[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