[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 183 (Tuesday, September 22, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50487-50490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-25030]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-244-AD; Amendment 39-10775; AD 98-20-08]
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 and C-9 (military)
series airplanes, that requires visual and eddy current inspections to
detect cracking of the frame-to-longeron attachment area, the frame-to-
skin shear clips at certain fuselage stations, and the fuselage
bulkhead at the front spar of the engine pylon in the aft fuselage; and
repair, if necessary. This AD also requires certain modifications
which, when accomplished, will terminate the requirement for
inspections. This amendment is prompted by reports indicating that
fatigue cracking has occurred at those areas. The actions specified by
this AD are intended to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could
cause damage to adjacent structure and result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.
DATES: Effective October 27, 1998.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 27, 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 and C-9 (military) series airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on January 27, 1997 (62 FR 3837). That action proposed to
require eddy current inspections to detect cracking of the frame-to-
longeron attachment area, the frame-to-skin shear clips at certain
fuselage stations, and the fuselage bulkhead at the front spar of the
engine pylon in the aft fuselage; and repair, if necessary. That action
also proposed to require certain modifications, which, when
accomplished, would terminate the requirement for inspections.
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.
Requests Concerning Cost Impact Information
Three commenters object to the FAA's estimated cost of inspection
and modification, and state that the time required to perform the
actions is actually greater than that specified in the cost impact
information of the proposed AD. One commenter requests that the
compliance time for the proposed initial inspections to be accomplished
in accordance with Revision 05 of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
DC9-53-140 and Revision 2 of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin
53-150, and for the repetitive inspections to be accomplished in
accordance with Revision 2 of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin
53-150, be increased from 4,000 to 5,000 landings. According to the
commenter, that increase would allow the inspections to be performed in
conjunction with related scheduled maintenance activities and thereby
lower the cost of compliance.
Another commenter requests that accurate cost impact figures be
reflected in the final rule since it will have a significant economic
impact on operators. One other commenter disagrees with the labor
estimates provided in the proposal, and notes that the terminating
action (modification) figures omit access and close up time. The
commenter does not object to the
[[Page 50488]]
terminating action, but suggests that the FAA withdraw the proposed AD
until the proper figures are developed to ascertain financial impact.
The FAA does not concur with these commenters' requests. With
regard to the commenter's request to extend the compliance times for
economic reasons, the FAA has determined that 4,000 landings for the
initial and repetitive inspections is the maximum number of landings in
which the safety of the affected airplanes can be ensured. The
commenters provided no data indicating that extending the compliance
time would result in an acceptable level of safety. Additionally, the
number of work hours necessary to accomplish the required actions was
provided to the FAA by the manufacturer based on the best data
available to date. The FAA acknowledges that the cost impact
information, below, describes only the ``direct'' costs of the specific
actions required by this AD. The FAA recognizes that, in accomplishing
the requirements of any AD, operators may incur ``incidental'' costs in
addition to the ``direct'' costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking
actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs, such as
the time required to gain access and close up; planning time; or time
necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs
may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost
impossible to calculate.
Clarification of Requirements of This AD
One commenter notes that the airplanes affected by paragraph (a) of
the proposal should be clarified to exclude airplanes covered by
paragraph (b) by adding the phrase ``except as provided by paragraph
(b).'' Additionally, the commenter states that the requirement for only
paragraph (a)(1), to be accomplished prior to or in conjunction with
paragraph (a)(2), is unacceptable, since it negates the inspection
provision allowed in paragraph (b). The commenter suggests that
compliance with either paragraph (a)(1) or (b) is acceptable and should
be so stated.
Two commenters also note that the compliance time for the initial
inspection in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin
53-150 should include provisions for airplanes inspected previously in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Corrosion Prevention Control Program
(CPCP).
