[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56424-56426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26934]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 98-NM-340-AD; Amendment 39-11378; AD 99-21-32]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 series
airplanes, that requires a one-time inspection to measure clearance and
detect interference between the elevator cable pulley and the shroud
frame of the ventral stairway, and modification of the shroud frame of
the ventral stairway. This amendment is prompted by reports of pitch
oscillation of several Model MD-90-30 series airplanes. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to prevent interference between the
elevator cable pulley and the shroud frame of the ventral stairway,
which could result in pitch oscillation of the airplane, and consequent
damage to the elevator cable pulley and reduced controllability of the
airplane.
DATES: Effective November 24, 1999.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of November 24, 1999.
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, Dept. 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: Jon Mowery, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960
[[Page 56425]]
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562)
627-5322; 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
MD-90-30 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
February 9, 1999 (64 FR 6259). That action proposed to require a one-
time inspection to measure clearance and detect interference between
the elevator cable pulley and the shroud frame of the ventral stairway,
and modification of the shroud frame of the ventral stairway.
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.
Support of the Proposal
Several commenters support the proposed rule.
Request to Shorten Compliance Time
One commenter requests that the proposed 12-month compliance time
for accomplishment of the inspection specified in paragraph (a) of the
proposed AD be shortened to 90 days. The commenter asserts that the
proposed compliance time is too long in consideration of the flight
critical nature of the unsafe condition. Based on the proposed
compliance time, administrative procedure time to publish the final
rule, and a possible ``delayed'' effective date, the commenter states
that it could be 3 years or more before an operator must correct this
unsafe condition, which is an unacceptable amount of time.
The FAA does not concur. In developing an appropriate compliance
time, the FAA considered the safety implications, parts availability,
and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the
inspection. Further, the proposed compliance time was arrived at with
operator, manufacturer, and FAA concurrence. In consideration of all of
these factors, the FAA determined that the compliance time, as
proposed, represents an appropriate interval in which the inspection
can be accomplished in a timely manner within the fleet and still
maintain an adequate level of safety. Operators are always permitted to
accomplish the requirements of an AD at a time earlier than that
specified as the compliance time; therefore, if an operator elects to
accomplish the inspection prior to 12 months after the effective date
of this AD, it is that operator's prerogative to do so. If additional
data are presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, the
FAA may consider further rulemaking on this issue.
Request to Shorten the Effective Date
One commenter requests that the maximum time from issuance to the
effective date be no more than 30 days. The commenter suggests that the
proposed compliance time may be unnecessarily extended by adding in the
administrative procedures time to publish the final rule in the Federal
Register.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that Federal agencies
provide at least 30 days after publication of a final rule in the
Federal Register before making it effective, unless ``good cause'' can
be found not to do so. Under the APA, the basis for this finding is
similar to the basis for a finding of good cause to dispense with
notice and comment procedures in issuing rules. In the case of certain
AD's, the nature of the action may be of such urgency that for the FAA
to take any additional time to provide notice and opportunity for prior
public comment would be impracticable; in those cases, the FAA finds
good cause for making the rule effective in less than 30 days. In the
case of this AD action, however, the FAA did not consider that the
addressed unsafe condition was of such a critical nature that time
could not be afforded for notice and the opportunity for the public to
comment on the rule. It follows then, that there is no basis for
finding good cause for making this rule effective in less than 30 days.
For domestic final rules following notice, the FAA assigns an effective
date of 35 days after publication.
Explanation of Change Made to Proposal
The FAA has clarified the inspection requirement contained in the
proposed AD. Whereas the proposal specified a visual inspection, the
FAA has revised this final rule to clarify that its intent is to
require a general visual inspection. Additionally, a note has been
added to the final rule to define that inspection.
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 as proposed with the change
previously described. The FAA has determined that this change will
neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the
scope of the AD.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 58 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 58 airplanes of U.S. registry
will be affected by this AD.
It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish
the required inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by
this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,480, or $60 per
airplane.
It will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish
the required modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work
hour. Required parts will be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to
the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the
modification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$6,960, or $120 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.
[[Page 56426]]
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:
99-21-32 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-11378. Docket 98-NM-340-
AD.
Applicability: Model MD-90-30 series airplanes, as listed in
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin No. MD90-27-026, dated September
30, 1998; 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 (c) 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 interference between the elevator cable pulley and
the shroud frame of the ventral stairway, which could result in
pitch oscillation of the airplane, and consequent damage to the
elevator cable pulley and reduced controllability of the airplane,
accomplish the following:
Inspection
(a) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
perform a one-time general visual inspection to measure clearance
and detect interference between the elevator cable pulley and the
shroud frame of the ventral stairway in accordance with Phase 1 of
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin No. MD90-27-026, dated September
30, 1998.
Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection
is defined as: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior
area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure,
or irregularity. This level of inspection is made under normally
available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting,
flashlight, or drop-light, and may require removal or opening of
access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be
required to gain proximity to the area being checked.''
(1) If clearance is greater than or equal to 0.5 inch, and if no
interference is detected: Within 18 months after performing the
inspection, accomplish the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.
(2) If clearance is less than 0.5 inch, or if any interference
is detected: Prior to further flight, accomplish the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this AD.
Modification
(b) Modify the shroud frame of the ventral stairway in
accordance with Phase 2 of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin No.
MD90-27-026, dated September 30, 1998.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(c) 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.
Special Flight Permits
(d) 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.
Incorporation by Reference
(e) The inspection and modification shall be done in accordance
with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin No. MD90-27-026, dated
September 30, 1998. 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, Dept. 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.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on November 24, 1999.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 8, 1999.
D.L. Riggin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-26934 Filed 10-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U