Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 Series Airplanes, 72601-72604 [05-23655]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
72601
TABLE 1.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE TIME
For airplanes on which Structural Significant
Items (SSIs) F–25G, F–25H, and F–25I—
Inspect—
(1) Have not been inspected in accordance with
paragraph (d) of AD 2004–07–22, amendment 39–13566, using the HFEC method.
(2) Have been inspected in accordance with
paragraph (d) of AD 2004–07–22, amendment 39–13566, using the HFEC method.
Before the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
Repetitive Inspections
Within 3,000 flight cycles after the most recent Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
(SSID) inspection of each applicable structural significant item (as given in Boeing Document D6–35022, ‘‘SSID for Model 747 Airplanes,’’ Revision G, dated December 2000), or
within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(g) Repeat the applicable inspections
required by paragraph (f) of this AD
thereafter at intervals not to exceed those
specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance’’
(including the note) of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747–53A2499, dated August 11,
2005.
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–23197; Directorate
Identifier 2005–NM–109–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Exception to Service Bulletin Instructions
(h) Where the service bulletin specifies to
contact Boeing for appropriate action, before
further flight, repair the crack using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(i)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair
required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to
be approved, the repair must meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
November 17, 2005.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–23654 Filed 12–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:08 Dec 05, 2005
Jkt 208001
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell
Douglas Model DC–9–10, DC–9–20,
DC–9–30, DC–9–40, and DC–9–50
Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt 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
proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections for stress corrosion cracks of
the main fuselage frame, and corrective
actions if necessary. This proposed AD
also would provide an optional
terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. This proposed AD results
from several reports of cracking of the
main fuselage frame. We are proposing
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: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by January 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to submit comments on this
proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
https://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
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 the service information
identified in this proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant
written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Include the
docket number ‘‘FAA–2005–23197;
Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–109–
AD’’ at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of
the proposed AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date
and may amend the proposed AD in
light of those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information you provide. We will also
post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD.
Using the search function of that Web
site, anyone can find and read the
comments in any of our dockets,
including the name of the individual
who sent the comment (or signed the
comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
72602
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
19477–78), or you may visit https://
dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://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 DOT
street address stated in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after the Docket
Management System receives them.
Discussion
In April 1988, a high-cycle transport
category airplane (specifically, a Boeing
Model 737) was involved in an accident
in which the airplane suffered major
structural damage during flight.
Investigation of this accident revealed
that the airplane had numerous fatigue
cracks and a great deal of corrosion.
Subsequent inspections conducted by
the operator on other high-cycle
transport category airplanes in its fleet
revealed that other airplanes had
extensive fatigue cracking and
corrosion.
Prompted by the data gained from this
accident, the FAA sponsored a
conference on aging airplanes in June
1988, which was attended by
representatives from the aviation
industry and airworthiness authorities
from around the world. It became
obvious that, because of the tremendous
increase in air travel, the relatively slow
pace of new airplane production, and
the apparent economic feasibility of
operating older technology airplanes
rather than retiring them, increased
attention needed to be focused on the
aging airplane fleet and maintaining its
continued operational safety.
The Air Transport Association (ATA)
of America and the Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA) of America
agreed to undertake the task of
identifying and implementing
procedures to ensure the continued
structural airworthiness of aging
transport category airplanes. An
Airworthiness Assurance Working
Group (AAWG) was established in
August 1988, with members
representing aircraft manufacturers,
operators, regulatory authorities, and
other aviation industry representatives
worldwide. The objective of the AAWG
was to sponsor ‘‘Task Groups’’ to:
1. Select service bulletins, applicable
to each airplane model in the transport
fleet, to be recommended for mandatory
modification of aging airplanes;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:08 Dec 05, 2005
Jkt 208001
2. Develop corrosion-directed
inspections and prevention programs;
3. Review the adequacy of each
operator’s structural maintenance
program;
