[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16201-16203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3061]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2005-23197; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-109-AD; 
Amendment 39-14535; AD 2006-07-08]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-
20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for 
certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and 
DC-9-50 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for 
stress corrosion cracks of the main fuselage frame, and corrective 
actions if necessary. This AD also provides an optional terminating 
action for the repetitive inspections. This AD results from several 
reports of cracking of the main fuselage frame. We are issuing this AD 
to detect and correct stress corrosion cracking of the main fuselage 
frame, which could result in extensive damage to adjacent structure and 
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 5, 2006.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 5, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 
Room PL-401, Washington, DC.
    Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and 
Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for service information 
identified in this AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 
FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; 
telephone (562) 627-5324; fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the airworthiness directive (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 the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain McDonnell 
Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series 
airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 
6, 2005 (70 FR 72601). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive 
inspections for stress corrosion cracks of the main fuselage frame, and 
corrective actions if necessary. That AD also proposed to provide an 
optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the 
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Request To Revise the Term ``Trim-Out Limits''

    The Boeing Company requests that we revise paragraphs (h)(1) and 
(h)(2) of the NPRM to refer to ``crack limits'' rather than ``trim-out 
limits.'' Boeing points out that the term ``trim-out limits'' is not 
used in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-168, dated November 
17, 1983, including McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch 3529, dated August 
23, 1983 (hereafter referred to as the ``service information''), which 
was referred to in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service 
information for accomplishing the required actions.
    We agree. Making the suggested change will maintain consistency 
between the AD and the service information. We have revised paragraphs 
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of the final rule to refer to crack limits.

Request To Remove Reference to Dye-Penetrant Inspection

    Boeing also requests that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM to 
remove the reference to a dye-penetrant inspection. Boeing points out 
that the service information does not include a dye-penetrant 
inspection.

[[Page 16202]]

    We agree. This change also ensures consistency between the AD and 
the service information. We have revised paragraph (g) of the final 
rule to remove the reference to a dye-penetrant inspection.

Request To Revise Paragraph (k)

    Boeing also requests that we revise paragraph (k) of the NPRM to 
match the description of the frame in paragraph (d) and add the words 
``main fuselage'' before the word ``frame.'' Paragraph (k) of the NPRM 
refers to ``a frame made of 7075-T6 aluminum material''; paragraph (d) 
of the NPRM refers to a ``main fuselage frame.''
    We agree. This change ensures consistent references within the AD. 
We have revised paragraph (k) of the final rule to add the words ``main 
fuselage'' frame.

Request To Include Delegation in Paragraph (l)

    Boeing also requests that we revise the Alternative Methods of 
Compliance (AMOCs) paragraph to include AMOC delegation to an 
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) Organization whom the FAA has 
authorized to make such findings.
    We disagree. We authorize Boeing Commercial Airplanes DOA 
Authorized Representatives to approve AMOCs only for AD-required 
repairs and modifications. This AD requires inspection and/or 
replacement of the main fuselage frame, but not repairs or 
modification. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

Clarification AMOC Paragraph

    We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure 
for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on 
any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the 
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public 
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. 
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the 
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 1,017 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for 
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Number of U.S.-
             Action                Work hours     Average labor       Parts         Cost per         registered                   Fleet cost
                                                  rate per hour                     airplane          airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection, per inspection                    2             $65              $0        \2\ $130  376...............  $48,880, per inspection cycle.
 cycle.
Optional terminating action              \1\ 96              65           7,305          13,545  Up to 376.........  Up to $5,092,920.
 (replacing the frame).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per airplane.
\2\ Per inspection cycle.

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 and placed it in the AD docket. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by 
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2006-07-08 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-14535. Docket No. FAA-
2005-23197; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-109-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective May 5, 2006.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

[[Page 16203]]

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas 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; certificated in any category; 
as identified in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-168, 
dated November 17, 1983.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from several reports of cracking of the main 
fuselage frame. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct stress 
corrosion cracking of the main fuselage frame, which could result in 
extensive damage to adjacent structure, and reduced structural 
integrity 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.

Service Bulletin Reference

    (f) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means the 
Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service 
Bulletin 53-168, dated November 17, 1983, including McDonnell 
Douglas Service Sketch 3529, dated August 23, 1983.

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (g) Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours, or 
within 3,400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, 
whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection, eddy current 
inspection, or ultrasonic inspection for stress corrosion cracks of 
the main fuselage frame in accordance with the service bulletin. 
Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, repeat the 
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,000 flight hours 
until the replacement in paragraph (i) of this AD is accomplished.


    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: 
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or 
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available 
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good 
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as 
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning 
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

Corrective Actions

    (h) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this 
AD, do the applicable action in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) 
of this AD.
    (1) If the crack is in the pocket area and the crack is within 
the crack limits specified in McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch 3529, 
dated August 23, 1983: Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph 
(g) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 3,400 flight hours until 
the action in paragraph (i) of this AD is accomplished.
    (2) If the crack is in the pocket area and the crack exceeds the 
crack limits specified in McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch 3529, 
dated August 23, 1983, before further flight: Do the action in 
paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (3) If the crack is in the web, before further flight: Do the 
action in paragraph (i) of this AD.

Optional Terminating Action

    (i) Replacing the frame with a new or serviceable frame made of 
7075-T73 aluminum material in accordance with the service bulletin 
terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD for 
that frame only.

No Reporting Required

    (j) Although the service bulletin referenced in this AD 
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD 
does not include that requirement.

Parts Installation

    (k) After the effective date of this AD, no person may install 
on any airplane a main fuselage frame made of 7075-T6 aluminum 
material.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 
requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with Sec.  
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the 
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards 
Certificate Holding District Office.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-168, 
dated November 17, 1983, including McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch 
3529, dated August 23, 1983, to perform the actions that are 
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (The issue 
date of the service sketch is shown only on the first sheet of that 
document.) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial 
Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 
California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-
L5A (D800-0024), for a copy of this service information. You may 
review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, Nassif 
Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call 
(202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 22, 2006.
Michael Zielinski,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 06-3061 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P