[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 245 (Tuesday, December 22, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70633-70636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33388]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 245 / Tuesday, December 22, 1998 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 70633]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 97-NM-56-AD; Amendment 39-10948; AD 98-26-08]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes, and C-9 (Military) 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, and C-9 (military) airplanes, that requires a
one-time visual inspection to determine if all corners of the doorjamb
of the forward service door have been previously modified. The action
also requires various repetitive inspections to detect cracks of the
fuselage skin and doubler at all corners of the doorjamb of the forward
service door, and to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the
modification; and various follow-on actions. This amendment is prompted
by reports of fatigue cracks found in the fuselage skin and doubler at
the corners of the doorjamb of the forward service door. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to detect and correct such fatigue
cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
DATES: Effective January 26, 1999.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 26, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from The Boeing Company, Douglas Products Division, P.O. Box
1771, Long Beach, California 90846-1771, Attention: Business Unit
Manager, Contract Data Management, C1-255 (35-22). This information may
be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(562) 627-5324; 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, and C-9 (military)
airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1997 (62
FR 43128). That action proposed to require a one-time visual inspection
to determine if all corners of the doorjamb of the forward service door
have been previously modified. The action also proposed to require
various repetitive inspections to detect cracks of the fuselage skin
and doubler at all corners of the doorjamb of the forward service door,
and to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the modification; and
various follow-on actions.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Request to Allow Designated Engineering Representative (DER)
Approval of Certain Repairs
One commenter requests that the proposed AD be revised to allow
approval of repairs not addressed in the cited service bulletins by a
McDonnell Douglas designated engineering representative (DER), instead
of the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO).
The commenter states that this provision would result in a more
efficient and expeditious repair approval process.
The FAA does not concur. While DER's are authorized to determine
whether a design or repair method complies with a specific requirement,
they are not currently authorized to make the discretionary
determination as to what the applicable requirement is. However, the
FAA has issued a notice (N 8110.72, dated March 30, 1998), that
provides guidance for delegating authority to certain type certificate
holder structural DER's to approve alternative methods of compliance
for AD-required repairs and modifications of individual airplanes. The
FAA is currently working with Boeing, Long Beach Division (BLBD), to
develop the implementation process for delegation of approval of
alternative methods of compliance in accordance with that notice. Once
this process is implemented, approval authority for alternative methods
of compliance can be delegated without revising the AD.
Request to Revise Requirements of Proposed AD
One commenter requests that paragraph (e) of the proposed AD be
revised to read as follows:
(e) If the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of this
AD reveals that the corners of the forward service door doorjamb
have been modified by FAA-approved repairs other than those
specified by the DC-9 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) or Service
Rework Drawing, prior to further flight, accomplish an initial low
frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection of the fuselage skin
adjacent to the repair.
(e)(i) If no crack is detected, within (6) months after the
initial LFEC inspection, repair in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(e)(ii) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight,
repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO.
This commenter states that, as paragraph (e) of the proposed AD is
currently worded, it will cause an unnecessary operational impact since
FAA-approved non-standard SRM or Service Rework Drawing repairs are
known to exist in this area of the doorjamb. The commenter contends
that obtaining approval for such repairs from the Los Angeles ACO,
prior to further flight, will be time consuming and will
[[Page 70634]]
result in an unwarranted extended ground time for the airplane.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to revise
paragraph (e) of the AD. The FAA in conjunction with McDonnell Douglas
has conducted further analysis of this issue. The FAA has determined
that, for forward service door doorjambs that are found to be modified
previously but not in accordance with the DC-9 SRM or Service Rework
Drawing, an initial LFEC inspection of the fuselage skin adjacent to
those existing repairs will not detect any cracking under the repairs.
Because cracking under the repairs could grow rapidly once it emerges
from under the repairs, the FAA does not consider that an acceptable
level of safety can be assured simply by determining that cracking has
not yet emerged from under the repairs. In light of these findings, no
change to the final rule is necessary.
