[Federal Register: April 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 65)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17312-17315]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06ap05-2]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2004-18561; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-13-AD;
Amendment 39-14042; AD 2005-07-18]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15F
Airplanes Modified In Accordance With Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) SA1993SO; and Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-
50 Series Airplanes in All-Cargo Configuration, Equipped With a Main-
Deck Cargo Door
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
airplanes listed above. For certain airplanes, this AD requires
inspecting to determine the airplane's cargo configuration, and
reporting findings to the FAA. For airplanes modified in accordance
with a certain STC or with a cargo configuration that deviates from the
as-delivered configuration, this AD requires revising certain manuals
and manual supplements to specify certain cargo limitations. This AD
also requires relocating all cargo restraints on the main cargo deck.
This AD is prompted by reports that deficiencies related to the cargo
loading system may exist on all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15F
airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO. We are issuing this
AD to ensure that cargo in the main cabin is adequately restrained and
to prevent failure of components of the cargo loading system, failure
of the floor structure, or shifting of cargo. Any of these conditions
could cause cargo to exceed load distribution limits or cause damage to
the fuselage or control cables, which could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.
DATES: This AD becomes effective May 11, 2005.
Docket: The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any
final disposition. You can 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
[[Page 17313]]
the U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room
PL-401, Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2004-18561; the
directorate identifier for this docket is 2004-NM-13-AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rany Azzi, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,
One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia
30349; telephone (770) 703-6083; fax (770) 703-6097.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 39
with an AD for McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15F airplanes modified in
accordance with supplemental type certificate (STC) SA1993SO; and 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 in all-cargo
configuration. For certain airplanes, that action, published in the
Federal Register on July 8, 2004 (69 FR 41204), proposed to require
inspecting to determine the airplane's cargo configuration, and
reporting findings to the FAA. For airplanes modified in accordance
with a certain STC or with a cargo configuration that deviates from the
as-delivered configuration, that action proposed to require revising
certain manuals and manual supplements to specify certain cargo
limitations. That action also proposed to require relocating all cargo
restraints on the main cargo deck.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
submitted on the proposed AD.
Support for the Proposed AD
One commenter supports the intent of the proposed AD and concurs
with the proposed actions.
Request To Revise Applicability Statement
One commenter, an operator, requests that we revise the
applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter states that certain
airplanes in its fleet were originally delivered as passenger airplanes
but have been modified by various STCs to all-cargo configuration. None
of these airplanes were modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO, and
none has a main deck cargo door. The commenter notes that the Costs of
Compliance section of the proposed AD indicates that a total of 33
airplanes worldwide (including 30 of U.S. registry) would be affected
by the proposal. The commenter questions the accuracy of this number
because it operates 74 airplanes in cargo configuration (including the
airplanes described previously that were originally delivered as
passenger airplanes).
We concur with the commenter's request to revise the applicability
of this AD. Our intent was to make the requirements of this AD apply to
airplanes delivered by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) with,
or modified by a third party to have, a main-deck cargo door that
accommodates certain unit loading devices. Accordingly, we have revised
the applicability of this AD to specify that this AD applies to 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 in all-cargo
configuration, and equipped with a main-deck cargo door. We have
determined that only 8 of the commenter's 74 airplanes would be in this
category. This AD also continues to apply to Model DC-9-15F airplanes
modified in accordance with supplemental type certificate (STC)
SA1993SO.
Request To Allow Records Review or Extend Compliance Time
The same commenter requests that we revise the proposed AD to allow
determining the details of the cargo configuration from airplane
records without performing the inspection of the main deck cargo
compartment. The commenter states that it can determine the cargo
configuration of its airplanes by reviewing the airplane records. The
commenter further requests that we extend the compliance time from 60
days after the effective date to 6 months or longer after the effective
date if we do not agree that a records review is an acceptable method
of complying with the proposed requirements. The commenter states that
the proposed 60-day compliance time would be unduly burdensome.
