Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10 Series Airplanes; DC-9-20 Series Airplanes; DC-9-30 Series Airplanes; DC-9-40 Series Airplanes; and DC-9-50 Series Airplanes, 39435-39441 [05-13436]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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. 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2005–21748;
Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–071–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) must receive comments on this AD
action by August 22, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767–
200 and –300 series airplanes; certificated in
any category; as specified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767–26A0130, dated
December 2, 2004.
(2) Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767–26A0123, dated
August 22, 2002.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Jul 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
(3) Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767–26A0123, dated
August 22, 2002, on which the applicable
service bulletin specified in the table in
paragraph 1.B., titled ‘‘Concurrent
Requirements’’ has been accomplished.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by one report
indicating that an operator found a hole in
the discharge tube assembly for the metered
fire extinguishing system; and another report
indicating that an operator found chafing of
the fire extinguishing tube against the
auxiliary power unit (APU) duct that resulted
in a crack in the tube. We are issuing this AD
to prevent fire extinguishing agent from
leaking out of the tube assembly in the aft
cargo compartment which, in the event of a
fire in the aft cargo compartment, could
result in an insufficient concentration of fire
extinguishing agent, and consequent inability
of the fire extinguishing system to suppress
the fire.
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
(f) Within 24 months or 8,000 flight hours
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
is first: Accomplish the actions required by
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, as
applicable.
(1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767–26A0130, dated
December 2, 2004: Perform general visual
and detailed inspections for discrepancies of
the tube assemblies and insulation of the
metered fire extinguisher system and the
bleed air duct couplings of the APU located
in the aft cargo compartment and any
applicable corrective actions and functional
test, by doing all the applicable actions
specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767–26A0130, dated December 2, 2004. Do
any applicable corrective actions before
further flight in accordance with the service
bulletin. Repeat the inspections thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 24 months or 8,000
flight hours, whichever is first. Installation of
the tube assembly in the correct location, in
accordance with the service bulletin,
terminates the repetitive inspections for that
assembly only.
(2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767–26A0123, dated August
22, 2002: Perform a general visual inspection
for sufficient clearance between the fire
extinguishing tube and the APU duct on the
left sidewall from station 1355 through 1365
inclusive, and do any applicable
modification, by doing all the actions
specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767–26A0123, dated August 22, 2002. Do any
applicable modification before further flight.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
general visual inspection is: ‘‘A visual
examination of an interior or exterior area,
installation, or assembly to detect obvious
damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39435
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.’’
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(g) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 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 June 29,
2005.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–13433 Filed 7–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–21779; Directorate
Identifier 2002–NM–349–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell
Douglas Model DC–9–10 Series
Airplanes; DC–9–20 Series Airplanes;
DC–9–30 Series Airplanes; DC–9–40
Series Airplanes; and DC–9–50 Series
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to
supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain
McDonnell Douglas transport category
airplanes. The existing AD requires,
among other things, revision of an
existing program of structural
inspections. This proposed AD would
require the implementation of a program
of structural inspections of baseline
structure to detect and correct fatigue
cracking in order to ensure the
continued airworthiness of these
airplanes as they approach the
manufacturer’s original fatigue design
life goal. This proposed AD is prompted
by a significant number of these
airplanes approaching or exceeding the
design service goal on which the initial
type certification approval was
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
39436
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
predicated. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking that
could compromise the structural
integrity of these airplanes.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by August 22, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to submit comments on this
proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
https://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://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.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach
Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846,
Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–
0024).
You can examine the contents of this
AD docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., room PL–401, on the plaza level of
the Nassif Building, Washington, DC.
This docket number is FAA–2005–
21779; the directorate identifier for this
docket is 2002–NM–349–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. Send your
comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2005–21779; Directorate Identifier
2002–NM–349–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
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Jul 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
proposed AD in light of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
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 our docket
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 can
review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78), or you can visit https://
dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You can examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://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 DMS
receives them.
Discussion
On June 12, 1996, we issued AD 96–
13–03, amendment 39–9671 (61 FR
31009, June 19, 1996), for all McDonnell
Douglas Model DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40,
–50, and C–9 (Military) series airplanes.
(Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA
has revised the applicability of the
existing AD to identify model
designations as published in the most
recent type certificate data sheet for the
affected models.) That AD requires
implementation of a program of
structural inspections to detect and
correct fatigue cracking in order to
ensure the continued airworthiness of
these airplanes as they approach the
manufacturer’s original fatigue design
life goal. That AD also requires, among
other things, revision of the existing
program to require additional visual
inspections of additional structure. That
AD was prompted by data submitted by
the manufacturer indicating that certain
revisions to the program were necessary
in order to increase the confidence level
of the statistical program to ensure
timely detection of cracks in various
airplane structures. We issued that AD
to prevent fatigue cracking that could
compromise the structural integrity of
those airplanes.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Supplemental Inspection Documents
(SIDs) ADs
In the early 1980’s, as part of our
continuing work to maintain the
structural integrity of older transport
category airplanes, we concluded that
the incidence of fatigue cracking may
increase as these airplanes reach or
exceed their design service goal (DSG).
A significant number of these airplanes
were approaching or had exceeded the
DSG on which the initial type
certification approval was predicated. In
light of this, and as a result of increased
utilization, longer operational lives, and
the high levels of safety expected of the
currently operated transport category
airplanes, we determined that a
supplemental structural inspection
program (SSIP) was necessary to ensure
a high level of structural integrity for all
airplanes in the transport fleet.
Issuance of Advisory Circular
As a follow-on from that
determination, we issued Advisory
Circular (AC) No. 91–56, ‘‘Supplemental
Structural Inspection Program for Large
Transport Category Airplanes,’’ dated
May 6, 1981. That AC provides
guidance material to manufacturers and
operators for use in developing a
continuing structural integrity program
to ensure safe operation of older
airplanes throughout their operational
lives. This guidance material applies to
transport airplanes that were certified
under the fail-safe requirements of part
4b (‘‘Airplane Airworthiness, Transport
Categories’’) of the Civil Air Regulations
of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) (14 CFR part 25), and that have
a maximum gross weight greater than
75,000 pounds. The procedures set forth
in that AC are applicable to transport
category airplanes operated under
subpart D (‘‘Special Flight Operations’’)
of part 91 of the FAR (14 CFR part 91);
part 121 (‘‘Operating Requirements:
Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental
Operations’’); part 125 (‘‘Certification
and Operations: Airplanes having a
Seating Capacity of 20 or More
Passengers or a Maximum Payload of
6,000 Pounds or More’’); and part 135
(‘‘Operating Requirements: Commuter
and On-Demand Operations’’) of the
FAR (14 CFR parts 121, 125, and 135).
The objective of the SSIP was to
establish inspection programs to ensure
timely detection of fatigue cracking.
Aging Aircraft Safety Act (AASA)
In October 1991, Congress enacted
Title IV of Public Law 102–143, the
AASA of 1991, to address aging aircraft
concerns. That Act instructed the FAA
administrator to prescribe regulations
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
that will ensure the continuing
airworthiness of aging aircraft.
SSID Team
In April 2000 the Transport Airplane
Directorate (TAD) chartered a SSID
Team to develop recommendations to
standardize the SID/SSID ADs regarding
the treatment of repairs, alterations, and
modifications (RAMs). The report can
be accessed at https://www.faa.gov/
certification/aircraft/transport.htm.
FAA Responses to AASA
In addition to the SSID Team activity,
there are other on-going activities
associated with FAA’s Aging Aircraft
Program. This includes, among other
initiatives, our responses to the AASA.
On January 25, 2005, as one of the
responses to the AASA, we issued the
Aging Airplane Safety; Final Rule
(AASFR) (70 FR 5518, February 2,
2005). The AASFR revised the interim
final rule that was published on
December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72726,
December 6, 2002) and revised by
technical amendment (68 FR 69307,
December 12, 2004). The AASFR
applies to certain transport category,
turbine powered airplanes with a type
certificate issued after January 1, 1958
(including the airplanes that would be
subject to this AD) that are operated
under 14 CFR parts 121 or 129, with the
exception of airplanes operated within
the State of Alaska. Sections 121.370a
and 129.16 of the AASFR require the
maintenance programs of those
airplanes to include damage tolerancebased inspections and procedures for
structure that is susceptible to fatigue
cracking that could contribute to a
catastrophic failure. The inspections
and procedures must take into account
the adverse affects that repairs,
alterations, and modifications may have
on fatigue cracking and the inspection
of the structure. The procedures are to
be established and incorporated before
December 20, 2010. Compliance with
this proposed AD would also be
compliance with some aspects of the
AASFR.
Public Technical Meeting
The TAD also held a public meeting
regarding standardization of the FAA
approach to RAMs in SID/SSID ADs on
February 27, 2003, in Seattle,
Washington. We presented our views
and heard comments from the public
concerning issues regarding the
standardization of the requirements of
ADs for certain transport category
airplanes that mandate SSIDs, and that
address the treatment of RAMs for those
certain transport category airplanes. Our
presentation included a plan for the
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Jul 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
standardization of SID/SSID ADs, the
results of the SSID Team findings, and
the TAD vision of how SID/SSID ADs
may support compliance to the AASIFR.
