[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 6, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17312-17315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6757]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2004-18561; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-13-AD; 
Amendment 39-14042; AD 2005-07-18]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15F 
Airplanes Modified In Accordance With Supplemental Type Certificate 
(STC) SA1993SO; and Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-
50 Series Airplanes in All-Cargo Configuration, Equipped With a Main-
Deck Cargo Door

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the 
airplanes listed above. For certain airplanes, this AD requires 
inspecting to determine the airplane's cargo configuration, and 
reporting findings to the FAA. For airplanes modified in accordance 
with a certain STC or with a cargo configuration that deviates from the 
as-delivered configuration, this AD requires revising certain manuals 
and manual supplements to specify certain cargo limitations. This AD 
also requires relocating all cargo restraints on the main cargo deck. 
This AD is prompted by reports that deficiencies related to the cargo 
loading system may exist on all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15F 
airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO. We are issuing this 
AD to ensure that cargo in the main cabin is adequately restrained and 
to prevent failure of components of the cargo loading system, failure 
of the floor structure, or shifting of cargo. Any of these conditions 
could cause cargo to exceed load distribution limits or cause damage to 
the fuselage or control cables, which could result in reduced 
controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 11, 2005.
    Docket: The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any 
final disposition. You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-
5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at

[[Page 17313]]

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room 
PL-401, Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2004-18561; the 
directorate identifier for this docket is 2004-NM-13-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rany Azzi, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 
One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 
30349; telephone (770) 703-6083; fax (770) 703-6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 39 
with an AD for McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15F airplanes modified in 
accordance with supplemental type certificate (STC) SA1993SO; and Model 
DC-9-11-DC-9 12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, DC-9-15F, DC-9-21, DC-9-31, 
DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, DC-9-
32F (C-9A, C-9B), DC-9-41, and DC-9-51 airplanes in all-cargo 
configuration. For certain airplanes, that action, published in the 
Federal Register on July 8, 2004 (69 FR 41204), proposed to require 
inspecting to determine the airplane's cargo configuration, and 
reporting findings to the FAA. For airplanes modified in accordance 
with a certain STC or with a cargo configuration that deviates from the 
as-delivered configuration, that action proposed to require revising 
certain manuals and manual supplements to specify certain cargo 
limitations. That action also proposed to require relocating all cargo 
restraints on the main cargo deck.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the 
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been 
submitted on the proposed AD.

Support for the Proposed AD

    One commenter supports the intent of the proposed AD and concurs 
with the proposed actions.

Request To Revise Applicability Statement

    One commenter, an operator, requests that we revise the 
applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter states that certain 
airplanes in its fleet were originally delivered as passenger airplanes 
but have been modified by various STCs to all-cargo configuration. None 
of these airplanes were modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO, and 
none has a main deck cargo door. The commenter notes that the Costs of 
Compliance section of the proposed AD indicates that a total of 33 
airplanes worldwide (including 30 of U.S. registry) would be affected 
by the proposal. The commenter questions the accuracy of this number 
because it operates 74 airplanes in cargo configuration (including the 
airplanes described previously that were originally delivered as 
passenger airplanes).
    We concur with the commenter's request to revise the applicability 
of this AD. Our intent was to make the requirements of this AD apply to 
airplanes delivered by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) with, 
or modified by a third party to have, a main-deck cargo door that 
accommodates certain unit loading devices. Accordingly, we have revised 
the applicability of this AD to specify that this AD applies to Model 
DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, DC-9-15F, DC-9-21, DC-9-
31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, 
DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B), DC-9-41, and DC-9-51 airplanes in all-cargo 
configuration, and equipped with a main-deck cargo door. We have 
determined that only 8 of the commenter's 74 airplanes would be in this 
category. This AD also continues to apply to Model DC-9-15F airplanes 
modified in accordance with supplemental type certificate (STC) 
SA1993SO.