4. Review and update the
Supplemental Inspection Documents
(SID); and
5. Assess repair quality.
In addition, we have received several
reports of cracking of the main fuselage
frame on McDonnell Douglas Model DC
9–10 series airplanes at station
Y=642.000. The cracking has been
attributed to stress corrosion. The
AAWG task group for McDonnell
Douglas Model DC–9–10, DC–9–20, DC–
9–30, DC–9–40, and DC–9–50 series
airplanes has determined that we
should mandate inspections for cracks
of the main fuselage frame, and repair
if necessary, in accordance with the
service bulletin described below. Stress
corrosion cracking, if not detected and
corrected, could propagate and result in
extensive damage to adjacent structure,
and reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.
The subject area on certain
McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–20,
DC–9–30, DC–9–40, and DC–9–50 series
airplanes is identical to that on the
affected Model DC 9–10 series airplanes.
Therefore, all of these models may be
subject to the same unsafe condition.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed McDonnell
Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 53–168,
dated November 17, 1983; including
McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch
3529, dated August 23, 1983 (attached
to the service bulletin). The service
bulletin describes procedures for
repetitive inspections for stress
corrosion cracks of the main fuselage
frame at Station Y=642.000 (for Model
DC–9–10 and DC–9–20 series airplanes),
Station Y=756.000 (for Model DC–9–30
series airplanes), Station Y=794.000 (for
Model DC–9–40 series airplanes), and
Station Y=851.000 (for Model DC–9–50
series airplanes). The service bulletin
specifies that operators should use one
of four inspection methods during each
repetitive inspection cycle: opticalaided visual, dye-penetrant, eddy
current, or ultrasonic. The service
bulletin specifies that operators should
record all inspection results, and send a
report to the manufacturer. If no crack
is found, the service bulletin provides
procedures for repeating the inspection
until the frame is replaced. If any crack
is found in a pocket area and the crack
is within the trim-out limits specified in
Service Sketch 3529, the service bulletin
provides procedures for repeating the
inspection until the frame is replaced. If
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
any crack is found in a pocket area and
the crack exceeds the trim-out limits
specified in Service Sketch 3529, the
service bulletin specifies that the
corrective action is replacing the frame.
In addition, if any crack is found in the
web, the service bulletin specifies that
the corrective action is replacing the
frame. The service bulletin specifies that
replacing the frame with a new or
serviceable frame made of 7075–T73
aluminum material terminates the
repetitive inspection requirements for
that frame only. Accomplishing the
actions specified in the service
information is intended to adequately
address the unsafe condition.
FAA’s Determination and Requirements
of the Proposed AD
We have evaluated all pertinent
information and identified an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or
develop on other airplanes of this same
type design. For this reason, we are
proposing this AD, which would require
accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described
previously, except as discussed under
‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD
and the Service Information.’’
Operators should note that, while it is
not the FAA’s usual policy to allow
flight with known cracks, this AD
permits further flight with cracking
within certain limits. The manufacturer
has advised us that they have data
showing that the fuselage frame with the
trim-out area, specified in McDonnell
Douglas Service Sketch 3529, meets the
certification basis of the airplane. The
cracked frame supports limit load
without detrimental permanent
deformation, and ultimate load without
failure. The repetitive inspection
interval of 3,400 flight hours for this
area (specified in paragraph (h)(1) of
this proposed AD) is intended to detect
crack growth caused by stress corrosion
until the terminating action is
accomplished. In consideration of these
findings and the FAA’s criteria for flight
with known cracking, further flight with
cracking within certain limits is
permissible.
Differences Between the Proposed AD
and the Service Information
Although the service bulletin
referenced in this proposed AD specifies
to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this proposed AD does
not include that requirement.
Although the service bulletin does not
give a compliance time for replacing the
frame if a crack is found in a pocket area
and the crack exceeds the limits
specified in Service Sketch 3529; or if
a crack is found in the web; this
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
72603
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
proposed AD would require doing that
replacement before further flight.