We also asked for input from operators
on the issues addressing RAMs in SID/
SSID ADs. One of the major comments
presented at the public meeting was that
operators do not have the capability to
accomplish the damage tolerance
assessments, and they will have to rely
on the manufacturers to perform those
assessments. Furthermore, the operators
believe that the timeframes to
accomplish the damage tolerance
assessments will not permit
manufacturers to support the operators.
Another major comment presented was
from the Airworthiness Assurance
Working Group (AAWG) of the Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC). The AAWG requested that we
withdraw the damage tolerance
requirements from the final rule and
task AAWG to develop a new RAM
damage tolerance based program with
timelines to be developed by ARAC.
The public meeting presentations can be
accessed at https://www.faa.gov/
certification/aircraft/transport.htm.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed Boeing Report No.
L26–008, ‘‘DC–9 All Series
Supplemental Inspection Document
(SID), Volume 1, Revision 6, dated
November 2002. The purpose of Boeing
Report No. L26–008 is to define the
mandatory inspection requirements for
the Principal Structural Elements (PSEs)
and to provide specific non-destructive
inspection (NDI) techniques and
procedures for each PSE. Revision 6 also
revises the maintenance program by
removing provisions for the sampling
inspection program. However, Revision
6 retains the program goal to inspect
airplanes in advance of a certain
threshold for the possibility of
increasing that threshold and using
service history to justify delaying
inspections on the younger portion of
the fleet. As with previous revisions,
Revision 6 provides credit for
inspections previously accomplished
within the required intervals. The SID
provides a description of PSEs, NDI
locations, planning and reporting
procedures and certain criteria upon
which the supplemental inspection
program is based.
We have also reviewed Boeing Report
No. L26–008, ‘‘DC–9 Series 10/20
Supplemental Inspection Document
(SID), Volume II—10/20, Revision 6,
dated November 2004;’’ ‘‘DC–9 Series
20/30 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID), Volume II—20/30,
Revision 7, dated November 2004;’’
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39437
‘‘DC–9 Series 40 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID, Volume II—
40, Revision 6, dated November 2004;’’
and ‘‘DC–9 Series 50 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID), Volume II—
50, Revision 6, dated November 2004.’’
Those Volume II documents describe
specific non-destructive testing
inspections of the SID, and have been
approved as an acceptable alternative
method of compliance with
corresponding paragraphs of AD 96–13–
03.
Accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described
above 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 products of this same
type design. This proposed AD would
retain the requirements of AD 96–13–03.
This proposed AD also would continue
to require revision of the FAA-approved
maintenance program. This proposed
AD would require implementation of a
structural inspection program of
baseline structure to detect and correct
fatigue cracking in order to ensure the
continued airworthiness of airplanes as
they approach the manufacturer’s
original fatigue design life goal. For the
purposes of this proposed AD, a PSE is
defined as an element that contributes
significantly to the carrying of flight,
ground or pressurization loads, and the
integrity of that element is essential in
maintaining the overall structural
integrity of the airplane.
Editorial Clarifications
Paragraph (b) of AD 96–13–03 (which
is renumbered as paragraph (f) of this
AD) requires, among other things, that
the maintenance program be revised to
include the inspection threshold and
repetitive inspections (planning data)
defined in Section 2 of Volume III–95 of
the SID. Paragraph (b)(3) of AD 96–13–
03 (renumbered as paragraph (f)(3) of
this AD) also requires inspection results
to be reported in accordance with
Section 2 of Volume III–95. Those
planning and data reporting
requirements are now contained in
Section 4 of Volume 1, Revision 6, dated
November 2002. Therefore, this
proposed AD would require use of the
information in Section 4 of Volume 1,
Revision 6, and reference to Volume III
has been removed in the new
requirements of this proposed AD.
The following paragraphs summarize
certain specific actions proposed in this
AD.
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
39438
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Revision of the Maintenance Program
Paragraph (h) of the proposed AD
would require a revision of the
maintenance inspection program that
provides for inspection(s) of the PSE per
Boeing Report No. L26–008, ‘‘DC–9 All
Series, Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID),’’ Volume 1, Revision 6,
dated November 2002. PSEs are also
defined and specified in the SID. Unless
otherwise specified, references in this
proposed AD to the ‘‘SID’’ are to
Revision 6, dated November 2002.
Non-Destructive Inspections (NDI)
Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD
would specify that the SID be
implemented on a PSE-by-PSE basis
before structure exceeds its 75% fatigue
life threshold (3⁄4Nth), and its full fatigue
life threshold (Nth). The threshold value
is defined as the life of the structure
measured in total landings, when the
probability of failure reaches one in a
billion. The DC–9 All Series SID
program is not a sampling program.