Request To Increase Repetitive Inspection Interval
One commenter requests that the repetitive inspection interval
specified by paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of the proposed AD be increased
from 3,225 landings to 3,575 landings. The commenter states that such
an increase of the inspection interval would allow affected airplanes
to be inspected during major scheduled maintenance checks, and would
reduce the number of line airplanes that would be taken out of service
as a result of any findings during the inspection.
The FAA does not concur that the repetitive inspection interval
should be increased. The operator provided no technical justification
for revising the repetitive inspection interval as requested. Fatigue
cracking of the fuselage skin and doubler at the corners of the
doorjamb of the forward service door is an identified safety issue, and
the FAA has determined that the repetitive inspection interval, as
proposed, is warranted, based on the effectiveness of the inspection
procedure to detect cracking. The FAA considered not only those safety
issues in developing an appropriate repetitive inspection interval for
this action, but the recommendations of the manufacturer and the
practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspection within an
interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the
majority of affected operators. In light of these factors, the FAA has
determined that the inspection interval of 3,225 landings, as proposed,
is appropriate.
Request to Revise DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID)
One commenter requests that, prior to issuance of the final rule,
the DC-9 SID be revised to incorporate the actions required by this AD.
The commenter states that such a revision will eliminate confusion
between the DC-9 SID and the AD. The FAA does not concur. The actions
required by this AD are necessary to detect and correct the identified
unsafe condition. After issuance of the final rule, the manufacturer
may revise the DC-9 SID.
Explanation of Changes Made to the Final Rule
The FAA has revised the final rule to include a new paragraph (f).
This new paragraph states that accomplishment of the inspection
requirements of this AD constitutes terminating action for inspections
of Principal Structural Element (PSE) 53.09.033 (reference McDonnell
Douglas Model DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document) required by AD 96-
13-03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR 31009, June 19, 1996). Since this new
paragraph is being added, the FAA has removed ``NOTE 4,'' which is no
longer necessary.
The FAA notes that an editorial change is necessary to clarify the
intent of paragraph (b) of the proposed rule. The first sentence in
that paragraph refers to the corners of the ``upper cargo doorjamb.''
The intent of that sentence is to determine if the visual inspection
reveals that the corners of the doorjamb of the forward service door
have not been modified, not the ``upper cargo doorjamb.'' The FAA has
revised the final rule to specify 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 changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 823 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 series airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 575
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish
the required visual inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per
work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the visual
inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$34,500, or $60 per airplane.
Should an operator be required to accomplish the HFEC, LFEC, or x-
ray inspection, it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $60 per airplane, per inspection
cycle.
Should an operator be required to accomplish the modification, it
will take approximately 30 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost
approximately $1,256, $1,420, $5,804, or $6,113 per airplane, depending
on the service kit purchased. Based on these figures, the cost impact
of the modification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated
to be $3,056, $3,220, $7,604, or $7,913 per airplane, respectively.
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.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects 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, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
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.
[[Page 70635]]
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:
98-26-08 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS: Amendment 39-10948. Docket 97-NM-56-AD.
Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series
airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes; as listed in McDonnell
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-279, Revision 01, dated May 6, 1997;
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 (g) 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 detect and correct fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin or
doubler at the corners of the doorjamb of the forward service door,
which could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish
the following:
Note 2: Where there are differences between the service bulletin
and the AD, the AD prevails.
Note 3: The words ``repair'' and ``modify/modification'' in this
AD and the referenced service bulletin are used interchangeably.
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 50,000 total landings, or
within 3,225 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, perform a one-time visual inspection to determine if
the corners of the doorjamb of the forward service door have been
modified prior to the effective date of this AD.
(b) Group 1. If the visual inspection required by paragraph (a)
of this AD reveals that the corners of the doorjamb of the forward
service door have not been modified, prior to further flight,
perform a low frequency eddy current (LFEC) or x-ray inspection to
detect cracks of the fuselage skin and doubler at all corners of the
doorjamb of the forward service door, in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-279, dated December 10, 1996, or
Revision 01, dated May 6, 1996.
(1) Condition 1. If no crack is detected during any inspection
required by paragraph (b) of this AD, accomplish either paragraph
(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Option 1. Repeat the inspections as follows until paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this AD is accomplished:
(A) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using
LFEC techniques, conduct the next inspection within 3,225 landings.