The FAA finds that clarification of these requirements is
necessary. The proposed AD does not clearly specify that, for airplanes
subject to the requirements of paragraph (b), the actions specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed AD are not required since those
actions are the same. Additionally, although the proposed AD specifies
that the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) must be accomplished prior to
or in conjunction with paragraph (a)(2), if an operator accomplishes
paragraph (b) of the proposal, the requirements of that paragraph also
must be accomplished prior to or in conjunction with paragraph (a)(2)
of the proposed AD. The FAA concurs that if inspections have been
accomplished previously in accordance with the CPCP, credit should be
given to operators in order to extend the compliance time for
accomplishment of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-150, as
specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) of the proposed rule.
In order to address these considerations, this final rule has been
reformatted as follows:
--Paragraph (a) of the final rule addresses only airplanes listed in
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-140, including those that
have been inspected previously using visual techniques in accordance
with CPCP. This new paragraph (a) requires accomplishment of the
inspections required in Service Bulletin DC9-53-140.
--Paragraph (b) of the final rule addresses only airplanes listed in
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-150, including those that
have been inspected previously using visual techniques in accordance
with CPCP. This new paragraph (b) requires accomplishment of the
inspections required in DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-150.
--Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this final rule address all requirements
contained previously in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the
proposed rule.
Requirements of This AD and AD 96-10-11
The commenters point out conflicts between the requirements of this
proposed AD and AD 96-10-11. Two commenters suggest that the proposed
AD should state clearly that it either supersedes the modification
requirements of AD 96-10-11 (in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
Service Bulletin DC9-53-140 and McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin
53-150), or that it provides an alternative method of compliance with
that AD.
One commenter recommends changing the proposal to require only the
repetitive inspections or, alternatively, to remove the actions
specified in the two service bulletins discussed previously from AD 96-
10-11. The commenter states that the potential overlap of compliance
times specified in this proposed AD and in AD 96-10-11 will cause
confusion and could result in airplanes being out of compliance.
The FAA finds that clarification is necessary. The FAA does not
intend that duplicative requirements be included in AD 96-10-11 and
this final rule. Therefore, since accomplishment of the modification
specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-150 is already
required by AD 96-10-11, the FAA has revised paragraph (d) of this
final rule to remove that modification requirement from this AD. [The
modification requirement was specified in paragraph (f)(2) of the
proposed rule.] Additionally, costs associated with accomplishment of
that modification have been removed from the cost impact information,
below.
However, accomplishment of the modification described in Revision 3
of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-140 is required by AD 96-
10-11, whereas this AD requires accomplishment of Revision 05 of that
service bulletin. The effectivity listing of Revision 05 of the service
bulletin identifies additional airplanes that are subject to the
identified unsafe condition. In light of this, the FAA finds that the
modification described in that service bulletin must be accomplished on
the additional airplanes identified in Revision 05 of the service
bulletin, and has revised paragraph (d) of this final rule [paragraph
(f)(1) of the proposal] to include that requirement. Further, a note
has been added to this final rule to indicate that the modification
requirement for airplanes identified in Revision 3 of the service
bulletin is specified in AD 96-10-11.
In addition, the final rule has been revised to include a new
paragraph (e), which states that accomplishment of the inspection
requirements of this AD constitute terminating action for the
corresponding inspection requirements of AD 96-10-11.
Request To Allow 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
[[Page 50489]]
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), which
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, Douglas Products Division (DPD),
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.
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 569 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 series
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet.
The FAA estimates that 403 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 6 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the required inspections, and that the average
labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the inspections on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$145,080, or $360 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The FAA estimates that it will take approximately 174 work hours
per airplane to accomplish the required modification of longeron-to-
frame attachment area and the frame-to-skin shear clips of the aft
fuselage. The cost of required parts will differ, depending on whether
the airplane is categorized as a Group 1 airplane or a Group 2
airplane, as defined in the applicable service bulletin. Required parts
will cost approximately $13,669 per airplane for Group 1 airplanes, and
$10,285 per airplane for Group 2 airplanes. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of this modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$24,109 per airplane for Group 1 airplanes, and $20,725 per airplane
for Group 2 airplanes.