Airplanes would be inspected once
prior to reaching both PSE thresholds
(once by 3⁄4Nth and once by Nth). In order
for the inspection to have value, no PSE
would be inspected prior to half of the
fatigue life threshold, 1⁄2Nth. The
additional 3⁄4Nth threshold aids in
advancing the threshold for some PSEs
as explained in Section 4 of Volume I
of the SID. Inspection of each PSE
should be accomplished in accordance
with the NDI procedures set forth in
Volume II of the SID.
For airplanes past the threshold Nth,
the proposed AD would require that the
PSE be inspected at repetitive intervals
not to exceed DNDI/2 as specified in
Section 4 of Volume I of the SID per the
NDI procedure, which is specified in
Volume II of the SID. The definition of
DNDI/2 is half of the life for a crack to
grow from a given NDI detectable crack
size to instability.
Paragraph (i) of this proposed AD also
would require, for airplanes that have
exceeded the Nth, that each PSE be
inspected within 18 months after the
effective date of this AD. The entire PSE
must be inspected regardless of whether
or not it has been repaired, altered, or
modified.
Certain Acceptable Methods of
Compliance
Paragraph (j) of this proposed AD
specifies certain revision levels of
Volume II of the SID that provide
acceptable methods of compliance with
the requirements of paragraph (j) of this
proposed AD.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Jul 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
Discrepant Findings
Paragraph (k) of this proposed AD
would require that, if any PSE is
repaired, altered, or modified, it must be
considered a ‘‘discrepant finding.’’ A
discrepant PSE indicates that it could
not be completely inspected because the
NDI procedure could not be
accomplished due to differences on the
airplane from the NDI reference
standard (i.e., RAMs). For any
discrepancy (e.g., a PSE cannot be
inspected as specified in Volume II of
the SID or does not match rework,
repair, or modification description in
Volume I of the SID), this proposed AD
would require that the discrepancy be
inspected in accordance with a method
approved by the FAA.
Reporting Requirements
Paragraph (l) of this proposed AD
would require that all negative, positive,
or discrepant findings of the inspection
accomplished in paragraph (i) of the AD
be reported to Boeing at the times
specified, and in instructions contained
in Section 4 of Volume 1 of the SID.
Corrective Action
Paragraph (m) of this proposed AD
would require that any cracked
structure detected during any inspection
required per paragraph (i) of this AD be
repaired before further flight.
Additionally, paragraph (m) of this AD
would require accomplishment of
follow-on actions as specified in
paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of
this proposed AD, at the times specified
below.
1. Within 18 months after repair,
accomplish a Damage Tolerance
Assessment (DTA) that defines the
threshold for inspection and submit the
assessment for approval to the Manager,
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA.
2. Prior to reaching 75% of the
threshold, submit the inspection
methods and repetitive inspections
intervals for the repair for approval by
the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.
3. Prior to the threshold, the
inspection method and repetitive
inspection intervals are to be
incorporated into the FAA-approved
structural maintenance or inspection
program for the airplane.
For the purposes of this proposed AD,
the FAA anticipates that submissions of
the DTA of the repair, if acceptable,
should be approved within six months
after submission.
Transferability of Airplanes
Paragraph (n) of this proposed AD
specifies the requirements of the
inspection program for transferred
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
airplanes. Before any airplane that is
subject to this proposed AD can be
added to an air carrier’s operations
specifications, a program for the
accomplishment of the inspections
required by this proposed AD must be
established. Paragraph (n) of the
proposed AD would require
accomplishment of the following:
1. For airplanes that have been
inspected per this proposed AD, the
inspection of each PSE must be
accomplished by the new operator per
the previous operator’s schedule and
inspection method, or per the new
operator’s schedule and inspection
method, at whichever time would result
in the earlier accomplishment date for
that PSE inspection. The compliance
time for accomplishment of this
inspection must be measured from the
last inspection accomplished by the
previous operator. After each inspection
has been performed once, each
subsequent inspection must be
performed per the new operator’s
schedule and inspection method.
2. For airplanes that have not been
inspected per this proposed AD, the
inspection of each PSE must be
accomplished either prior to adding the
airplane to the air carrier’s operations
specification, or per a schedule and an
inspection method approved by the
FAA. After each inspection has been
performed once, each subsequent
inspection must be performed per the
new operator’s schedule.
Accomplishment of these actions will
ensure that: (1) An operator’s newly
acquired airplanes comply with its SSIP
before being operated; and (2) frequently
transferred airplanes are not permitted
to operate without accomplishment of
the inspections defined in the SSID.