(B) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using
x-ray techniques, conduct the next inspection within 3,075 landings.
(ii) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify the corners of
the doorjamb of the forward service door in accordance with the
service bulletin; this modification constitutes terminating action
for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i) of
this AD. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after
accomplishment of the modification, perform a high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to
the modification, in accordance with the service bulletin. Within
20,000 landings after accomplishment of the HFEC inspection, perform
an eddy current inspection to detect cracks in the subject area, in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(A) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during any eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this AD, repeat the eddy current inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
(B) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during any eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this AD, repair it in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(2) Condition 2. If any crack is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (b) of this AD and the crack is 2 inches or
less in length: Prior to further flight, modify it in accordance
with the service bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000
landings after accomplishment of the modification, perform a HFEC
inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the
modification, in accordance with the service bulletin. Within 20,000
landings after accomplishment of the HFEC inspection, perform an
eddy current inspection to detect cracks in the subject area, in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(i) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during any eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (b)(2) of this AD, repeat the eddy current inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
(ii) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during any eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (b)(2) of this AD, repair it in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(3) Condition 3. If any crack is found during any inspection
required by this paragraph and the crack is greater than 2 inches in
length: Prior to further flight, repair it in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(c) Group 2, Condition 1. If the visual inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD reveals that the corners of the doorjamb of
the forward service door have been modified in accordance with the
DC-9 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) (using a steel doubler),
accomplish either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-279, dated
December 10, 1996, or Revision 01, dated May 6, 1997.
(1) Option 1. Prior to the accumulation of 6,000 landings after
the effective date of this AD, perform a HFEC inspection to detect
cracks on the skin adjacent to the modification in accordance with
the service bulletin. Within 3,000 landings after accomplishment of
the HFEC inspection, perform an eddy current inspection to detect
cracks in the subject area, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(i) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during any eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, repeat the eddy current inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings.
(ii) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during any eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, repair it in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(2) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify the corners of the
doorjamb of the forward service door in accordance with the service
bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after
accomplishment of the modification, perform a HFEC inspection to
detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the modification, in
accordance with the service bulletin. Within 20,000 landings after
accomplishment of the HFEC inspection, perform an eddy current
inspection to detect cracks in the subject area, in accordance with
the service bulletin.
(i) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during any eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, repeat the eddy current inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
(ii) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during any eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, repair it in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Group 2, Condition 2. If the visual inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD reveals that the corners of the doorjamb of
the forward service door have been modified in accordance with DC-9
SRM or Service Rework Drawing (using an aluminum doubler), prior to
the accumulation of 28,000 landings since accomplishment of the
modification, or within 3,225 landings after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later, perform a HFEC inspection to detect
cracks on the skin adjacent to the
[[Page 70636]]
modification, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
DC9-53-279, dated December 10, 1996, or Revision 01, dated May 6,
1997. Within 20,000 landings after accomplishment of the HFEC
inspection, perform an eddy current inspection to detect cracks in
the subject area, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(1) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during any eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (d) of this AD, repeat the eddy current inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
(2) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during any eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (d) of this AD, repair it in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(e) Group 2, Condition 3. If the visual inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD reveals that the corners of the doorjamb of
the forward service door have been modified, but not in accordance
with the DC-9 SRM or Service Rework Drawing, prior to further
flight, repair it in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(f) Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD
constitutes terminating action for inspections of Principal
Structural Element (PSE) 53.09.033 (reference McDonnell Douglas
Model DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document) required by AD 96-13-
03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR 31009).
(g) 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, Transport Airplane Directorate. 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.
(h) 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.
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (a), (b)(1)(ii)(B),
(b)(2)(ii), (b)(3), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), (d)(2), and (e) of this
AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
Service Bulletin DC9-53-279, dated December 10, 1996, and Revision
01, dated May 6, 1997. 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 The Boeing
Company, Douglas Products Division, P.O. Box 1771, Long Beach,
California 90846-1771, Attention: Business Unit Manager, Contract
Data Management, C1-255 (35-22). Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(j) This amendment becomes effective on January 26, 1999.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 11, 1998.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-33388 Filed 12-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