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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
98-20-08 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-10775. Docket 96-NM-244-
AD.
Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, -50 series
airplanes, and C-9 (military) 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 (f) 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 ensure that fatigue cracking of the frame-to-longeron
attachment area and the frame-to-skin shear clips in the aft
fuselage is detected and corrected in a timely manner so as to
prevent damage to adjacent structure, which could result in loss of
the capability of the engine pylon to support engine loads and
possible separation of the engine from the airplane, accomplish the
following:
(a) For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
DC9-53-140, Revision 05, dated February 15, 1996: Perform an eddy
current inspection to detect cracking of the longeron-to-frame
attachment area and frame-to-skin shear clips of the aft fuselage,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of that service
bulletin at the time specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this
AD, as applicable. For airplanes subject to the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this AD, the inspection shall be accomplished prior
to, or in conjunction with, accomplishment of that paragraph.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 12,500
landings until the modification specified in paragraph (d) of this
AD is accomplished.
(1) For airplanes that have not been previously inspected using
visual inspection techniques in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
Corrosion Prevention Control Program (CPCP), Document MDC-K4606,
Revision 1, dated December 1990, perform the initial inspection
prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total landings, or within 4,000
landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
(2) For airplanes that have been previously inspected using
visual inspection techniques in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
CPCP, perform the initial inspection within 8,500 landings after the
previous visual inspection, or within 4,000 landings after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(b) For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service
Bulletin 53-150,
[[Page 50490]]
Revision 2, dated February 27, 1991: Perform a visual and eddy
current inspection to detect cracking of the fuselage bulkhead at
the front spar of the engine pylon of the aft fuselage, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of that service
bulletin, at the time specified in subparagraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of
this AD, as applicable. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at
intervals not to exceed 4,000 landings until the modification
specified in the service bulletin (and required by AD 96-10-11) is
accomplished.
(1) For airplanes that have not been previously inspected using
visual inspection techniques in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
Corrosion Prevention Control Program (CPCP), Document MDC-K4606,
Revision 1, dated December 1990, perform the initial inspection
prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total landings, or within 4,000
landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
(2) For airplanes that have been previously inspected using
visual inspection techniques in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
CPCP, perform the initial inspection within 5,000 landings after the
previous visual inspection, or within 4,000 landings after the
effective date of this AD, which ever occurs later.
(c) If any cracking is detected during any inspection required
by this AD, prior to further flight, repair the cracking in
accordance with either McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-
140, Revision 05, dated February 15, 1996; or McDonnell Douglas DC-9
Service Bulletin 53-150, Revision 2, dated February 27, 1991; as
applicable.
(d) For airplanes that are identified in McDonnell Douglas
Service Bulletin DC9-53-140, Revision 05, dated February 15, 1996,
but are not identified in Revision 3 of that service bulletin: Prior
to the accumulation of 86,000 total landings, or within 4 years
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, modify
the longeron-to-frame attachment area and frame-to-skin shear clips,
in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-140,
Revision 05, dated February 15, 1996. Accomplishment of this
modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
Note 2: Airplanes identified in Revision 3 of McDonnell Douglas
Service Bulletin DC9-53-140 are required to accomplish the
modification specified in paragraph (d) of this AD in accordance
with the requirements of AD 96-10-11.
(e) Accomplishment of the inspection requirements of this AD
constitutes terminating action for the corresponding inspection
requirements of AD 96-10-11 (which are required to be accomplished
in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-140,
Revision 3, dated March 12, 1986, and McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service
Bulletin 53-150, Revision 2, dated February 27, 1991).
(f) 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 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(g) 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.
(h) The actions shall be accomplished in accordance with
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-140, Revision 05, dated
February 15, 1996; and McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-
150, Revision 2, dated February 27, 1991, as applicable. 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.
(i) This amendment becomes effective on October 27, 1998.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 14, 1998.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-25030 Filed 9-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
