96-13231. Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 Series Airplanes  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 26778-26780]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-13231]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    14 CFR Part 39
    
    [Docket No. 95-NM-145-AD; Amendment 39-9636; AD 96-11-11]
    RIN 2120-AA64
    
    
    Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 Series 
    Airplanes
    
    AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
    applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 series airplanes, that 
    requires inspection(s) to detect cracking in the nose skin of the 
    fuselage, and various follow-on actions. This amendment also provides 
    for an optional modification, which would defer certain repetitive 
    inspections, if no cracking is detected. This amendment is prompted by 
    reports of cracking in the upper nose skin of the fuselage due to 
    fatigue. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent 
    fatigue-related cracking, which could compromise the structural 
    integrity of the airplane.
    
    DATES: Effective July 3, 1996.
        The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
    the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
    of July 3, 1996.
    
    ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
    obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, 
    Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications 
    Business Administration, Department 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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 
    Transport Airplane Directorate, 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: Ron Atmur, Aerospace Engineer, 
    Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
    Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone 
    (310) 627-5224; fax (310) 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 all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 
    series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 
    1996 (61 FR 1301). That action proposed to require inspection(s) to 
    detect cracking in the nose skin of the fuselage, and various follow-on 
    actions. That action also proposed a provision for an optional 
    modification, which would defer certain repetitive inspections, if no 
    cracking is detected.
        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 Proposal
    
        Two commenters support the proposed rule.
    
    Request to Extend the Compliance Time
    
        One commenter requests that the ``grace period'' of the compliance 
    time for the accomplishment of the high frequency eddy current (HFEC) 
    inspection be extended from the proposed 3,000 landings to 4,000 
    landings. This will allow the HFEC
    
    [[Page 26779]]
    
    inspection to be accomplished during a regularly scheduled maintenance 
    check, thereby eliminating any additional expenses. In addition, the 
    commenter indicates that it has accomplished the HFEC inspection on 86 
    Model DC-9 series airplanes and has found ``a high rate of positive 
    findings'' (i.e., cracking).
        The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to extend the 
    ``grace period'' of the compliance time. In developing an appropriate 
    compliance time for this action, the FAA considered the safety 
    implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for 
    timely accomplishment of the HFEC inspection. In consideration of these 
    items, as well as the numerous reports of cracking in the upper nose 
    skin of the fuselage of airplanes in service, the FAA has determined 
    that a ``grace period'' of 3,000 landings, as proposed, is appropriate. 
    However, under the provisions of paragraph (b) 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.
    
    Request to Allow DER Approval of Repairs
    
        This commenter also requests that proposed paragraph (a)(3) be 
    revised to permit the approval of repairs (of any cracked areas beyond 
    the repair limits specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 
    53-262) by Designated Engineering Representatives (DER) of the 
    McDonnell Douglas Corporation; this will allow a more expeditious 
    response time on repair recommendations.
        The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to revise 
    paragraph (a)(3) of this AD. While DER's are authorized to determine 
    whether a design or repair method complies with a specific requirement, 
    they are not authorized to make the discretionary determination as to 
    what the applicable requirement is. Further, where repair data does not 
    exist, it is essential that the FAA have feedback as to the type of 
    repairs being made. The FAA has determined that the Manager of the Los 
    Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) should approve any such 
    repairs or other deviations to the AD's requirements. Given that 
    possible new relevant issues might be revealed during this process, it 
    is imperative that the FAA, at this level, have such feedback. Only by 
    reviewing deviation approvals can the FAA be assured of this feedback 
    and of the adequacy of the repair methods. However, the FAA, in 
    conjunction with the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) 
    currently is considering guidelines to address this issue, and may 
    eventually develop additional FAA policy on this subject.
    
    Request to Allow a Temporary Repair
    
        One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposal to allow a 
    temporary repair, having a life limit of 8,000 flight cycles, to be 
    accomplished in accordance with Structural Repair Manual 53-04, Figure 
    12B, Class III, until the proposed permanent repair can be 
    accomplished. This would minimize down time for the operator.
        The FAA does not concur. The FAA does not consider it appropriate 
    to include various provisions in an AD applicable to a single 
    operator's unique use of an affected airplane. Paragraph (b) of this AD 
    provides for the approval of alternative methods of compliance to 
    address these types of unique circumstances.
    
