[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55732-55735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22133]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 55732]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NM-78-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas DC-9-10, -20, -30, -
40, and -50 Series 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 
DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes. The existing AD 
requires a one-time visual inspection to determine the modification 
status of the corners of the forward lower cargo doorjamb; low-
frequency eddy current inspections to detect cracks of the fuselage 
skin and doubler at all corners of the forward lower cargo doorjamb; 
various follow-on repetitive inspections; and modification, if 
necessary. This action would retain those requirements but would 
require certain high-frequency, rather than low-frequency, eddy current 
inspections for certain conditions. The actions specified by the 
proposed AD are intended to detect and correct cracking, which could 
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane. This action is intended to 
address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-78-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this 
location between 9 a.m. and 3 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-78-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; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical Information: Wahib Mina, 
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 
California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5324; fax (562) 627-5210.
    Other Information: Sandi Carli, Airworthiness Directive Technical 
Editor/Writer; telephone (425) 687-4243, fax (425) 227-1232. Questions 
or comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following 
address: [email protected]. Questions or comments sent via the 
Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft 
Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.

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 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-78-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-78-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    On April 9, 1998, the FAA issued AD 98-08-24, amendment 39-10473 
(63 FR 19180, April 17, 1998), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas 
Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes, and Model C-9 
(military) airplanes, to require a one-time visual inspection to 
determine the modification status of the corners of the forward lower 
cargo doorjamb; low-frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections to detect 
cracks of the fuselage skin and doubler at all corners of the forward 
lower cargo doorjamb; various follow-on repetitive inspections; and 
modification, if necessary. That action was prompted by reports of 
fatigue cracks found in the fuselage skin

[[Page 55733]]

and doubler at the corners of the forward lower cargo doorjamb. The 
requirements of that AD are intended to detect and correct such fatigue 
cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and 
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

    Since the issuance of that AD, the manufacturer has advised the FAA 
of an error in the procedures for inspecting the modified or repaired 
corners of the forward lower cargo doorjamb. The service bulletin 
identified in AD 98-08-24 refers to the DC-9 Structural Repair Manual 
(SRM), which specified that those inspections be done using LFEC 
methods. The FAA and the manufacturer have determined that LFEC 
inspections would be inadequate to determine the type and extent of the 
cracking for the modified or repaired corners of the forward lower 
cargo doorjamb. The manufacturer instead recommends that those 
inspections be done using high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) methods 
for those modified or repaired corners. The SRM has been revised to 
specify use of the new inspection method.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Service Bulletin DC9-
53-277, Revision 01, dated June 16, 1999. The original version of this 
service bulletin, dated September 30, 1996, was cited in AD 98-08-24 as 
the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of 
certain required actions. The revised service bulletin refers to the 
revised SRM, which specifies HFEC rather than LFEC inspections of the 
modified or repaired corners. The remaining actions are unchanged. 
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is 
intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

Related Rulemaking

    Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD constitutes 
terminating action for inspections of Principal Structural Element 
53.09.001 (reference McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 SID) required by AD 
96-13-03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR 31009, June 19, 1996).

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 98-08-24 to continue to require a one-
time inspection to determine the modification status of all corners of 
the forward lower cargo doorjamb, various follow-on repetitive 
inspections, and modification if necessary; and to require HFEC (rather 
than the currently required LFEC) inspections to detect cracks of the 
fuselage skin and doubler at the modified or repaired corners of the 
forward lower cargo doorjamb. The actions would be required to be 
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described 
previously, except as discussed in the following section.

Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

    Although the service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may 
be contacted for disposition of certain repair conditions, this 
proposal would require the repair of those conditions to be 
accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.

Explanation of Changes to Existing Requirements

    Paragraph (d) of AD 98-08-24 has been revised in this proposed AD 
to provide an additional compliance time variable for operators unable 
to determine the date of the modification, if accomplished.
    The FAA has clarified the inspection requirement contained in the 
proposed AD. Whereas AD 98-08-24 requires a ``visual inspection,'' the 
FAA has revised this proposed AD to clarify that its intent is to 
require a ``general visual inspection.'' Additionally, new Note 4 has 
been added to this proposed AD to define that inspection.
    The FAA has revised the applicability of the existing AD to 
identify model designations as published in the most recent type 
certificate data sheet for the affected models.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 899 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 622 airplanes of U.S. registry 
would be affected by this proposed AD.
    The inspection that is currently required by AD 98-08-24, and 
retained in this proposed AD, takes approximately 1 work hour 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 is estimated to be $60 per airplane.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish an eddy current 
inspection, it would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to 
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of an eddy current inspection proposed 
by this AD is estimated to be $60 per airplane.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish the modification, it 
would take approximately 14 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at 
an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost 
approximately $936 or $2,807 per airplane, depending on the service kit 
purchased. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification 
required by this AD is estimated to be $1,776 or $3,647 per airplane.
    No change to the parts cost or work hour estimate is anticipated as 
a result of the new actions included in this proposed AD.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions 
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements 
of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions 
in the future if this proposed 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.

[[Page 55734]]

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 39-10473 (63 FR 
19180, April 17, 1998), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD), to read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2001-NM-78-AD. Supersedes AD 98-08-24, 
Amendment 39-10473.

