AD 2002-26-10

[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 473-476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 03-29]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NM-78-AD; Amendment 39-12998; AD 2002-26-10]
RIN 2120-AA64


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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive 
(AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, 
and -50 series airplanes, that currently requires a one-time visual 
inspection to determine the modification status of the corners of the 
forward lower cargo doorjamb; low-frequency eddy current or X-ray 
inspections to detect cracks of the fuselage skin and doubler at all 
corners of the forward lower cargo doorjamb; various follow-on 
repetitive inspections; and modification, if necessary. This amendment 
retains those requirements but requires certain high-frequency, rather 
than low-frequency, eddy current inspections for certain conditions. 
The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect and correct 
cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and 
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane. This action is 
intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective February 10, 2003.
    The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC9-53-277, Revision 01, dated June 16, 1999, excluding 
Evaluation Form, as listed in the regulations, is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of February 10, 2003.
    The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC9-53-277, dated September 30, 1996, was approved previously 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 22, 1998 (63 FR 
19180, April 17, 1998).

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport 
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, 
DC.

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: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-08-24, 
amendment 39-10473 (63 FR 19180, April 17, 1998), which is applicable 
to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 
series airplanes, and Model C-9 (military) airplanes, was published in 
the Federal Register on August 30, 2002 (67 FR 55732). The action 
proposed to require

[[Page 474]]

a one-time visual inspection to determine the modification status of 
the corners of the forward lower cargo doorjamb; low-frequency eddy 
current (LFEC) inspections to detect cracks of the fuselage skin and 
doubler at all corners of the forward lower cargo doorjamb; various 
follow-on repetitive inspections; and modification, if necessary. The 
action also proposed to retain the existing requirements, but require 
certain high-frequency, rather than low-frequency, eddy current 
inspections for certain conditions.

Comments

    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
the comments received.

Request To Extend Repetitive Inspection Interval

    One commenter asks that the repetitive inspection interval 
specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) of the proposed AD be extended from 
3,500 landings to 3,860 landings. The commenter states that this would 
permit inspection of affected areas during a scheduled maintenance 
visit.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. Insufficient 
supporting data were provided to us to substantiate the request. In 
developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we 
considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing 
the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's recommendation as 
to an appropriate compliance time, and the practical aspect of 
accomplishing the required inspections within an interval of time that 
parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected 
operators. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Request for Deferral of Upgrade or Replacement of Previously Approved 
Repairs

    The same commenter asks that upgrade or replacement of certain 
repairs, as specified in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD, be deferred 
for a period of 24 months, providing the high frequency eddy current 
(HFEC) inspections find no evidence of cracking. The commenter states 
that this would pertain to an existing repair or modification that is 
not in accordance with the published structural repair manual (SRM) or 
rework drawing specifications, but has been approved for static 
strength by an original equipment manufacturer or FAA Designated 
Engineering Representative (DER).
    We do not agree with the commenter. We have conducted further 
analysis of this issue in conjunction with the manufacturer, and we 
have determined that, for the corners of the forward lower cargo door 
jamb that have been modified, but not in accordance with the DC-9 SRM 
or service rework drawing, an initial HFEC inspection of the fuselage 
skin adjacent to the existing repairs would not detect any cracking 
under the repairs. The absence of cracking outside a repaired area does 
not indicate that an acceptable level of safety is being maintained, 
since possible cracking under the repairs could grow rapidly and extend 
out from under the repaired area. No change to paragraph (c) of the 
final rule is necessary in this regard.

Request To Change Certain Language in Preamble

    The same commenter states that the proposed AD should explicitly 
state that the new AD supersedes and cancels the requirements of the 
existing AD, to avoid a duplicate compliance requirement.
    We do not agree with the commenter; the requested language is 
already in the proposed AD. The Summary section of the proposed AD 
states, ``This document proposes the supersedure of an existing 
airworthiness directive * * * The Summary section also specifies that 
the proposed AD retains the requirements in the existing AD, but 
requires HFEC rather than low frequency eddy current inspections for 
certain conditions. No change to the final rule is necessary in this 
regard.

Explanation of Editorial Change

    We have changed the service bulletin citation throughout this final 
rule to exclude the Evaluation Form. (The form is intended to be 
completed by operators and submitted to the manufacturer to provide 
input on the quality of the service bulletin; however, this AD does not 
include such a requirement.)