Although the service bulletin does not
give a compliance time for doing the
inspection for crack growth if a crack in
the pocket area is within the trim-out
limits specified in Service Sketch 3529,
this proposed AD would require doing
that inspection before further flight.
Clarification of Inspection Terminology
Costs of Compliance
In this proposed AD, the ‘‘opticalaided visual inspection’’ specified in the
service bulletin is referred to as a
‘‘detailed inspection.’’ We have
included the definition for a detailed
inspection in a note in the proposed AD.
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 proposed AD.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Action
Work hours
Inspection, per inspection
cycle.
Optional terminating acton
(replacing the frame).
1 Per
Average
labor rate
per hour
Parts
Number
of U.S.registered
airplanes
Cost per airplane
2
$65
$0
$130, per inspection cycle
376
1 96
65
7,305
$13,545 .............................
376
Fleet cost
$48,880, per inspection
cycle.
Up to $5,092,920.
airplane.
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
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the 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. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:08 Dec 05, 2005
Jkt 208001
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this proposed 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, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 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.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA–2005–
23197; Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–
109–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by January 20, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
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–
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, dyepenetrant 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
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
72604
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 trim-out 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 trim-out limits
specified in McDonnell Douglas Service
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:08 Dec 05, 2005
Jkt 208001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Parts Installation
(k) After the effective date of this AD, no
person may install on any airplane a frame
made of 7075–T6 aluminum material.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(l) 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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
November 25, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–23655 Filed 12–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72601-72604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23655]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2005-23197; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-109-AD]
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt 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 proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections for stress corrosion cracks of the main fuselage frame, and
corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also would provide an
optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This
proposed AD results from several reports of cracking of the main
fuselage frame. We are proposing 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: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 20,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD.
DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
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 the service
information identified in this proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Include the docket number ``FAA-
2005-23197; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-109-AD'' at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will
also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of
that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
[[Page 72602]]
19477-78), or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
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 DOT
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System
receives them.
Discussion
In April 1988, a high-cycle transport category airplane
(specifically, a Boeing Model 737) was involved in an accident in which
the airplane suffered major structural damage during flight.
Investigation of this accident revealed that the airplane had numerous
fatigue cracks and a great deal of corrosion. Subsequent inspections
conducted by the operator on other high-cycle transport category
airplanes in its fleet revealed that other airplanes had extensive
fatigue cracking and corrosion.
Prompted by the data gained from this accident, the FAA sponsored a
conference on aging airplanes in June 1988, which was attended by
representatives from the aviation industry and airworthiness
authorities from around the world. It became obvious that, because of
the tremendous increase in air travel, the relatively slow pace of new
airplane production, and the apparent economic feasibility of operating
older technology airplanes rather than retiring them, increased
attention needed to be focused on the aging airplane fleet and
maintaining its continued operational safety.
The Air Transport Association (ATA) of America and the Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA) of America agreed to undertake the task of
identifying and implementing procedures to ensure the continued
structural airworthiness of aging transport category airplanes. An
Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (AAWG) was established in August
1988, with members representing aircraft manufacturers, operators,
regulatory authorities, and other aviation industry representatives
worldwide. The objective of the AAWG was to sponsor ``Task Groups'' to:
1. Select service bulletins, applicable to each airplane model in
the transport fleet, to be recommended for mandatory modification of
aging airplanes;
2. Develop corrosion-directed inspections and prevention programs;
3. Review the adequacy of each operator's structural maintenance
program;