    Applicability: Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-
15, and DC-9-15F airplanes; DC-9-21 airplanes; DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-
9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, and DC-9-32F 
(C-9A, C-9B) airplanes; DC-9-41 airplanes; and DC-9-51 airplanes; 
certificated in any category; as listed in McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC9-53-277, Revision 01, dated June 16, 1999.

    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)(1) 
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 detect and correct cracking in the fuselage skin or doubler 
at the corner of the forward lower cargo doorjamb, which could 
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:

    Note 2: Where there are differences between the service bulletin 
and the AD, the AD prevails.


    Note 3: This AD is related to AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671; 
and AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8807. This AD will affect Principal 
Structural Element (PSE) 53.09.001 of the DC-9 Supplemental 
Inspection Document (SID).

One-time Inspection

    (a) Prior to the accumulation of 48,000 total landings, or 
within 3,500 landings after May 22, 1998 (the effective date of AD 
98-08-24, amendment 39-10473), whichever occurs later: Perform a 
one-time general visual inspection to determine if the corners of 
the forward lower cargo doorjamb have been modified.

    Note 4: 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 from within 
touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be 
necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the 
inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally 
available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, 
flashlight, or droplight 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.''

Follow-On Actions: Unmodified Doorjamb

    (b) If the general visual inspection required by paragraph (a) 
of this AD reveals that the corners of the forward lower cargo 
doorjamb have NOT been modified: Before further flight, perform a 
low-frequency eddy current (LFEC) or X-ray inspection to detect 
cracks of the fuselage skin and doubler at all corners of the 
forward lower cargo doorjamb, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC9-53-277, dated September 30, 1996; or Revision 
01, dated June 16, 1999. After the effective date of this AD, 
Revision 1 of the service bulletin must be used.
    (1) If no cracking is detected during the LFEC or X-ray 
inspection required by this paragraph, accomplish the requirements 
of either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Option 1. Repeat the inspections as follows until the 
actions specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this AD is 
accomplished:
    (A) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using 
LFEC techniques, conduct the next inspection within 3,500 landings; 
or
    (B) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using 
X-ray techniques, conduct the next inspection within 2,850 landings.
    (ii) Option 2. Before further flight, modify the corners of the 
forward lower cargo doorjamb, in accordance with the service 
bulletin. Within 28,000 landings after accomplishment of that 
modification, perform a high-frequency eddy current inspection to 
detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the modification, in 
accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the HFEC inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (A) If no crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by this paragraph: 
Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 
20,000 landings.
    (B) If any crack is detected on the skin adjacent to the 
modification during any HFEC inspection required by this paragraph: 
Before further flight, repair it in accordance with a method 
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA.
    (2) If any crack is found during any LFEC or X-ray inspection 
required by this paragraph and the crack is 2 inches or less in 
length: Before further flight, modify it in accordance with the 
service bulletin. Within 28,000 landings after accomplishment of the 
modification, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks on the 
skin adjacent to the modification, in accordance with the service 
bulletin.
    (i) If no crack is detected during the HFEC inspection required 
by this paragraph: Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (ii) If any crack is detected during the HFEC inspection 
required by this paragraph: Before further flight, repair it in 
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (3) If any crack is found during any LFEC or X-ray inspection 
required by this paragraph and the crack is greater than 2 inches in 
length: Before further flight, repair it in accordance with a method 
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Follow-On Actions: Doorjamb Modified per Other Than SRM/Drawing

    (c) If the general visual inspection required by paragraph (a) 
of this AD reveals that the corners of the forward lower cargo 
doorjamb HAVE been modified, but not in accordance with the DC-9 
Structural Repair Manual (SRM) or Service Rework Drawing: Before 
further flight, repair it in accordance with a method approved by 
the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Follow-On Actions: Doorjamb Modified per SRM/Drawing

    (d) If the general visual inspection required by paragraph (a) 
of this AD reveals that the corners of the forward lower cargo 
doorjamb HAVE been modified in accordance with the DC-9 SRM or 
Service Rework Drawing: Within 28,000 landings since accomplishment 
of that modification, or within 3,500 landings after May 22, 1998, 
or before the accumulation of 48,000 total landings, whichever 
occurs latest, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks on the 
skin adjacent to the modification, in accordance with McDonnell 
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-277, dated September 30, 1996; or 
Revision 01, dated June 16, 1999. After the effective date of this 
AD, Revision 01 of the service bulletin must be used. Repeat the 
HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 
landings.
    (1) If no crack is detected during any HFEC inspection required 
by this paragraph: Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (2) If any crack is detected during any HFEC inspection required 
by this paragraph: Before further flight, repair it in accordance 
with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (e) Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD 
constitutes terminating action for inspections of PSE 53.09.001 
(reference McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 SID)

[[Page 55735]]

required by AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (f)(1) 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, 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.
    (2) Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance 
with AD 98-08-24; AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8807; or AD 96-13-03, 
amendment 39-9671; are acceptable for compliance with the applicable 
requirements of this AD.
    (3) An alternative method of compliance for any inspection or 
repair required by this AD that provides an acceptable level of 
safety may be used in accordance with data meeting the type 
certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company 
Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the 
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make such findings.

    Note 5: 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

    (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.


    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 20, 2002.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-22133 Filed 8-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P