[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 103 (Thursday, May 29, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30753-30756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12475]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2014-0288; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-101-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, and DC-9-30 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design
approval holder (DAH) indicating that the improved (shot-peened) aft
fuselage non-ventral pressure bulkhead tee is subject to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections for cracking of the improved (shot-peened) non-ventral aft
pressure bulkhead tees, and replacement if necessary. We are proposing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the improved (shot-
peened) non-ventral aft pressure bulkhead dome tees connecting the
bulkhead web to the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural
integrity and rapid decompression of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 14, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0288; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-
627-5348; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0288;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-101-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
[[Page 30754]]
Discussion
Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings,
or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD.
As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if
the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
We received reports indicating that the improved tee sections are
subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This condition, if not
corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity and rapid
decompression of the airplane.
Relevant Service Information
We reviewed McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231,
Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993. For information on the procedures and
repetitive compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0288.
FAA's Determination
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.
Proposed AD Requirements
This proposed AD would require accomplishing repetitive inspections
of the improved (shot-peened) non-ventral aft pressure bulkhead tees as
specified in the service information described previously, except as
discussed under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''
Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information
Although McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231,
Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, recommends accomplishing the
inspections between 300 and 1,500 flight cycles ``from issue date of
Revision 1 of this Service Bulletin,'' this proposed AD specifies
variable compliance times depending on when the tee was installed. The
compliance times for this proposed AD differ from those specified in
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2,
dated June 25, 1993, because it has been determined that the new
improved tees could crack before the part's LOV is reached.
Although McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231,
Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, describes inspection procedures for
the original design tees, the inspection procedures also apply to the
improved (shot-peened) tees specified in this proposed AD.
Although McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231,
Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, notes that replacing an original tee
section with a new improved tee section eliminates the need for the
repetitive inspections for that tee section, this proposed AD would not
allow that terminating action. We have determined that the inspections
must be repetitively performed because the new improved tee could crack
before the airplane's LOV is reached.
Although McDonnell Douglas Alert DC-9 Service Bulletin A53-231,
Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, notes that replacing all six original
tee sections with new improved tee sections eliminates the need for the
repetitive inspections, this proposed AD would not allow that
terminating action because the new improved tee could crack before the
airplane's LOV is reached.
Although Table 1 of Figure 4, and paragraph 3, ``Material
Information,'' of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-
231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, specifies doubler configuration
part numbers (P/Ns) SR09530056-3, SR09530056-5, SR09530056-6,
SR09530056-7, SR09530056-8, SR09530056-9, 5910163-387, 5910163-389,
5910163-391, 5910163-392, 5910163-393, and 5910163-394, the correct
part numbers are identified in paragraphs (h) and (k) of this proposed
AD.
These differences have been coordinated with The Boeing Company.
Related Rulemaking
AD 89-06-04, Amendment 39-6152 (54 FR 11167, March 17, 1989),
requires repetitive inspections of the original tee section having P/Ns
5910163-89, 5910163-91, 5910163-92, 5910163-93, 5910163-94, and
5910163-95, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service
Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, for McDonnell
Douglas Model DC-9-10 through -30 series and C-9 (Military) series
airplanes equipped with a non-ventral aft pressure bulkhead. AD 89-06-
04 requires that the inspections be repeated whether or not the tee is
replaced.
Explanation of Compliance Time
The compliance time for the replacement specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant
structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard
inspection
[[Page 30755]]
techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard
to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to
complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without
extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an
extension.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 48 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...................... Up to 148 work- $0 $12,580 per Up to $603,840 per
hours x $85 per inspection cycle. inspection cycle.
hour = $12,580 per
inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:
On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per
Action Labor cost Parts cost product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement (per tee)........................ 4,000 work-hours x $85 per hour $26,000 $366,000
= $340,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 this proposed
regulation:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) 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.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, 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
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):
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0288; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NM-101-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by July 14, 2014.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12,
DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F airplanes; Model DC-9-21
airplanes; and Model 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;
certificated in any category; equipped with a non-ventral aft
pressure bulkhead.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the improved (shot-peened) non-ventral
aft pressure bulkhead tee is subject to widespread fatigue damage
(WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking
of the improved (shot-peened) non-ventral aft pressure bulkhead tees
connecting the bulkhead web to the fuselage, which could result in
reduced structural integrity and rapid decompression of the
airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Definitions
(1) For the purposes of this AD, the term ``original tee
section'' refers to the original (non-peened) non-ventral aft
pressure bulkhead web to fuselage skin attach tee sections.
