraw the proposed AD, it revise the applicability of the proposed AD to exclude airplanes equipped with a certain smoke and fire detection and suppression system installed in the cargo compartment(s) by a certain supplemental type certificate (STC). The commenter points out that the unsafe condition addressed by the proposed AD requires three events to occur: a missing cover on the cargo compartment light, cargo stacked against that light, and the light being illuminated for the entire flight. The commenter states that the STC for installing the referenced smoke and firedetection and suppression system specifies a restriction against stacking cargo within two inches of the ceiling of the cargo compartment. Thus, there would be no contact with the cargo compartment light located in the ceiling, and the unsafe condition addressed by the proposed AD would not occur \n\n\tWe do not concur with the request to revise the applicability of this AD. Note 1 of this AD specifies that, if an airplane has been modified in such a manner that the service information referenced in this AD does not apply, the owner/operator must request approval of an AMOC in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. For us to approve such a request, the owner/operator must provide data that show that an acceptable level of safety is achieved through installation of the smoke and fire detection and suppression system and the procedural changes to which the commenter refers. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. \n\nRequest To Add Repetitive Inspections \n\n\tOne commenter requests that the FAA require repetitive inspections following the proposed modification of the light switch for the cargo compartment(s). The inspections would ensure that the guard is still installed over the light switch. The commenter suggests that these inspections could be added to the maintenance program. The commenter's request is based on maintenance reports from its fleet of airplanes, which have been modified per the service bulletin referred to in the proposed AD. The maintenance reports show that the guard over the light switch breaks frequently because of chafing between the guard and the door structure during the numerous opening and closing cycles of the cargo compartment door during daily ground handling.\n \n\tWe acknowledge the concerns of the commenter, but do not concur with its request. We have received information indicating that breakage of the guard over the light switch, such as that noted by the commenter, may occur if cargo handlers rely upon the guard to extinguish the light in the cargo compartment, rather than MANUALLY extinguishing the cargo compartment light and closing the switch guard before closing the cargo door. We also have received information that the cargo loading document for the airplanes subject to this AD will be revised in the near future to specifically state that the cargo compartment light must be manually extinguished before closing the door. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. \n\nConclusion \n\n\tAfter 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 as proposed. \n\nCost Impact \n\n\tThere are approximately 1,068 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; and Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes; of the affected designs in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 525 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $1,147 and $2,332 per airplane depending on the airplane configuration. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $633,675 and $1,255,800, or $1,207 and $2,392 per airplane, depending on the airplane configuration.\n \n\tThe 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. \n\nRegulatory Impact \n\n\tThe 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.\n \n\tFor 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. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. \nAdoption of the Amendment \n\n\tAccordingly, 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: \n\nPART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES \n\n\t1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: \n\n\tAuthority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. \n\nSec. 39.13 (Amended) \n\n\t2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive