[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 637-640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-262]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-195-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9
(Military) Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD), which would have superseded an existing AD that is
applicable to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9 (military) series
airplanes. The existing AD currently requires the implementation of a
program of structural inspections to detect and correct fatigue
cracking in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's original fatigue design
life goal. The previously proposed action would have required, among
other things, revision of the existing program to require additional
visual inspections of additional structure. The previously proposed
action was prompted by new data submitted by the manufacturer
indicating that certain revisions to the program are necessary in order
to increase the confidence level of the statistical program to ensure
timely detection of cracks in various airplane structures. This action
revises the proposed rule by deleting the requirement to perform
certain visual inspections of Fleet Leader Operator Sampling (FLOS)
Principal Structural Elements (PSE). The actions specified by this
proposed AD are intended to prevent fatigue cracking that could
compromise the structural integrity of these airplanes.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-NM-195-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
[[Page 638]]
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 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
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sol Davis or David Hsu, Aerospace
Engineers, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (310) 627-5233
for Mr. Davis, or (310) 627-5323 for Mr. Hsu; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 94-NM-195-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 94-NM-195-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9 (military) series airplanes, was
published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register on May 16, 1995 (60 FR 26007). That NPRM would have required
implementation of a program of structural inspections to detect and
correct fatigue cracking in order to ensure the continued airworthiness
of these airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's original fatigue
design life goal. That NPRM was prompted by new data submitted by the
manufacturer indicating that certain revisions to the program were
necessary in order to increase the confidence level of the statistical
program to ensure timely detection of cracks in various airplane
structures. That condition, if not corrected, could result in fatigue
cracking that could compromise the structural integrity of these
airplanes.
Since the issuance of that NPRM, the FAA has received a comment
from the manufacturer that has caused the FAA to reconsider its
position on certain aspects of the proposed rule.
McDonnell Douglas requests a revision of paragraph (b)(1) of the
proposal for clarification purposes. The manufacturer notes that the
proposal states that operators are required to inspect airplanes before
the threshold (Nth); however, the proposal does not clearly
indicate that operators do not receive credit for these inspections in
the Supplemental Inspection Document (SID) program, unless the aircraft
has exceeded one-half of that threshold (Nth/2). The FAA concurs.
The FAA has revised proposed paragraph (b)(1) to indicate that the
inspections are to be performed prior to reaching the threshold
(Nth), but no earlier than Nth/2.
McDonnell Douglas also requests the deletion of the requirement to
visually inspect the Fleet Leader Operator Sampling (FLOS) Principal
Structural Elements (PSE) that are proposed in paragraph (b)(3). The
manufacturer states that these requirements are redundant to those
required by AD 92-22-08 R1, amendment 39-8591 (58 FR 32281, June 9,
1993), which requires the implementation of a corrosion prevention and
control program to inspect all primary structure, including all PSE's.
The FAA concurs. Paragraph (b)(3) from the original NPRM has been
deleted, and a new NOTE 3 has been added to this supplemental NPRM to
indicate that these visual inspections are not required. However, the
visual inspections that are part of the Non Destructive Inspection
(NDI) procedures specified in Section 2 of Volume II of the SID would
still be required by this AD action. Additionally, paragraph (b)(4)
from the originally proposed rule, which would have required certain
general visual inspections, has been deleted from this supplemental
NPRM since the requirement to perform visual inspections of FLOS PSE's
are no longer required by this AD action.
Also, since issuance of the original NPRM, the FAA has reviewed and
approved Volume III-95 of the SID, dated September 1995, which
eliminates the visual FLOS inspections that were contained in Volume
III-94 of the SID, dated July 1994. Volume III-94 was referenced in the
original NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for
performing visual inspections of PSE's. Therefore, paragraph (b) of
this supplemental NPRM has been revised to reference Volume III-95 as
the appropriate source of service information.
Since these changes significantly revise the originally proposed
rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.
Although other comments were received in response to the original
NPRM, those comments, as well as any other received in response to this
supplemental NPRM, will be addressed in the final rule.
There are approximately 889 Model DC-9 and C-9 (military) series
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA
estimates that 568 airplanes of U.S. registry and 38 U.S. operators
would be affected by this proposed AD.
Incorporation of the SID program into an operator's maintenance
program, as required by AD 94-03-01, is estimated to necessitate 1,062
work hours (per operator), at an average labor rate of $60 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the cost to the 38 affected U.S.
operators to incorporate the SID program is estimated to be $2,421,360.
The incorporation of the revised procedures proposed in this AD
action would require approximately 20 additional work hours per
operator to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost to the 38 affected U.S. operators to
incorporate these revised
[[Page 639]]
procedures into the SID program into an operator's maintenance program
is estimated to be $45,600.
The recurring inspection costs, as required by AD 94-03-01, are
estimated to be 362 work hours per airplane per year, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the recurring
inspection costs required by AD 94-01-03 are estimated to be $21,720
per airplane, or $12,336,960 for the affected U.S. fleet.
The recurring inspection procedures added to the program by this
proposed AD action would not add any new additional economic burden on
affected operators since certain inspections would be added while
others would be deleted.
Based on the figures discussed above, the cost impact of this AD is
estimated to be $12,382,560 for the first year, and $12,336,960 for
each year thereafter. These cost impact figures discussed above is
based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the
proposed requirements of this AD action. However, it can be reasonably
be assumed that the majority of the affected operators have already
initiated the SID program (as required by AD 94-03-01).
Additionally, the number of required work hours for each proposed
inspection (and for the SID program), as indicated above, is presented
as if the accomplishment of those actions were to be conducted as
``stand alone'' actions. However, in actual practice, these actions for
the most part will be accomplished coincidentally or in combination
with normally scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance
program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of necessary additional
work hours will be minimal in many instances. Further, any cost
associated with special airplane scheduling can be expected to be
minimal.