We do not agree that a records review is an acceptable method of
complying with the requirements of this AD. We proposed this AD because
we are aware that some airplanes delivered by the OEM in all-cargo
configuration, with a main-deck cargo door, have been modified to a
configuration similar to that provided by STC SA1993SO without any
documentation in the airplane records. As explained in the proposed AD,
the configuration provided by STC SA1993SO and similar configurations
have deficiencies including inadequate design of the cargo loading
system, inadequate loading procedures, and lack of identification of
loading devices and restraining methods. We find that it is necessary
to require an inspection of the main deck cargo compartment to
determine the exact and accurate details of the airplane's cargo
configuration.
We also do not agree to extend the compliance time beyond the
proposed 60 days. As we explained in the preamble of the proposed AD,
in developing the compliance time for the proposed actions, we
considered the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject
unsafe condition, and the time that would be necessary to accomplish
the proposed requirements. Based on these factors, we find that a 60-
day compliance time for completing the required inspection and report
represents an appropriate period of time for affected airplanes to
continue to operate without compromising safety. Specifically
considering the commenter's fleet, as we stated previously, only 8 of
the commenter's 74 cargo airplanes are subject to the requirements of
this AD. Therefore, we find that 60 days constitutes an appropriate
compliance time in which neither safety nor the commenter's operations
will be adversely affected. We have not changed the final rule in this
regard.
Request To Limit Applicability of Manual Revisions and Cargo Restraint
Relocation
The same commenter notes that the proposed manual revisions in
paragraph (h) of the proposed AD do not take into consideration the
different cargo zones and loading configurations for DC-9-30 and DC-9-
40 series airplanes. The commenter states that the requirements of
paragraphs (h) and (i) of the proposed AD appear to target a specific
configuration and series, such as a Model DC-9-15F airplane modified in
accordance with STC SA1993SO. The commenter wants the FAA to first
accomplish a thorough evaluation of the details of each specific STC
cargo configuration before subjecting an operator to a limitation on
cargo loading, or a modification to the cargo configuration. The
commenter requests that we revise the proposed AD to make paragraphs
(h) and (i) apply only to airplanes that have been modified by STC
SA1993SO, and to specify that requirements for other airplanes will be
issued after an evaluation of the configuration details submitted as
[[Page 17314]]
required by paragraph (f) of the proposed AD.
We do not concur. We have determined that the limitations stated in
paragraph (h) and the requirements stated in paragraph (i) of this AD
can be applied to most airplanes subject to this AD, regardless of
model or configuration. Should an operator find that it is unable to
comply with the specific requirements of this AD, that operator must
request approval of an alternative method of compliance with the
reporting requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD, as provided by
paragraph (j) of this AD. We will determine whether or not the
operator's fleet's cargo configuration exhibits the same unsafe
conditions exhibited by airplanes modified in accordance with STC
SA1993SO or airplanes in similar configurations. We have not changed
the final rule in this regard.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
Costs of Compliance
This AD affects about 3 airplanes of U.S. registry, out of 5
airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO worldwide. The
following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators of
these airplanes to comply with this AD.
Estimated Costs--Airplanes Modified In Accordance With STC SA1993SO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average labor Cost per
Action Work hours rate per hour Parts airplane Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manual changes............... 1 $65 None............. $65 $195
Relocation of cargo 24 65 None............. 1,560 4,680
restraints on main deck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This AD also affects about 27 airplanes of U.S. registry out of 28
airplanes worldwide that are in all-cargo configuration. The following
table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators of these
airplanes to comply with this AD.
Estimated Costs--Airplanes in All-Cargo Configuration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average labor Cost per
Action Work hours rate per hour Parts airplane Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection/Reporting......... 8 $65 None............. $520 $14,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD. 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.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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):
2005-07-18 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-14042. Docket No. FAA-
2004-18561; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-13-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective May 11, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15F
airplanes modified in accordance with supplemental type certificate
(STC) SA1993SO; and 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 in all-cargo configuration, equipped with a main-deck
cargo door; certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by reports that deficiencies related to
the cargo loading system may exist on all McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-9-15F airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO. We are
[[Page 17315]]
issuing this AD to ensure that cargo in the main cabin is adequately
restrained and to prevent failure of components of the cargo loading
system, failure of the floor structure, or shifting of cargo. Any of
these conditions could cause cargo to exceed load distribution
limits or cause damage to the fuselage or control cables, which
could result in reduced controllability 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.