    Request for Clarification of Use of Previously Approved Repairs
    
        One commenter requests clarification as to the use of repairs that 
    have been previously approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, in 
    accordance with AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8907 (59 FR 6538, February 
    11, 1994).
        The FAA agrees that clarification is necessary. The FAA considers 
    the subject area of this AD to be identical to the subject area in AD 
    94-03-01. Therefore, repairs that have been approved previously by the 
    Manager, Los Angeles ACO, are considered to be approved as alternative 
    methods of compliance with paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this AD. 
    Accordingly, the FAA has revised the final rule to include a new 
    paragraph (b)(2) to clarify this.
    
    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.
    
    Cost Impact
    
        There are approximately 889 Model DC-9 series airplanes of the 
    affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 568 
    airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will 
    take approximately 10 work hours per airplane to accomplish the 
    required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. 
    Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is 
    estimated to be $340,800, or $600 per airplane, per inspection.
        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. However, since the issuance of the 
    proposal, the FAA has been advised that the initial inspection required 
    by this AD has been accomplished on at least 86 affected airplanes. 
    Therefore, the future cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is 
    reduced by approximately $51,600.
    
    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.
    
    [[Page 26780]]
    
    Sec. 39.13  [Amended]
    
        2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new 
    airworthiness directive:
    
    96-11-11  McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9636. Docket 95-NM-145-AD.
    
        Applicability: All Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, -50, and C-9 
    (military) series airplanes, 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 (b)(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 fatigue-related cracking, which could compromise the 
    structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:
        (a) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total landings, or 
    within 3,000 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever 
    occurs later, perform a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) 
    inspection to detect cracking in the nose skin of the fuselage, in 
    accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-262, 
    dated October 11, 1994.
        (1) If no cracking is detected, accomplish either paragraph 
    (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with the service 
    bulletin.
        (i) Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to 
    exceed 4,000 landings; or
        (ii) Accomplish the modification of the upper nose skin of the 
    cockpit fuselage in accordance with the service bulletin. Prior to 
    the accumulation of 60,000 landings after accomplishment of this 
    modification, perform a visual inspection of the upper nose skin of 
    the cockpit fuselage in accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat 
    the visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25,000 
    landings.
        (2) If any cracking is detected and it is within the repair 
    limits specified in the service bulletin, prior to further flight, 
    repair the cracked nose skin in accordance with the service 
    bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 60,000 landings after 
    accomplishment of this repair, perform a visual inspection to detect 
    cracking of the repair; and prior to further flight, repair any 
    cracking found during this inspection; in accordance with a method 
    approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 
    (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
        (3) If any cracking is detected and it is beyond the repair 
    limits specified in the service bulletin, prior to further flight, 
    repair the cracked nose skin in accordance with a method approved by 
    the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
        (b)(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 ACO. 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 2: Information concerning the existence of approved 
    alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
    obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
    
        (b)(2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved in accordance 
    with AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8907, are approved as alternative 
    methods of compliance with paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this AD. 
    This approval only applies to repairs that are subject to the 
    requirements of this AD.
        (c) 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.
        (d) The inspections, modification, and certain repairs shall be 
    done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-
    262, dated October 11, 1994. 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 
    McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 
    California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business 
    Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). 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, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount 
    Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal 
    Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
        (e) This amendment becomes effective on July 3, 1996.
    
        Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20, 1996.
    James V. Devany,
    Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
    Service.
    [FR Doc. 96-13231 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
7/3/1996
Published:
05/29/1996
Department:
Transportation Department
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
96-13231
Dates:
Effective July 3, 1996.
Pages:
26778-26780 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 95-NM-145-AD, Amendment 39-9636, AD 96-11-11
RINs:
2120-AA64: Airworthiness Directives
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2120-AA64/airworthiness-directives
PDF File:
96-13231.pdf
CFR: (1)
14 CFR 39.13