(2) For the purposes of this AD, the term ``improved tee
section'' refers to improved (shot peened) non-ventral aft pressure
bulkhead web to fuselage skin attach tee sections.
(h) Inspection
For airplanes on which an improved tee section having P/N
5910163-257, 5910163-
[[Page 30756]]
259, 5910163-260, 5910163-261, 5910163-262, 5910163-263, SR09530001-
3, SR09530001-5, SR09530001-6, SR09530001-7, SR09530001-8,
SR09530001-9, SR09530001-29, SR09530001-30, SR09530001-31,
SR09530001-32, SR09530001-33, SR09530001-35, SR09530056-3,
SR09530056-5, SR09530056-6, SR09530056-7, SR09530056-8, SR09530056-
9, SR09530056-11, SR09530056-13, SR09530056-14, SR09530056-15,
SR09530056-16, SR09530056-17, SR09530056-19, SR09530056-21,
SR09530056-22, SR09530056-23, SR09530056-24, or SR09530056-25, is
installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or
(i)(2) of this AD, do a general visual and low frequency eddy
current (LFEC) inspection (Option I), or a high and low frequency
eddy current inspection (Option II), for cracking of the improved
tee sections, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2,
dated June 25, 1993, including Service Sketch 3683D, Revision C,
dated July 19, 1989.
(i) Compliance Times
(1) For Option I and Option II inspections specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD: If the time of installation of an improved
tee section having a part number listed in paragraph (h) of this AD
is known, do the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of
this AD within 50,000 flight cycles after installation of the
improved tee section, or within 1,500 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For Option I and Option II inspections specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD: If the time of installation of an improved
tee section having a part number identified in paragraph (h) of this
AD is not known, do the initial inspection required by paragraph (h)
of this AD before the accumulation of 75,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
(j) Repetitive Inspections
If no cracking is found during the inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraph
(j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service
Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, including Service
Sketch 3683D, Revision C, dated July 19, 1989.
(1) For Option I: If Option I was used for the inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, do the actions at the
applicable intervals, as specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i),
(j)(1)(ii), and (j)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Repeat the LFEC inspection for cracking of the side areas
above the floor between longerons L7 and L17 on the fuselage left
and right sides, at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles.
(ii) Repeat the general visual inspection for cracking of the
top and lower areas from longeron L7 left side to L7 right side, and
lower fuselage longeron L17 to L20 on the fuselage left and right
sides, at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles.
(iii) Repeat the general visual inspection for cracking of the
bottom areas from longeron L20 left side to L20 right side, at
intervals not to exceed 3,500 flight cycles.
(2) For Option II: If Option II was used for the inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repeat the high and low eddy
frequency eddy current inspections for cracking around the entire
periphery of the fuselage from the forward side of the bulkhead at
intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight cycles.
(k) Corrective Action and Post-Replacement Inspections
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (h) or (j) of this AD: Before further pressurized flight,
replace each cracked tee section with an airworthy tee section
having a part number identified in paragraph (h) of this AD, or with
an original tee section having P/N 5910163-89, 5910163-91, 5910163-
92, 5910163-93, 5910163-94, or 5910163-95, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service
Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, including Service
Sketch 3683D, Revision C, dated July 19, 1989.
(1) If the tee section is replaced with an improved tee section
listed in paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to the accumulation of
50,000 flight cycles after installation, inspect the tee section in
accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD and do all applicable
corrective actions and repetitive inspections in accordance with and
at the times specified in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.
(2) If the tee section is replaced with an original tee section
listed in paragraph (k) of this AD, prior to the accumulation of
25,000 flight cycles after installation, inspect the tee section in
accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD and do all applicable
corrective actions and repetitive inspections in accordance with and
at the times specified in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.
(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/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 the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571,
Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(m) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Schrieber,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5348; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
[email protected].
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-12475 Filed 5-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P