[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 174-176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-124]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 97-NM-105-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9, DC-9-80,
and C-9 (Military) Series Airplanes, and Model MD-88 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas
Model DC-9, DC-9-80, and C-9 (military) series airplanes, and Model MD-
88 airplanes, that currently requires an inspection to detect chafing
on the FIREX pipe assembly of the number one engine; and either repair
of chafed pipe assemblies or replacement of the chafed pipe assemblies
with new pipe assemblies; and modification of the FIREX and the
pneumatic sense pipe assembly clamp marriage. That AD was prompted by
reports of incidents in which the pneumatic sense pipe chafed against
the FIREX supply pipe of the number one engine. This action would
revise the applicability of the existing AD to include additional
airplanes and remove others. The actions specified by the proposed AD
are intended to prevent chafing of the FIREX supply pipe, which could
result in a hole in the pipe and consequently prevent the proper
distribution of the fire extinguishing agent within the nacelle in the
event of a fire.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 19, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 97-NM-105-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from The Boeing Company, Douglas Products 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 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: Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(562) 627-5245; fax (562) 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 97-NM-105-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-114, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 97-NM-105-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
[[Page 175]]
Discussion
On June 9, 1995, the FAA issued AD 95-12-25, amendment 39-9278 (60
FR 32579, June 23, 1995), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-9, DC-9-80, and C-9 (military) series airplanes, and Model MD-88
airplanes, to require an inspection to detect chafing on the FIREX pipe
assembly of the number one engine; and either repair of chafed pipe
assemblies or replacement of the chafed pipe assemblies with new pipe
assemblies; and modification of the FIREX and the pneumatic sense pipe
assembly clamp marriage. That action was prompted by reports of
incidents in which the pneumatic sense pipe chafed against the FIREX
supply pipe of the number one engine. The requirements of that AD are
intended to prevent chafing of the FIREX supply pipe, which could
result in a hole in the pipe and consequently prevent the proper
distribution of the fire extinguishing agent within the nacelle in the
event of a fire.
Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule
Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has reviewed and approved
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 26-25, dated May 25, 1994;
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-26-025, Revision 03, dated July
25, 1996; and McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-26-025, Revision
04, dated April 30, 1997. The inspection procedures described in the
original version, Revision 03, and Revision 04 are identical to those
described in Revision 1 and Revision 2 of the service bulletin (which
were referenced in AD 95-12-25 as the appropriate sources of service
information). Revision 04 of the service bulletin expands the
effectivity listing to include additional airplanes that are subject to
the addressed unsafe condition and removes other airplanes from the
effectivity listing.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would supersede AD 95-12-25 to continue to require an
inspection to detect chafing on the FIREX pipe assembly of the number
one engine; and either repair of chafed pipe assemblies or replacement
of the chafed pipe assemblies with new pipe assemblies; and
modification of the FIREX and the pneumatic sense pipe assembly clamp
marriage. The proposed AD would revise the applicability of the
existing AD to include additional airplanes and remove others. The
actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the
service bulletin described previously.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 1,691 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9, DC-9-
80, and C-9 (military) series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes of
the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 834
airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 95-12-25, and
retained in this proposed AD, take approximately 1 work hour per
airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
The cost of required parts will be nominal. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $50,040, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
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 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 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9278 (60 FR
32579, June 23, 1995), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 97-NM-105-AD. Supersedes AD 95-12-25,
Amendment 39-9278.
Applicability: Model DC-9-30, -40, and -50 series airplanes;
Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87
(MD-87) series airplanes; Model MD-88 airplanes; and C-9 (military)
series airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
DC9-26-025, Revision 04, dated April 30, 1997; 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) 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 chafing of the FIREX supply pipe, which could result
in a hole in the pipe and consequently prevent the proper
distribution of the fire extinguishing agent within the nacelle in
the event of a fire, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 8 months after the effective date of this AD, perform
an inspection to detect chafing of the FIREX pipe assembly of the
number one engine, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service
Bulletin 26-25, dated May 25, 1994; McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service
Bulletin 26-25, Revision 1, dated September 30, 1994; McDonnell
Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 26-25, Revision 2, dated April 18,
1995; McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-26-025, Revision 03,
dated July 25, 1996; or McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-26-
025, Revision 04, dated April 30, 1997.
(1) If any chafing is detected, prior to further flight,
accomplish paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
[[Page 176]]
and (a)(1)(ii) of this AD in accordance with the service bulletin.
Where there are differences between the requirements of this AD and
the procedures specified in the service bulletin, the AD prevails.
(i) Either repair chafed pipe assemblies or replace chafed pipe
assemblies with new or serviceable pipe assemblies. And
(ii) Modify the FIREX and the pneumatic sense pipe assembly
clamp marriage.
(2) If no chafing is detected, prior to further flight, modify
the FIREX and the pneumatic sense pipe assembly clamp marriage in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(b) 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 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 29, 1997.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-124 Filed 1-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P