Airplanes Not Modified in Accordance With STC SA1993SO: Inspection and
Reporting
(f) For airplanes not modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO:
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform an
inspection of the main deck cargo compartment to determine the
details of the airplane's cargo configuration. Within 60 days after
the effective date of this AD, submit a report of the details of the
airplane's cargo configuration through the FAA Principal Maintenance
Inspector (PMI), or the cognizant Flight Standards District Office,
as applicable, to the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, Small Airplane Directorate. The report must include the
airplane serial number, inspection results, and the information
specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) of this
AD. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements contained in this
AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1) Restraint system: Does the airplane have vertical side
restraints installed on the main deck floor? How many vertical side
restraints are installed per airplane side?
(2) Vertical fore/aft restraints: How many vertical fore/aft
restraints are installed on each end of a pallet position?
(3) For airplanes with missing vertical side restraints: Is a
bump rail installed?
(4) Unit Loading Devices (ULDs): What type/model ULDs are used
for cargo carriage in affected airplanes? Obtain NAS 3610
designation from affixed data plate as required by Technical
Standard Order (TSO) C90a, b, c, or designation provided by STC or
other approved means. Is there a manual or document that indicates
the type/model of ULDs to use? If there is such a manual or
document, include the manual/document number and revision level in
the report required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
Airplanes Deviating From Original Configuration: Required Action
(g) During the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD,
if the airplane's cargo configuration deviates from the original
configuration as delivered by McDonnell Douglas (including, but not
limited to, missing vertical side restraints or revised fore/aft
restraint configuration), accomplish paragraphs (h) and (i) of this
AD.
Manual Revisions
(h) For airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO and
airplanes specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 90 days
after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations section
of the airplane flight manual (AFM), the AFM supplements, the
Limitations section of the airplane weight and balance manual
(AWBM), and the AWBM supplements to include the information
specified below. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of
this AD into the affected manual or supplement. After accomplishment
of these revisions, the airplane must be operated in accordance with
these limitations.
``REDUCTION IN CARGO LOADS AS FOLLOWS:
Zone 1 (most forward): Limited to a maximum of 4,000
pounds,
Zones 2 through 7: Limited to a maximum of 5,200 pounds
each,
Zone 8 (most aft): Limited to a maximum of 2,000
pounds.
Note: The maximum total payload that can be carried on the main
deck is limited to the lesser of:
The approved cargo barrier weight limit,
Weight permitted by the approved maximum zero-fuel
weight,
Weight permitted by the approved main deck position
weights,
Weight permitted by the approved main deck running load
or distributed load limitations, or
Approved cumulative zone or fuselage monocoque
structural loading limitations (including lower hold cargo).
Limitations:
Use only unit loading devices (ULDs) (containers and pallets)
that are structurally compatible with the cargo loading system. One
means of establishing compatibility is through compliance with the
specifications of NAS 3610 for ULDs approved under Technical
Standard Order (TSO) C90a, b, or c; or as provided by the
appropriate instructions of a Supplemental Type Certificate or other
approved means. Alternative methods of compliance can be obtained as
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Ensure proper restraining of the ULDs by engaging all cargo
loading system restraints.
The center-of-gravity shift of each ULD must not exceed 10
percent of its base longitudinal or lateral directions.
Relocation of Cargo Restraints
(i) For airplanes modified in accordance with STC SA1993SO and
airplanes specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 90 days
after the effective date of this AD, relocate all fore/aft cargo
restraints in the main cargo deck to left and right buttock lines
22.0 and 44.5.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(j) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in
14 CFR 39.19.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(k) None.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 25, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-6757 Filed 4-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P