[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51518-51521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-21874]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2002-NM-105-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-
20, DC-9-30; DC-10-40, and DC-10-50 Series Airplanes; Model DC-9-81 
(MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) 
Airplanes; and Model MD-88 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness 
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas 
transport category airplanes. This proposal would require an inspection 
of the upper lock link assembly of the nose landing gear (NLG) to 
determine the manufacturer, repetitive eddy current inspections for 
cracking, and modification or replacement if necessary. This proposal 
also would provide for optional terminating action for the repetitive 
inspections. This action is necessary to prevent fracture of the upper 
lock link

[[Page 51519]]

assembly of the NLG, which could result in failure of the NLG to extend 
following a gear-down selection, and consequent gear-up landing, 
structural damage, and possible injury to passengers and crew. This 
action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 14, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-105-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. 2002-NM-105-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 or 2000 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: Mike Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 
Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-
5325; 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 action may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Submit comments using the following format:
    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed 
AD is being requested.
    [sbull] 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 2002-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. 2002-NM-105-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    The FAA has received a report indicating that an operator of a 
Model DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplane was unable to extend the nose landing 
gear (NLG) during landing. As a result of this problem, the operator 
landed with the nose gear up, which caused moderate damage to the nose 
gear doors, avionics door, and adjacent structure. Investigation of the 
damage revealed that the upper lock link of the NLG was completely 
fractured. Boeing has determined that tool marks and/or rough surface 
finish across the parting plane can cause stress concentration and 
cracking along the forged parting plane of the upper lock link. The 
Component Maintenance Manual is being revised to incorporate minimum 
surface finish and height requirements for the upper lock link. 
Fracture of the upper lock link assembly of the NLG could result in 
failure of the NLG to extend following a gear-down selection, and 
consequent gear-up landing, structural damage, and possible injury to 
passengers and crew.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-
32A340, dated November 14, 2001, which describes procedures for a 
visual inspection of the upper lock link assembly of the NLG to 
determine if the part was manufactured by Ready Machine and 
Manufacturing Company, and (regardless of manufacturer) repetitive high 
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the assembly, 
and modification or replacement of the assembly with a new assembly if 
cracking is found. The modification includes chemically stripping the 
lock link assembly, verifying the distance between the machined surface 
and lower surface parting line, doing a fluorescent dye penetrant 
inspection for cracking, doing another HFEC inspection for cracking, 
shotpeening the machined surface, reidentifying the reworked upper 
link, and refinishing. The service bulletin also describes an 
adjustment and test for the nose gear linkages, and provides for 
optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections if no 
cracking is found. 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 require accomplishment of the actions specified in 
the service bulletin described previously. The actions would be 
required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin 
described previously, except that the proposed AD does not require 
submitting Appendix A (report of inspection findings), and except as 
discussed below.

Difference Between Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

    The Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin describe 
procedures for completing a sheet to record and report negative 
inspection findings. However, this proposed AD would not require a 
report; we do not need this information from operators.

Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the Proposed AD

    On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 
(67 FR

[[Page 51520]]

47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives 
system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered 
products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of 
compliance. Because we have now included this material in part 39, we 
no longer need to include it in each individual AD.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 1,904 airplanes of the affected design in 
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,188 airplanes of U.S. 
registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
    It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish 
the proposed visual inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per 
work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed 
visual inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $71,280, or $60 
per airplane.
    It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish 
the proposed high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection, at an 
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the 
cost impact of the proposed HFEC inspection on U.S. operators is 
estimated to be $71,280, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    It would take approximately 11 work hours per airplane to 
accomplish the proposed modification, at an average labor rate of $60 
per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed 
modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be $784,080, or $660 per 
airplane.
    It would take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish 
the proposed replacement, at an average labor rate of $60 per work 
hour. Required parts would cost approximately $9,981 per airplane. 
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed replacement on 
U.S. operators is estimated to be $12,427,668, or $10,461 per airplane.
    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.

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 adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 200-NM-105-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-
15, and DC-9-15F airplanes; Model DC-9-21 airplanes; Model DC-9-31, 
DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B), DC-9-33F, DC-9-34 
airplanes; Model DC-9-41 airplanes; Model DC-9-51 airplanes; Model 
DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-
87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes; as listed in Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin DC9-32A340, dated November 14, 2001; certificated 
in any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent fracture of the upper lock link assembly of the nose 
landing gear (NLG), which could result in failure of the NLG to 
extend following a gear-down selection, and consequent gear-up 
landing, structural damage, and possible injury to passengers and 
crew; accomplish the following:

One-Time Inspection

    (a) Within 2,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this 
AD: Do a general visual inspection to determine if the upper lock 
link assembly of the NLG was manufactured by Ready Machine and 
Manufacturing Company (this can be identified by the letters ``RM'' 
or an ``F'' suffix adjacent to the serial numbers), per the 
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-
32A340, excluding Appendix A, dated November 14, 2001. Then do the 
actions specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD, as applicable.

    Note 1: 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.''

Repetitive Inspections/Modification or Replacement, if Necessary

    (b) If the upper lock link assembly of the NLG was manufactured 
by Ready Machine and Manufacturing Company: Within 2,500 flight 
cycles after the effective date of this AD, do a high frequency eddy 
current (HFEC) inspection of the assembly for cracking, per 
Condition 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 
Service Bulletin DC9-32A340, excluding Appendix A, dated November 
14, 2001.
    (1) If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection at intervals 
not to exceed 4,000 flight cycles until accomplishment of paragraph 
(d) of this AD.
    (2) If any cracking is found, before further flight, modify or 
replace the upper lock link assembly, as applicable, per the service 
bulletin.
    (c) If the upper lock link assembly was not manufactured by 
Ready Machine and Manufacturing Company: Within 3,500 flight cycles 
after the effective date of this AD, do a HFEC inspection of the 
assembly for cracking, per Condition 2 of the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-32A340, excluding 
Appendix A, dated November 14, 2001.
    (1) If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection at intervals 
not to exceed 4,000 flight cycles until accomplishment of paragraph 
(d) of this AD.
    (2) If any cracking is found, before further flight, modify or 
replace the upper lock link assembly, as applicable, per the service 
bulletin.

[[Page 51521]]

Optional Terminating Action

    (d) Modification or replacement of the upper lock link assembly 
of the NLG, as applicable, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-
32A340, excluding Appendix A, dated November 14, 2001, terminates 
the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (b) or (c) of this 
AD, as applicable.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (e) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve 
alternative methods of compliance for this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 21, 2003.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-21874 Filed 8-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P