99-6216. Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 Series Airplanes and Model MD-88 Airplanes  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 52 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 13330-13333]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-6216]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    
    Federal Aviation Administration
    
    14 CFR Part 39
    
    [Docket No. 97-NM-292-AD; Amendment 39-11077; AD 99-06-13]
    RIN 2120-AA64
    
    
    Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 Series 
    Airplanes and Model MD-88 Airplanes
    
    AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive 
    (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 series 
    airplanes and Model MD-88 airplanes, that currently requires 
    inspection(s) to detect fatigue cracking of the shock strut cylinder of 
    the main landing gear (MLG), and replacement of any cracked shock strut 
    cylinder with a serviceable part. That AD also provides for 
    installation of brake line hydraulic restrictors on the MLG brake 
    systems, which, if accomplished, terminates the repetitive inspections. 
    This amendment requires that the subject inspection be accomplished 
    repetitively following installation of brake line hydraulic 
    restrictors. This amendment is prompted by an additional report of 
    fatigue cracking and subsequent fracturing of the shock strut cylinder 
    of the MLG. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent 
    collapse of the MLG due to fracturing of the shock strut cylinder.
    
    
    [[Page 13331]]
    
    
    DATES: Effective April 22, 1999.
        The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
    the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
    of April 22, 1999.
    
    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: 
    Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). 
    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: Brent Bandley, Aerospace Engineer, 
    Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
    Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone 
    (562) 627-5237; fax (562) 627-5210.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
    Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 95-22-06, 
    amendment 39-9413 (60 FR 54417, October 24, 1995), which is applicable 
    to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model 
    MD-88 airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on July 30, 1998 
    (63 FR 40666). The action proposed to continue to require inspection(s) 
    to detect fatigue cracking of the shock strut cylinder of the main 
    landing gear (MLG), and replacement of any cracked shock strut cylinder 
    with a serviceable part. That action also proposed to continue to 
    provide for installation of brake line hydraulic restrictors on the MLG 
    brake systems, which, if accomplished, terminates the repetitive 
    inspections. That action proposed to require that the subject 
    inspection be accomplished repetitively following installation of brake 
    line hydraulic restrictors.
    
    Comments Received
    
        Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
    in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
    the comments received.
    
    Support for the Proposed Rule
    
        Several commenters support the proposed rule.
    
    Request To Revise Wording
    
        One commenter requests that the phrase ``for airplanes'' in 
    paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of the proposed AD be revised to 
    ``for MLG shock strut cylinders.'' The commenter points out that MLG's 
    are replaceable units that can be ``time continued'' on a different 
    airplane. The FAA concurs. The FAA's intent was that compliance time of 
    those paragraphs be specified in the landings accumulated on MLG's 
    since accomplishment of the brake line hydraulic restrictor 
    installation, rather than the landings that an airplane had 
    accumulated. Therefore, the FAA has revised paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), 
    and (a)(3) of the final rule to clarify this point.
    
    Requests To Revise Repetitive Inspection Intervals
    
        One commenter requests that the repetitive inspection interval of 
    the proposed AD be extended from 1,200 landings to 2,000 landings. The 
    commenter states that such an extension would allow most inspections to 
    occur within its check hangar environment.
        The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The commenter 
    provided no technical justification for revising this interval as 
    requested. Fatigue cracking and subsequent fracturing of the shock 
    strut cylinder of the MLG is a significant safety issue, and the FAA 
    has determined that the inspection interval, as proposed, is warranted, 
    based on the effectiveness of the inspection procedure to detect 
    cracks, and the rate of crack growth in the shock strut cylinder of the 
    MLG. The FAA considered not only those safety issues in developing an 
    appropriate compliance time for this action, but the recommendations of 
    the manufacturer, the availability of any necessary repair parts, 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. However, under the provisions of 
    paragraph (d)(1) of the final rule, the FAA 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.
        One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed AD to 
    simplify and clarify that inspections should be performed at a minimum 
    of 4,800 cycles past restrictor installation. The commenter suggests 
    that the proposed AD be revised to read, ``Perform repetitive 
    inspections at intervals not to exceed 1,200 landings until a minimum 
    of 4,800 landings has accumulated since brake line restrictor 
    installation. A minimum of two (2) repetitive inspections, with at 
    least 1,000 cycles accrued between inspections, shall be performed 
    regardless of the total number of cycles accumulated since restrictor 
    installation.'' The commenter states that such a statement will ensure 
    that inspections are performed past 4,800 cycles from restrictor 
    installation and will allow credit for inspections performed prior to 
    issuance of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80-32A286, 
    Revision 02, dated October 2, 1997.
        The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA 
    points out that the subject repetitive inspection intervals are 
    essentially identical to those specified in McDonnell Douglas Alert 
    Service Bulletin MD80-32A286, Revision 03, dated May 28, 1998 (which is 
    referenced in the proposed AD as the appropriate source of service 
    information for accomplishment of the required actions). The FAA finds 
    that using wording that is significantly different from that of the 
    alert service bulletin may cause more confusion to operators. 
    Therefore, the FAA finds that no change to the final rule is necessary.
    