Request To Allow Records Review or Extend Compliance Time

    The same commenter requests that we revise the proposed AD to allow 
determining the details of the cargo configuration from airplane 
records without performing the inspection of the main deck cargo 
compartment. The commenter states that it can determine the cargo 
configuration of its airplanes by reviewing the airplane records. The 
commenter further requests that we extend the compliance time from 60 
days after the effective date to 6 months or longer after the effective 
date if we do not agree that a records review is an acceptable method 
of complying with the proposed requirements. The commenter states that 
the proposed 60-day compliance time would be unduly burdensome.
    We do not agree that a records review is an acceptable method of 
complying with the requirements of this AD. We proposed this AD because 
we are aware that some airplanes delivered by the OEM in all-cargo 
configuration, with a main-deck cargo door, have been modified to a 
configuration similar to that provided by STC SA1993SO without any 
documentation in the airplane records. As explained in the proposed AD, 
the configuration provided by STC SA1993SO and similar configurations 
have deficiencies including inadequate design of the cargo loading 
system, inadequate loading procedures, and lack of identification of 
loading devices and restraining methods. We find that it is necessary 
to require an inspection of the main deck cargo compartment to 
determine the exact and accurate details of the airplane's cargo 
configuration.
    We also do not agree to extend the compliance time beyond the 
proposed 60 days. As we explained in the preamble of the proposed AD, 
in developing the compliance time for the proposed actions, we 
considered the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject 
unsafe condition, and the time that would be necessary to accomplish 
the proposed requirements. Based on these factors, we find that a 60-
day compliance time for completing the required inspection and report 
represents an appropriate period of time for affected airplanes to 
continue to operate without compromising safety. Specifically 
considering the commenter's fleet, as we stated previously, only 8 of 
the commenter's 74 cargo airplanes are subject to the requirements of 
this AD. Therefore, we find that 60 days constitutes an appropriate 
compliance time in which neither safety nor the commenter's operations 
will be adversely affected. We have not changed the final rule in this 
regard.

Request To Limit Applicability of Manual Revisions and Cargo Restraint 
Relocation

    The same commenter notes that the proposed manual revisions in 
paragraph (h) of the proposed AD do not take into consideration the 
different cargo zones and loading configurations for DC-9-30 and DC-9-
40 series airplanes. The commenter states that the requirements of 
paragraphs (h) and (i) of the proposed AD appear to target a specific 
configuration and series, such as a Model DC-9-15F airplane modified in 
accordance with STC SA1993SO. The commenter wants the FAA to first 
accomplish a thorough evaluation of the details of each specific STC 
cargo configuration before subjecting an operator to a limitation on 
cargo loading, or a modification to the cargo configuration. The 
commenter requests that we revise the proposed AD to make paragraphs 
(h) and (i) apply only to airplanes that have been modified by STC 
SA1993SO, and to specify that requirements for other airplanes will be 
issued after an evaluation of the configuration details submitted as

[[Page 17314]]

required by paragraph (f) of the proposed AD.
    We do not concur. We have determined that the limitations stated in 
paragraph (h) and the requirements stated in paragraph (i) of this AD 
can be applied to most airplanes subject to this AD, regardless of 
model or configuration. Should an operator find that it is unable to 
comply with the specific requirements of this AD, that operator must 
request approval of an alternative method of compliance with the 
reporting requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD, as provided by 
paragraph (j) of this AD. We will determine whether or not the 
operator's fleet's cargo configuration exhibits the same unsafe 
conditions exhibited by airplanes modified in accordance with STC 
SA1993SO or airplanes in similar configurations. We have not changed 
the final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the 
comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and 
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    This AD affects about 3 airplanes of U.S. registry, out of 5 
airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO worldwide. The 
following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators of 
these airplanes to comply with this AD.

                       Estimated Costs--Airplanes Modified In Accordance With STC SA1993SO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Average labor                        Cost per
            Action               Work hours     rate per hour        Parts           airplane       Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manual changes...............               1             $65  None.............             $65            $195
Relocation of cargo                        24              65  None.............           1,560           4,680
 restraints on main deck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This AD also affects about 27 airplanes of U.S. registry out of 28 
airplanes worldwide that are in all-cargo configuration. The following 
table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators of these 
airplanes to comply with this AD.

                              Estimated Costs--Airplanes in All-Cargo Configuration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Average labor                        Cost per
            Action               Work hours     rate per hour        Parts           airplane       Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection/Reporting.........               8             $65  None.............            $520         $14,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to 
comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to 
examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness 
directive (AD):

2005-07-18 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-14042. Docket No. FAA-
2004-18561; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-13-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective May 11, 2005.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15F 
airplanes modified in accordance with supplemental type certificate 
(STC) SA1993SO; and Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-
15, DC-9-15F, DC-9-21, DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, 
DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B), DC-9-41, and DC-
9-51 airplanes in all-cargo configuration, equipped with a main-deck 
cargo door; certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD was prompted by reports that deficiencies related to 
the cargo loading system may exist on all McDonnell Douglas Model 
DC-9-15F airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO. We are

[[Page 17315]]

issuing this AD to ensure that cargo in the main cabin is adequately 
restrained and to prevent failure of components of the cargo loading 
system, failure of the floor structure, or shifting of cargo. Any of 
these conditions could cause cargo to exceed load distribution 
limits or cause damage to the fuselage or control cables, which 
could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this 
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the 
actions have already been done.