The regulations proposed herein would 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
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, 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 copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
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 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8807 (59 FR
6538, February 11, 1994), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 94-NM-195-AD. Supersedes AD 94-03-01,
Amendment 39-8807.
Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, -50, and C-9
(military) series airplanes; certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure the continuing structural integrity of these
airplanes, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after March 14, 1994 (the effective date of
AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8807), incorporate a revision into the
FAA-approved maintenance inspection program which provides for
inspection(s) of the Principal Structural Elements (PSE) defined in
McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID),'' Section 2 of Volume I of Revision 3, dated April
1991, in accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-92, dated July
1992, of the SID.
(1) Visual inspections of all PSE's on airplanes listed in
Volume III-92, dated July 1992, of the SID planning data, are
required by the fleet leader-operator sampling (FLOS) program at
least once during the interval between the start date (SDATE) and
the end date (EDATE) established for each PSE. These visual
inspections are defined in Section 3 of Volume II, dated April 1991,
of the SID, and are required only for those airplanes that have not
been inspected previously in accordance with Section 2 of Volume II,
dated April 1991, of the SID.
(2) The Non Destructive Inspection (NDI) techniques set forth in
Section 2 of Volume II, dated April 1991, of the SID provide
acceptable methods for accomplishing the inspections required by
this paragraph.
(3) All inspection results (negative or positive) must be
reported to McDonnell Douglas, in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III-92, dated July 1992, of the
SID. Information collection requirements contained in this
regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0056.
Note 1: Volume II, dated April 1991, of the SID is comprised of
the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Volume designation- level shown
on volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20-........................................... 3
Volume II-20/30-........................................... 4
Volume II-40-.............................................. 3
Volume II-50-.............................................. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 2: NDI inspections accomplished in accordance with the
following Volume II of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume designation- Revision level- Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20-................. 3-................ Apr. 1991.
Volume II-10/20-................. 2-................ Apr. 1990.
Volume II-10/20-................. 1-................ June 1989.
Volume II/20-.................... Original-......... Nov. 1987.
Volume II-20/30-................. 4-................ Apr. 1991.
Volume II-20/30-................. 3-................ Apr. 1990.
Volume II-20/30-................. 2-................ June 1989.
Volume II-20/30-................. 1-................ Nov. 1987.
Volume II-40-.................... 3-................ Apr. 1991.
Volume II-40-.................... 2-................ Apr. 1990.
Volume II-40-.................... 1-................ June 1989.
Volume II-40-.................... Original-......... Nov. 1987.
Volume II-50-.................... 3-................ Apr. 1991.
Volume II-50-.................... 2-................ Apr. 1990.
Volume II-50-.................... 1-................ June 1989.
Volume II-50-.................... Original-......... Nov. 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
the revision of the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, with a revision that provides
for inspection(s) of the PSE's defined in McDonnell Douglas Report
No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),''
Section 2 of Volume I of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-008, ``DC-
9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Revision 4, dated July
1993, in accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-95, dated September
1995, of the SID.
Note 3: Operators should note that certain visual inspections of
FLOS PSE's that were previously specified in earlier revisions of
Volume III of the SID are no longer specified in Volume III-95 of
the SID.
(1) Prior to reaching the threshold (Nth), but no earlier
than one-half of the threshold (Nth/2), specified for all PSE's
listed in Volume
[[Page 640]]
III-95, dated September 1995, of the SID, inspect each PSE sample in
accordance with the NDI procedures set forth in Section 2 of Volume
II, dated July 1993. Thereafter, repeat the inspection for that PSE
at intervals not to exceed DNDI/2 of the NDI procedure that is
specified in Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of the SID.
(2) The NDI techniques set forth in Section 2 of Volume II,
dated July 1993, of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph.
(3) All inspection results (negative or positive) must be
reported to McDonnell Douglas, in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of
the SID. Information collection requirements contained in this
regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0056.
Note 4: Volume II, dated July 1993, of the SID is comprised of
the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Volume designation- level shown
on volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20-........................................... 4
Volume II-20/30-........................................... 5
Volume II-40-.............................................. 4
Volume II-50-.............................................. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 5: NDI inspections accomplished in accordance with the
following Volume II of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume designation Revision level Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20.................. 4................. July 1993.
Volume II-10/20.................. 3................. Apr. 1991.
Volume II-10/20.................. 2................. Apr. 1990.
Volume II-10/20.................. 1................. June 1989.
Volume II/20..................... Original.......... Nov. 1987.
Volume II-20/30.................. 5................. July 1993.
Volume II-20/30.................. 4................. Apr. 1991.
Volume II-20/30.................. 3................. Apr. 1990.
Volume II-20/30.................. 2................. June 1989.
Volume II-20/30.................. 1................. Nov. 1987.
Volume II-40..................... 4................. July 1993.
Volume II-40..................... 3................. Apr. 1991.
Volume II-40..................... 2................. Apr. 1990.
Volume II-40..................... 1................. June 1989.
Volume II-40..................... Original.......... Nov. 1987.
Volume II-50..................... 4................. July 1993.
Volume II-50..................... 3................. Apr. 1991.
Volume II-50..................... 2................. Apr. 1990.
Volume II-50..................... 1................. June 1989.
Volume II-50..................... Original.......... Nov. 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Any cracked structure detected during the inspections
required by either paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate.
Note 6: Requests for approval of any PSE repair that would
affect the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that is
required by this AD should include a damage tolerance assessment for
that PSE.
(d) 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. Alternative methods of compliance
previously granted for AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8807, continue to
be considered as acceptable alternative methods of compliance with
this amendment.
Note 7: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 3, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-262 Filed 1-08-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U