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.

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. 

(2) Have been inspected in accordance with 

paragraph (d) of AD 2004–07–22, amendment 39–13566, using the HFEC method.

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. 

Repetitive Inspections 

(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. 

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 

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 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://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 http:// 

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 

72602 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building at 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: 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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 ‘‘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. 

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

Action Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Parts Cost per airplane 

Number 

of U.S.- 

registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Inspection, per inspection 

cycle.

2 $65 $0 $130, per inspection cycle 376 $48,880, per inspection 

cycle. 

Optional terminating acton 

(replacing the frame).

1 96 65 7,305 $13,545 ............................. 376 Up to $5,092,920. 

1Per 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. 

§ 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–

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 

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 

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