Airplanes Not Modified in Accordance With STC SA1993SO: Inspection and 
Reporting

    (f) For airplanes not modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO:
    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform an 
inspection of the main deck cargo compartment to determine the 
details of the airplane's cargo configuration. Within 60 days after 
the effective date of this AD, submit a report of the details of the 
airplane's cargo configuration through the FAA Principal Maintenance 
Inspector (PMI), or the cognizant Flight Standards District Office, 
as applicable, to the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA, Small Airplane Directorate. The report must include the 
airplane serial number, inspection results, and the information 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) of this 
AD. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
approved the information collection requirements contained in this 
AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) Restraint system: Does the airplane have vertical side 
restraints installed on the main deck floor? How many vertical side 
restraints are installed per airplane side?
    (2) Vertical fore/aft restraints: How many vertical fore/aft 
restraints are installed on each end of a pallet position?
    (3) For airplanes with missing vertical side restraints: Is a 
bump rail installed?
    (4) Unit Loading Devices (ULDs): What type/model ULDs are used 
for cargo carriage in affected airplanes? Obtain NAS 3610 
designation from affixed data plate as required by Technical 
Standard Order (TSO) C90a, b, c, or designation provided by STC or 
other approved means. Is there a manual or document that indicates 
the type/model of ULDs to use? If there is such a manual or 
document, include the manual/document number and revision level in 
the report required by paragraph (f) of this AD.

Airplanes Deviating From Original Configuration: Required Action

    (g) During the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, 
if the airplane's cargo configuration deviates from the original 
configuration as delivered by McDonnell Douglas (including, but not 
limited to, missing vertical side restraints or revised fore/aft 
restraint configuration), accomplish paragraphs (h) and (i) of this 
AD.

Manual Revisions

    (h) For airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO and 
airplanes specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 90 days 
after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations section 
of the airplane flight manual (AFM), the AFM supplements, the 
Limitations section of the airplane weight and balance manual 
(AWBM), and the AWBM supplements to include the information 
specified below. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of 
this AD into the affected manual or supplement. After accomplishment 
of these revisions, the airplane must be operated in accordance with 
these limitations.
    ``REDUCTION IN CARGO LOADS AS FOLLOWS:
     Zone 1 (most forward): Limited to a maximum of 4,000 
pounds,
     Zones 2 through 7: Limited to a maximum of 5,200 pounds 
each,
     Zone 8 (most aft): Limited to a maximum of 2,000 
pounds.


    Note: The maximum total payload that can be carried on the main 
deck is limited to the lesser of:


     The approved cargo barrier weight limit,
     Weight permitted by the approved maximum zero-fuel 
weight,
     Weight permitted by the approved main deck position 
weights,
     Weight permitted by the approved main deck running load 
or distributed load limitations, or
     Approved cumulative zone or fuselage monocoque 
structural loading limitations (including lower hold cargo).
    Limitations:
    Use only unit loading devices (ULDs) (containers and pallets) 
that are structurally compatible with the cargo loading system. One 
means of establishing compatibility is through compliance with the 
specifications of NAS 3610 for ULDs approved under Technical 
Standard Order (TSO) C90a, b, or c; or as provided by the 
appropriate instructions of a Supplemental Type Certificate or other 
approved means. Alternative methods of compliance can be obtained as 
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    Ensure proper restraining of the ULDs by engaging all cargo 
loading system restraints.
    The center-of-gravity shift of each ULD must not exceed 10 
percent of its base longitudinal or lateral directions.

Relocation of Cargo Restraints

    (i) For airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO and 
airplanes specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 90 days 
after the effective date of this AD, relocate all fore/aft cargo 
restraints in the main cargo deck to left and right buttock lines 
22.0 and 44.5.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs 
for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 
14 CFR 39.19.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 25, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-6757 Filed 4-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P