4. Review and update the Supplemental Inspection Documents (SID);
and
5. Assess repair quality.
In addition, we have received several reports of cracking of the
main fuselage frame on McDonnell Douglas Model DC 9-10 series airplanes
at station Y=642.000. The cracking has been attributed to stress
corrosion. The AAWG task group for McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-
9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes has determined
that we should mandate inspections for cracks of the main fuselage
frame, and repair if necessary, in accordance with the service bulletin
described below. Stress corrosion cracking, if not detected and
corrected, could propagate and result in extensive damage to adjacent
structure, and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The subject area on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-20, DC-9-
30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes is identical to that on the
affected Model DC 9-10 series airplanes. Therefore, all of these models
may be subject to the same unsafe condition.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-168,
dated November 17, 1983; including McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch
3529, dated August 23, 1983 (attached to the service bulletin). The
service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive inspections for
stress corrosion cracks of the main fuselage frame at Station Y=642.000
(for Model DC-9-10 and DC-9-20 series airplanes), Station Y=756.000
(for Model DC-9-30 series airplanes), Station Y=794.000 (for Model DC-
9-40 series airplanes), and Station Y=851.000 (for Model DC-9-50 series
airplanes). The service bulletin specifies that operators should use
one of four inspection methods during each repetitive inspection cycle:
optical-aided visual, dye-penetrant, eddy current, or ultrasonic. The
service bulletin specifies that operators should record all inspection
results, and send a report to the manufacturer. If no crack is found,
the service bulletin provides procedures for repeating the inspection
until the frame is replaced. If any crack is found in a pocket area and
the crack is within the trim-out limits specified in Service Sketch
3529, the service bulletin provides procedures for repeating the
inspection until the frame is replaced. If any crack is found in a
pocket area and the crack exceeds the trim-out limits specified in
Service Sketch 3529, the service bulletin specifies that the corrective
action is replacing the frame. In addition, if any crack is found in
the web, the service bulletin specifies that the corrective action is
replacing the frame. The service bulletin specifies that replacing the
frame with a new or serviceable frame made of 7075-T73 aluminum
material terminates the repetitive inspection requirements for that
frame only. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.''
Operators should note that, while it is not the FAA's usual policy
to allow flight with known cracks, this AD permits further flight with
cracking within certain limits. The manufacturer has advised us that
they have data showing that the fuselage frame with the trim-out area,
specified in McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch 3529, meets the
certification basis of the airplane. The cracked frame supports limit
load without detrimental permanent deformation, and ultimate load
without failure. The repetitive inspection interval of 3,400 flight
hours for this area (specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this proposed AD)
is intended to detect crack growth caused by stress corrosion until the
terminating action is accomplished. In consideration of these findings
and the FAA's criteria for flight with known cracking, further flight
with cracking within certain limits is permissible.
Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information
Although the service bulletin referenced in this proposed AD
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this
proposed AD does not include that requirement.
Although the service bulletin does not give a compliance time for
replacing the frame if a crack is found in a pocket area and the crack
exceeds the limits specified in Service Sketch 3529; or if a crack is
found in the web; this
[[Page 72603]]
proposed AD would require doing that replacement before further flight.
Although the service bulletin does not give a compliance time for
doing the inspection for crack growth if a crack in the pocket area is
within the trim-out limits specified in Service Sketch 3529, this
proposed AD would require doing that inspection before further flight.
Clarification of Inspection Terminology
In this proposed AD, the ``optical-aided visual inspection''
specified in the service bulletin is referred to as a ``detailed
inspection.'' We have included the definition for a detailed inspection
in a note in the proposed 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 proposed AD.
Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Average U.S.-
Action Work hours labor rate Parts Cost per airplane registered Fleet cost
per hour airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection, per inspection cycle......... 2 $65 $0 $130, per inspection cycle.. 376 $48,880, per inspection
cycle.
Optional terminating acton (replacing the \1\ 96 65 7,305 $13,545..................... 376 Up to $5,092,920.
frame).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per airplane.
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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the 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. 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 proposed 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, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2005-23197; Directorate Identifier
2005-NM-109-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January
20, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
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, dye-penetrant
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
[[Page 72604]]
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 trim-out 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
trim-out 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 frame made of 7075-T6 aluminum material.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(l) 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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 25, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-23655 Filed 12-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
