[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38200-38203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17599]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NM-206-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 
Series Airplanes; Model MD-88 Airplanes; and C-9 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-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC-9-81, 
-82, -83, and -87 series airplanes; Model MD-88 airplanes; and C-9 
airplanes; that currently requires repetitive inspections to detect 
cracking of the rudder pedal adjuster hub assembly, and replacement of 
the assembly, if necessary. That AD also provides for an optional 
terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This action would 
require accomplishment of a new terminating action for the repetitive 
inspections. This proposal is prompted by that FAA's determination that 
further rulemaking is necessary. The actions specified by the proposed 
AD are intended to prevent loss of rudder pedal control and reduction 
of braking capability.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-206-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. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. 
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 
[email protected]. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must 
contain ``Docket No. 2001-NM-206-AD'' in the subject line and need not 
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached 
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or 
ASCII text.
    The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data 
and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may 
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

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:

[[Page 38201]]

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 action may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Submit comments using the following format:
     Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a 
request to change the compliance time and a request to change the 
service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
     For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed 
AD is being requested.
     Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each 
request.
    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 action must submit a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Number 2001-NM-206-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. 2001-NM-206-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Background

    In July 1996, a Boeing Model 747 series airplane was involved in an 
accident. As part of re-examining all aspects of the service experience 
of the airplane involved in the accident, the FAA participated in 
design review and testing to determine possible sources of ignition in 
center fuel tanks. As part of the review, we examined fuel system 
wiring with regard to the possible effects that wire degradation may 
have on arc propagation.
    In 1997 in a parallel preceding, at the recommendation of the White 
House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, the FAA expanded its 
Aging Transport Program to include non-structural systems and assembled 
a team for evaluating these systems. This team performed visual 
inspections of certain transport category airplanes for which 20 years 
or more had passed since date of manufacture. In addition, the team 
gathered information from interviews with FAA Principal Maintenance 
Inspectors and meetings with representatives of airplane manufacturers. 
This evaluation revealed that the length of time in service is not the 
only cause of wire degradation; inadequate maintenance, contamination, 
improper repair, and mechanical damage are all contributing factors. 
From the compilation of this comprehensive information, we developed 
the Aging Transport Non-Structural Systems Plan to increase airplane 
safety by increasing knowledge of how non-structural systems degrade 
and how causes of degradation can be reduced.
    In 1998, an accident occurred off the coast of Nova Scotia 
involving a McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplane. 
Investigation indicates that a fire broke out in the cockpit and first 
class overhead area. Although the ignition source of the fire has not 
been determined, the FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of 
Model MD-11, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, and DC-9-80 series airplanes, is 
reviewing all aspects of the service history of those airplanes to 
identify potential unsafe conditions associated with wire degradation 
due to various contributing factors (e.g., inadequate maintenance, 
contamination, improper repair, and mechanical damage) and to take 
appropriate corrective actions. We have issued a series of 
airworthiness directives (AD) that address unsafe conditions identified 
during that process. This process is continuing and we may consider 
additional rulemaking actions as further results of the review become 
available. The cause of the Nova Scotia MD-11 accident has not yet been 
determined.
    In 1999, the FAA Administrator established a formal advisory 
committee to facilitate the implementation of the Aging Transport Non-
Structural Systems Plan. This committee, the Aging Transport Systems 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC), is made up of representatives 
of airplane manufacturers, operators, user groups, aerospace and 
industry associations, and government agencies. As part of its mandate, 
ATSRAC will recommend rulemaking to increase transport category 
airplane safety in cases where solutions to safety problems connected 
to aging systems have been found and must be applied. Detailed analyses 
of certain transport category airplanes that have been removed from 
service, studies of service bulletins pertaining to certain wiring 
systems, and reviews of previously issued ADs requiring repetitive 
inspections of certain flight control systems, have resulted in 
valuable information on the cause and prevention of wire degradation 
due to various contributing factors (e.g., inadequate maintenance, 
contamination, improper repair, and mechanical damage).
    In summary, as a result of the investigations described above, the 
FAA has determined that corrective action may be necessary to minimize 
the potential hazards associated with wire and mechanical flight 
control systems degradation and related causal factors (e.g., 
inadequate maintenance, contamination, improper repair, and mechanical 
damage).

Previously Issued AD 96-02-05

    On January 17, 1996, the FAA issued AD 96-02-05, amendment 39-9493 
(61 FR 6922, February 23, 1996), applicable to certain McDonnell 
Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model 
DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes; Model MD-88 airplanes; and 
C-9 airplanes; to require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of 
the rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, and replacement of the 
assembly, if necessary. That AD also provides for an optional 
terminating action for the repetitive inspections. That action was 
prompted by several occurrences of failure of the rudder pedals 
adjuster hub assembly due to broken detent lugs. The requirements of 
that AD are intended to prevent loss of rudder pedal control and 
reduction of braking capability.

Actions Since Issuance of AD 96-02-05

    Since the issuance of AD 96-02-05, the FAA has determined that 
long-term continued operational safety will be better assured by design 
changes to remove the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive 
inspections. Long-term inspections may not be providing the degree of 
safety assurance necessary for the transport airplane fleet. This, 
coupled with a better understanding of the human factors associated 
with numerous continual inspections, has led us to consider placing 
less emphasis on inspections and more emphasis on

[[Page 38202]]

design improvements. Therefore, we now have determined that further 
rulemaking action is necessary to require a terminating action for the 
repetitive inspection requirements of AD 96-02-05.

