[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49267-49269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24246]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-272-AD; Amdt. 39-10738; AD 98-18-22]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -15,
and -30 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, -15, and -30
series airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes, that requires a one-
time visual inspection to determine if all corners of the upper cargo
doorjamb have been previously modified; various follow-on repetitive
inspections; and modification, if necessary. This amendment is prompted
by reports of fatigue cracks found in the fuselage skin and doubler at
the corners of the upper cargo doorjamb. 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 October 20, 1998.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 20, 1998.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from The Boeing Company, Douglas Products Division, 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, 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, -15, and -30 series airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes,
was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 1997 (62 FR
8644). That action proposed to require a one-time visual inspection to
determine if all corners of the upper cargo doorjamb have been
previously modified; various follow-on repetitive inspections; and
modification, if necessary.
Consideration of Comments
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 Withdraw the Proposed AD
One commenter states that an adequate level of safety is being
maintained through the Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
(SSID) program and routine maintenance, and that mandating the proposed
AD would have an adverse operational impact on all operators. The FAA
infers that the commenter does not consider it necessary to issue the
proposed AD.
The FAA does not concur. The FAA and the manufacturer have
conducted fatigue and damage-tolerance analyses of the upper cargo
doorjamb corners. Findings revealed that the fatigue life threshold
(Nth) for the doorjamb corners, principal structural element
(PSE) 53.09.023, is 41,000 total landings instead of the 82,106 total
landings specified in Supplemental Inspection Document (SID) L26-008.
In light of these findings, the FAA has determined that neither the
SSID program nor routine maintenance is an appropriate means to ensure
the detection and correction of such fatigue cracking. The FAA has made
no change to the proposed AD.
[[Page 49268]]
Request To Change the Compliance Time for the Inspections
One commenter suggests performing the initial inspection using eddy
current at the corners of the upper cargo door jamb every 3,000 cycles.
In addition, the commenter suggests performing the x-ray inspection at
9,000 cycles or during a ``D'' check, whichever comes first.
The FAA does not concur. The FAA does not consider that an eddy
current inspection would be appropriate for the initial inspection, as
described in the following paragraph. The FAA considers that the
following compliance times are appropriate: 3,000 landings (as
specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD) and prior to further
flight (as specified by paragraph (b) of the proposed AD). These
inspection intervals were based on the technical factors needed to
ensure continued safety of flight. In light of these factors, the FAA
has determined that the compliance times required by the proposed AD
are necessary, and no change has been made to the final rule.
Request To Change the Type of Initial Inspection
One commenter suggests performing an eddy current inspection at the
corners of the upper cargo door jamb with the door closed instead of
the one-time visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of the
proposed AD.
The FAA does not concur. The FAA has evaluated findings by the
manufacturer which indicate that cracks in the specified area could not
be detected by an eddy current inspection while the cargo door is
closed. Based on these data, the FAA has determined that the visual
inspection required by paragraph (a) of the proposed AD is appropriate.
No change has been made to the final rule.
Proposed AD Would Have an Adverse Economic Impact
The commenter states that the proposed AD would adversely affect
those airlines that use the specified airplanes only for passenger
service with the cargo door inoperative. The commenter adds that the
economic impact for the visual and x-ray inspections would be
approximately $21,500 per airplane per year for a passenger
configuration. The FAA infers from these statements that the commenter
considers that the inspections required by the proposed NPRM are too
expensive.
The FAA does not concur. Because commenter did not provide any
substantiating data for its proposed revision to the cost estimate, the
FAA considers that the estimate specified by the proposed AD is
appropriate. Therefore, the FAA has made no changes to the final rule.
Explanation of Changes Made to the Proposed AD
Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has added paragraph (d) to the
final rule to include a terminating action only for certain
requirements of AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR 31009, dated June
19, 1996), with respect to PSE 53.09.023, of DC-9 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID) L26-008.
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 final rule with the addition of
the change described in the preceding paragraph. The FAA has determined
that the final rule will neither increase the economic burden on any
operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 93 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -15,
and -30 series airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes of the affected
design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 80 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 one-
time visual inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the one-time visual
inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$4,800, or $60 per airplane.
Should an operator be required to accomplish the necessary x-ray
inspection, it would 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 any necessary x-ray inspection action
is estimated to be $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
Should an operator be required to accomplish the necessary eddy
current inspection, it would 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 any necessary eddy current
inspection action is estimated to be $60 per airplane, per inspection
cycle.
Should an operator be required to accomplish the necessary
modification, it would take approximately 14 work hours per airplane to
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The cost of
required parts could range from $714 per airplane to as much as $1,526
per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of any necessary
modification action is estimated to be between $1,554 and $2,366 per
airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are 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.
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 49269]]
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
98-18-22 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-10738. Docket 96-NM-272-
AD.
Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -15, and -30 series airplanes, and
C-9 (military) airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC9-53-276, dated September 30, 1996; 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 (e) 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 upper cargo doorjamb, 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.
Note 4: This AD will affect principal structural element (PSE)
53.09.023 of the DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID).
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 41,000 total landings, or
within 3,000 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, perform a one-time visual inspection to determine if
the corners of the upper cargo doorjamb have been modified prior to
the effective date of this AD.
(b) If the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of this
AD reveals that the corners of the upper cargo doorjamb have not
been modified, prior to further flight, perform an x-ray inspection
to detect cracks of the fuselage skin and doubler at all corners of
the upper cargo doorjamb, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
Service Bulletin DC9-53-276, dated September 30, 1996.
(1) If no crack is detected during the x-ray inspection required
by this paragraph, accomplish the requirements of either paragraph
(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-276, dated September 30, 1996.
(i) Option 1. Repeat the x-ray inspection required by paragraph
(b) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings;
or
(ii) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify the corner skin
of the upper cargo doorjamb, in accordance with the service
bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after
accomplishment of the modification, perform an eddy current
inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the
modification, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(A) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the
modification during the eddy current inspection required by this
paragraph, 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 this
paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(2) If any crack is found during any x-ray inspection required
by this paragraph and the crack is 2 inches or less in length: Prior
to further flight, modify/repair it in accordance with the service
bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after
accomplishment of the modification, perform an eddy current
inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the
modification, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(i) If no crack is detected during the eddy current inspection
required by this paragraph, repeat the eddy current inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
(ii) If any crack is detected during any eddy current inspection
required by this paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(3) If any crack is found during any x-ray 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) If the visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of this
AD reveals that the corners of the upper cargo doorjamb have been
modified previously: Prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings
after accomplishment of that modification, or within 3,000 landings
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform
an eddy current inspection to detect cracks on the skin adjacent to
the modification, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC9-53-276, dated September 30, 1996.
(1) If no crack is detected during the eddy current inspection
required by this paragraph, repeat the eddy current inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
(2) If any crack is detected during any eddy current inspection
required by this paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD
constitutes terminating action only for certain requirements of AD
96-13-03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR 31009, dated June 19, 1996), with
respect to PSE 53.09.023, of DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document
(SID) L26-008.
(e) 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 5: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
Secs. 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.
(g) Except as provided in paragraphs (a), (b)(1)(ii)(B),
(b)(2)(ii), (b)(3), and (c)(2) of this AD, the actions shall be done
in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-276,
dated September 30, 1996. 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, 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, 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.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on October 20, 1998.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 28, 1998.
Vi L. Lipski,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-24246 Filed 9-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
