MD 80 fatigue cracks forward entry door

[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53495-53498]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19se07-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29226; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-256-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81)
and DC-9-82 (MD-82) 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-9-81 (MD-81) and DC-9-82 (MD-82)
airplanes. This proposed AD would require, for certain airplanes,
inspecting for cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of
the forward passenger doorjamb, installing or replacing doublers as
applicable, and doing applicable repairs. This proposed AD results from
reports of fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin at the upper corners
of the forward passenger doorjamb. We are proposing this AD to prevent
cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward
passenger doorjamb, which could lead to loss of overall structural
integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5,
2007.

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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room

[[Page 53496]]

W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 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: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone (562) 627-5233; fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``FAA-2007-
29226; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-256-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 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 Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located on the
ground level of the West 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

We have received a report that fatigue cracking has been discovered
in the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger
doorjamb on certain Model DC-9/MD-80 airplanes. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to loss of overall structural integrity of the
airplane.

Relevant Service Information

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated
August 1, 2006. The alert service bulletin describes procedures for a
low-frequency eddy current (LFEC) or a high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspection, depending on airplane configuration, for cracking of
the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger
doorjamb; and applicable corrective actions. The compliance time for
the initial inspection is before accumulating 37,500 total flight
cycles, or within 3,575 flight cycles (whichever is later).
The corrective actions include:
For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes on which no
cracking is found: Either repeating the LFEC inspection at intervals of
3,575 flight cycles; or installing external aluminum doublers within
3,575 flight cycles after the last inspection, and doing an HFEC
inspection within 28,000 flight cycles after doing the installation,
and repetitively at 20,000-flight-cycle intervals.
For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes on which any crack
is found that is 2.0 inches or shorter in length: Repair before further
flight, and do an HFEC inspection within 28,000 flight cycles after the
repair, and repetitively at 20,000-flight-cycle intervals.
For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes on which any crack
is found that is longer than 2.0 inches; for Group 1, Configurations 2
and 3, airplanes on which any crack is found beyond the edge of the
doublers; and for Group 1, Configuration 4, airplanes: Contact Boeing
for repair instructions before further flight.
For Group 1, Configuration 2, airplanes on which no crack
is found beyond the edge of the steel doublers: Replace existing steel
doublers with aluminum doublers, and repair upper corners within 6,000
flight cycles after the initial inspection; and do an HFEC inspection
within 28,000 flight cycles after the repair, and repetitively at
20,000-flight-cycle intervals.
For Group 1, Configuration 3, airplanes on which no cracks
are found beyond the edge of the aluminum doublers: Repeat the HFEC
inspection at 20,000-flight-cycle intervals.
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 Proposed AD and Alert Service Bulletin.''

Differences Between Proposed AD and Alert Service Bulletin

For all airplanes, the alert service bulletin specifies to contact
the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions,
but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of
the following ways:
Using a method that we approve; or
Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.
For airplane configuration 4: Where the alert service bulletin
specifies to contact the manufacturer for repair instructions before
further flight, to avoid unnecessarily grounding airplanes, this
proposed AD would require performing repairs within 90 days after the
effective date of this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

There are about 76 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 46 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor
rate of $80 per work hour. The proposed actions vary depending upon the
airplane configuration.

[[Page 53497]]



Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LFEC inspection.................. 1 None needed......... $80, per inspection Up to $3,680, per
cycle. inspection cycle.
HFEC inspection.................. 1 None needed......... $80, per inspection Up to $3,680, per
cycle. inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We have determined that this 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-2007-29226; Directorate Identifier
2006-NM-256-AD.

Comments Due Date

(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November
5, 2007.

Affected ADs

(b) None.

Applicability

(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81)
and DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplanes; certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated
August 1, 2006.

Unsafe Condition

(d) This AD results from a report of fatigue cracking in the
fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger
doorjamb. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the fuselage
skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb, which
could lead to loss of overall 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.

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions for Configuration 1, 2,
and 3 Airplanes

(f) For airplanes identified as Configuration 1, 2, or 3 in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006: At
the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
the alert service bulletin, do a low-frequency eddy current (LFEC)
or high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection, as applicable, for
cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward
passenger doorjamb; and do all applicable corrective actions
(repetitive inspections, installation of doublers, replacements, and
repairs), except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD. Do the
actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
alert service bulletin. Where the alert service bulletin specifies a
compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD
requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the
effective date of this AD.

Repair of Certain Conditions

(g) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (f) of this AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
53A298, dated August 1, 2006, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.

Corrective Action for Configuration 4 Airplanes

(h) For airplanes identified as Configuration 4 in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006: Within 90 days
after the effective date of this AD, repair 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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
(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, 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.


[[Page 53498]]


Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 10, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-18447 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P