Explanation of Changes to Final Rule

    In the Summary section of the proposed AD, we inadvertently omitted 
identification of the X-ray inspection to detect cracks, which was 
required by AD 98-08-24. That inspection was, however, identified in 
the actions required by the proposed AD. We have changed the Summary 
section of this AD to include the following phrase: ``* * * low-
frequency eddy current or X-ray inspections to detect cracks * * *''
    The language in paragraph (f)(3) of the proposed AD has been 
changed from ``An alternative method of compliance for any inspection 
or repair * * *'' to ``An alternative method of compliance that 
provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair * * 
*'' to clarify that a DER is not permitted to approve an inspection 
method.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the available data, including the comments 
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public 
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously 
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither 
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of 
the AD.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 899 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 622 airplanes of U.S. registry 
will be affected by this AD.
    The inspection that is currently required by AD 98-08-24, and 
retained in this AD, takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to 
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions is 
estimated to be $60 per airplane.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish an eddy current 
inspection, it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to 
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of an eddy current inspection required 
by this AD is estimated to be $60 per airplane.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish the modification, it 
will take approximately 14 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an 
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost 
approximately $936 or $2,807 per airplane, depending on the service kit 
purchased. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification 
required by this AD is estimated to be $1,776 or $3,647 per airplane.
    No change to the parts cost or work hour estimate is anticipated as 
a result of the new actions included in this AD.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions 
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this 
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the 
future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed 
in AD rulemaking

[[Page 475]]

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 adopted herein 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action 
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained 
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-10473 (63 FR 
19180, April 17, 1998), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD), amendment 39-12998, to read as follows:

2002-26-10 Boeing: Amendment 39-12998. Docket 2001-NM-78-AD. 
Supersedes AD 98-08-24, Amendment 39-10473.

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

    Note 1:  This AD applies to each airplane identified in the 
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the 
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, 
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of 
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an 
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) 
of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect 
of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition 
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been 
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to 
address it.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To detect and correct cracking in the fuselage skin or doubler 
at the corner of the forward lower cargo doorjamb, which could 
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:

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


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

One-time Inspection

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

    Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection 
is defined as: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior 
area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, 
or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within 
touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be 
necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the 
inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally 
available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, 
flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of 
access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be 
required to gain proximity to the area being checked.''

Follow-On Actions: Unmodified Doorjamb

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

[[Page 476]]

Follow-On Actions: Doorjamb Modified per Other Than Structural Repair 
Manual/Drawing

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

Follow-On Actions: Doorjamb Modified per SRM/Drawing

    (d) If the general visual inspection required by paragraph (a) 
of this AD reveals that the corners of the forward lower cargo 
doorjamb have been modified in accordance with the DC-9 SRM or 
Service Rework Drawing: Within 28,000 landings since accomplishment 
of that modification, or within 3,500 landings after May 22, 1998, 
or before the accumulation of 48,000 total landings, whichever 
occurs latest, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks on the 
skin adjacent to the modification, in accordance with McDonnell 
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-277, dated September 30, 1996; or 
Revision 01, dated June 16, 1999, excluding Evaluation Form. After 
the effective date of this AD, Revision 01 of the service bulletin 
must be used. Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not 
to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (1) If no crack is detected during any HFEC inspection required 
by this paragraph: Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 20,000 landings.
    (2) If any crack is detected during any HFEC inspection required 
by this paragraph: Before further flight, repair it in accordance 
with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (e) Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD 
constitutes terminating action for inspections of PSE 53.09.001 
(reference McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 SID) required by AD 96-13-
03, amendment 39-9671.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (f)(1) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the 
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. Operators shall 
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal 
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the 
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (2) Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance 
with AD 98-08-24, amendment 39-10473; AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-
8807; or AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671; are acceptable for 
compliance with the applicable requirements of this AD.
    (3) An alternative method of compliance that provides an 
acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by 
this AD, if it is approved by a Boeing Company Designated 
Engineering Representative (DER) who has been authorized by the 
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make such findings.

    Note 5: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

    (g) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where 
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

    (h) Unless otherwise provided in this AD, the actions shall be 
done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-
277, dated September 30, 1996; or McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
DC9-53-277, Revision 01, dated June 16, 1999, excluding Evaluation 
Form.
    (1) The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC9-53-277, Revision 01, dated June 16, 1999, excluding 
Evaluation Form, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register 
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC9-53-277, dated September 30, 1996, was approved 
previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 22, 
1998 (63 FR 19180, April 17, 1998).
    (3) Copies 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). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport 
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 
at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 
Washington, DC.

Effective Date

    (i) This amendment becomes effective on February 10, 2003.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 24, 2002.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-29 Filed 1-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P