Other Related Rulemaking

    This proposed AD is one of a series of actions identified as part 
of the ATSRAC program initiative to maintain continued operational 
safety of aging non-structural systems and structural components 
related to the mechanical flight control systems in transport category 
airplanes. The program is continuing and the FAA may consider 
additional rulemaking actions as further results of the review become 
available.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC9-27-325, Revision 02, dated December 12, 1995. The service 
bulletin describes procedures for replacing a magnesium casting hub 
assembly of the rudder pedal adjuster and bearing in the rudder pedal 
mechanism between stations X=69.000 and X=120.000 in the flight 
compartment with a new aluminum assembly and bearing, and reidentifying 
the rudder pedal adjuster. Accomplishment of the actions specified in 
the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified 
unsafe condition.

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 96-02-05 to continue to require 
repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the rudder pedals adjuster 
hub assembly, and replacement of the assembly, if necessary. The 
proposed AD would require a new terminating action for the repetitive 
inspections. The terminating action would be required to be 
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described 
previously.

Explanation of Change to Applicability of AD 96-02-05

    The applicability of this proposed AD would differ from AD 96-02-05 
in that it references McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-27-325, 
Revision 02, dated December 12, 1995 (most current revision of service 
bulletin), for determining what airplanes are affected by this proposed 
AD. The applicability of AD 96-02-05 referenced McDonnell Douglas DC-9 
Alert Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995. 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-27-325 removes six airplanes 
from the effectivity of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin 
A27-325.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 1,845 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 
series airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes; 
Model MD-88 airplanes; and C-9 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,086 airplanes of U.S. 
registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
    The inspection that is currently required by AD 96-02-05 takes 
approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average 
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost 
impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated 
to be $195,480, or $180 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The new actions that are proposed in this AD action would take 
approximately 9 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average 
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost 
approximately $4,314 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost 
impact of the proposed requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is 
estimated to be $5,271,444, or $4,854 per airplane.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are 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. The cost 
impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the 
time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the 
AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as 
the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time 
necessitated by other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct 
effect 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, it 
is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 13132.
    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 39-9493 (61 FR 
6922, February 23, 1992), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD), to read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2001-NM-206-AD. Supersedes AD 96-02-05, 
Amendment 39-9493.
    Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series 
airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes; Model 
MD-88 airplanes; and C-9 series airplanes; as listed in McDonnell 
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-27-325, Revision 02, dated December 12, 
1995; 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 (d) 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 loss of rudder pedals control and reduction of 
braking capability, accomplish the following:

[[Page 38203]]

Restatment of Requirements of AD 97-02-05

Repetitive Inspections and Replacement, If Necessary

    (a) For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 
Bulletin A27-325, Revision 1, dated February 3, 1992: Prior to the 
accumulation of 15,000 landings or within 270 days after January 22, 
1993 (the effective date of AD 92-27-07, amendment 39-8441), 
whichever occurs later, conduct a visual and eddy current inspection 
to detect cracks of the rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, part 
number 4616066, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert 
Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 1, dated February 3, 1992, or 
Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995.
    (1) If no cracks are detected as a result of the inspections 
required by this paragraph, repeat the inspections at intervals not 
to exceed 3,500 landings.
    (2) If cracks are detected as a result of the inspections 
required by this paragraph, prior to further flight, replace the 
rudder pedal adjuster hub assembly, part number 4616066, with a new 
assembly having the same part number, in accordance with McDonnell 
Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 2, dated 
January 27, 1995. Thereafter, conduct visual and eddy current 
inspections of the replacement rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly 
in accordance with this paragraph.
    (b) For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service 
Bulletin A27-325, Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995, and not 
subject to paragraph (a) of this AD: Prior to the accumulation of 
15,000 landings or within 270 days after March 25, 1996 (the 
effective date of AD 96-02-05, amendment 39-9493), whichever occurs 
later, conduct a visual and eddy current inspection to detect cracks 
of the rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, part number 4616066, in 
accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-
325, Revision 1, dated February 3, 1992, or Revision 2, dated 
January 27, 1995.
    (1) If no cracks are detected as a result of the inspections 
required by this paragraph, repeat the inspections at intervals not 
to exceed 3,500 landings.
    (2) If cracks are detected as a result of the inspections 
required by this paragraph, prior to further flight, replace the 
rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, part number 4616066, with a new 
assembly having the same part number, in accordance with McDonnell 
Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 2, dated 
January 27, 1995. Thereafter, conduct visual and eddy current 
inspections of the replacement rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly 
in accordance with this paragraph.

New Actions Required By This Proposed AD

Replacement and Reidentification

    (c) Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total landings, or 
within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever 
occurs later, do the actions specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(c)(2) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions 
of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-27-325, Revision 02, dated 
December 12, 1995. Accomplishment of the these actions constitutes 
terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
    (1) Replace the existing magnesium casting hub assembly of the 
rudder pedal adjuster, part number (P/N) 4616066-3, and bearing, P/N 
AN201KP4A, in the rudder pedal mechanism between stations X=69.000 
and X=120.000 in the flight compartment with a new aluminum 
assembly, part number (P/N) 5965435-3, and new bearing, P/N MS27641-
4; and
    (2) Reidentify rudder pedal adjuster, P/N 5641294-501 or -503, 
as P/N 5641294-507.

    Note 2: Installation of the aluminum rudder pedal adjuster hub 
assembly per McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-27-325, Revision 
1, dated November 30, 1994, before the effective date of this AD, is 
considered acceptable for the requirements of paragraph (c) of this 
AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (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 Aircraft Certification 
Office (ACO), FAA. 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

    (e) 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 9, 2001.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-17599 Filed 7-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U