    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 1,011 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 
    series airplanes and Model MD-88 airplanes of the affected design in 
    the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 625 airplanes of U.S. 
    registry will be affected by this AD.
        The dye penetrant and magnetic particle inspections that are 
    required in this AD action will take approximately 4 work hours per 
    airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. 
    Based on these figures, the cost impact of the dye penetrant and 
    magnetic particle inspections required by this AD on U.S. operators is 
    estimated to be $150,000, or $240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
        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
    
    [[Page 13332]]
    
    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.
    
    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 removing amendment 39-9413 (60 FR 
    54417, October 24, 1995), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
    (AD), amendment 39-11077, to read as follows:
    
    99-06-13  McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-11077. Docket 97-NM-292-
    AD. Supersedes AD 95-22-06, Amendment 39-9413.
    
        Applicability: Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 
    (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) series airplanes, and Model MD-88 
    airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin 
    MD80-32A286, dated September 11, 1995; 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 (d)(1) 
    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 collapse of the main landing gear (MLG) due to 
    fracturing of the shock strut cylinder, accomplish the following:
    
        Note 2: Where there are differences between the referenced alert 
    service bulletin and the AD, the AD prevails.
    
    Inspections
    
        (a) Perform dye penetrant and magnetic particle inspections to 
    detect cracking of the shock strut cylinder of the MLG, in 
    accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
    32A286, Revision 03, dated May 28, 1998; at the time specified in 
    paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
    
        Note 3: Inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of 
    this AD in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin 
    MD80-32A286, Revision 02, dated October 2, 1997, are considered 
    acceptable for compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD.
    
        (1) For MLG shock strut cylinders that, as of the effective date 
    of this AD, have accumulated less than 1,200 landings since 
    accomplishment of the brake line hydraulic restrictor installation: 
    Inspect within 1,200 landings after the effective date of this AD. 
    Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 
    landings for a total of 4 inspections.
        (2) For MLG shock strut cylinders that, as of the effective date 
    of this AD, have accumulated greater than or equal to 1,200 landings 
    and less than 2,400 landings since accomplishment of the brake line 
    hydraulic restrictor installation: Inspect within 1,200 landings 
    after the effective date of this AD. Repeat the inspections 
    thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 landings for a total of 
    3 inspections.
        (3) For MLG shock strut cylinders that, as of the effective date 
    of this AD, have accumulated greater than or equal to 2,400 landings 
    since accomplishment of the brake line hydraulic restrictor 
    installation: Inspect within 1,200 landings after the effective date 
    of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to 
    exceed 1,200 landings for a total of 2 inspections.
    
    Corrective Actions
    
        (b) If any cracking is detected during any inspection required 
    by paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish 
    either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD in accordance with 
    McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80-32A286, Revision 03, 
    dated May 28, 1998.
        (1) Replace the shock strut cylinder with a crack-free 
    serviceable part and, thereafter, repeat the inspections required by 
    paragraph (a) of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph (a)(1), 
    (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Or
        (2) Replace the shock strut cylinder with a new shock strut 
    cylinder. Accomplishment of the replacement constitutes terminating 
    action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (a) 
    of this AD.
    
        Note 4: Replacements accomplished prior to the effective date of 
    this AD in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin 
    MD80-32A286, Revision 02, dated October 2, 1997, are considered 
    acceptable for compliance with paragraph (b) of this AD.
    
    Spares
    
        (c) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install 
    on any airplane an MLG shock strut cylinder or MLG assembly unless 
    that part has been inspected and found to be crack free, in 
    accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service MD80-32A286, 
    Revision 02, dated October 2, 1997, or Revision 03, dated May 28, 
    1998.
    
    Alternative Methods of Compliance
    
        (d)(1) 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 5: Information concerning the existence of approved 
    alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
    obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
    
        (d)(2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved previously in 
    accordance with AD 95-22-06, amendment 39-9413, are approved as 
    alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
    
    Special Flight Permits
    
        (e) 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.
    
    Incorporation by Reference
    
        (f) The actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell 
    Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80-32A286, Revision 03, dated May 
    28, 1998. 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: Technical Publications Business 
    Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). Copies may be inspected at the 
    FAA, Transport
    
    [[Page 13333]]
    
    Airplane Directorate, 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.
        (g) This amendment becomes effective on April 22, 1999.
    
        Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 1999.
    Darrell M. Pederson,
    Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
    Service.
    [FR Doc. 99-6216 Filed 3-17-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
4/22/1999
Published:
03/18/1999
Department:
Federal Aviation Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
99-6216
Dates:
Effective April 22, 1999.
Pages:
13330-13333 (4 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 97-NM-292-AD, Amendment 39-11077, AD 99-06-13
RINs:
2120-AA64: Airworthiness Directives
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2120-AA64/airworthiness-directives
PDF File:
99-6216.pdf
CFR: (1)
14 CFR 39.13