Inspections Accomplished Before the
Effective Date of this AD
Paragraph (o) of this proposed AD
merely provides approval of Boeing
Report No. L26–008, ‘‘DC–9 All Series
Supplemental Inspection Document
(SID),’’ Volume I, Revision 6, dated
November 2002; as acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (i) of this proposed AD for
inspections accomplished before the
effective date of the proposed AD.
Acceptable for Compliance
Paragraph (p) of this proposed AD
also provides approval of McDonnell
Douglas Report No. MDC91K0263, ‘‘DC–
9/MD–80 Aging Aircraft Repair
Assessment Program Document,’’
Revision 1, dated October 2000 as an
acceptable means of compliance with
the requirements of paragraphs (i) and
(m) of this proposed AD for repairs and
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
inspection/replacement for certain
repairs to the fuselage pressure shell
accomplished prior to the effective date
of the proposed AD.
Change to Existing AD
This proposed AD would retain the
requirements of AD 96–13–03. Since AD
96–13–03 was issued, the AD format has
been revised, and certain paragraphs
have been rearranged. As a result, the
corresponding paragraph identifiers
have changed in this proposed AD, as
listed in the following table:
REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS
Requirement in
AD 96–13–03
Paragraph (a) ............
Paragraph (b) ............
Paragraph (c) ............
Corresponding
requirement in
this proposed AD
Paragraph (f).
Paragraph (g).
Paragraph (h).
Other Editorial Changes
The ‘‘tables’’ specified in the
regulatory text of this proposed rule,
including the tables restated from AD
96–13–03, have been numbered for easy
reference.
Interim Action
This is considered to be interim
action. We are currently considering
requiring damage tolerance-based
inspections and procedures that include
all major structural RAMs, which may
result in additional rulemaking. That
rulemaking may include appropriate
recommendations from the previously
mentioned FAA team and a public
meeting on how to address RAMs.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 710 McDonnell
Douglas transport category airplanes
worldwide of the affected design. This
proposed AD would affect about 477
airplanes of U.S. registry, or 26 U.S.
airline operators.
The recurring inspection costs, as
required by AD–96–13–03, take 362
work hours per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based
on these figures, the estimated cost of
the currently required actions is
$11,223,810, or $23,530 per airplane,
per inspection cycle.
The incorporation of the revised
procedures in this AD action will
require approximately 20 additional
work hours per operator to accomplish,
at an average labor rate of $65 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the cost to
the 26 affected U.S. operators to
incorporate these revised procedures
into the SID program is estimated to be
$33,800, or $1,300, per operator.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Jul 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
Additionally, the number of required
work hours for each proposed
inspection (and the SID program), as
indicated above, is presented as if the
accomplishment of those actions were
to be conducted as ‘‘stand alone’’
actions. However, in actual practice,
these actions for the most part will be
accomplished coincidently or in
combination with normally scheduled
airplane inspections and other
maintenance program tasks. Further,
any costs associated with special
airplane scheduling are expected to be
minimal.
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. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the
regulatory evaluation.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39439
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 FAA amends § 39.13 by
removing amendment 39–9671 (61 FR
31009, June 19, 1996) and adding the
following new airworthiness directive
(AD):
McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA–2005–
21779; Directorate Identifier 2002–NM–
349–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration
must receive comments on this airworthiness
directive (AD) action by August 22, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 96–13–03,
amendment 39–9671 (61 FR 31009, June 19,
1996).
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell
Douglas 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.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by a significant
number of these airplanes approaching or
exceeding the design service goal on which
the initial type certification approval was
predicated. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking that could
compromise the structural integrity of these
airplanes.
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.
Requirements of AD 96–13–03
Revision of the FAA-Approved Maintenance
Inspection Program
(f) Within 6 months after July 24, 1996 (the
effective date of AD 96–13–03, amendment
39–9671), replace the FAA-approved
maintenance inspection program with a
revision that provides for inspection(s) of the
principal structural elements (PSEs) defined
in McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26–008,
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
39440
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
‘‘DC–9 Supplemental Inspection Document
(SID),’’ Section 2 of Volume I of McDonnell
Douglas Report No. L26–008, ‘‘DC–9
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),’’
Revision 4, dated July 1993, in accordance
with Section 2 of Volume III–95, dated
September 1995, of the SID.
Note 1: Operators should note that certain
visual inspections of FLOS PSE’s that were
previously specified in earlier revisions of
Volume III of the SID are no longer specified
in Volume III–95 of the SID.
(1) Prior to reaching the threshold (Nth), but
no earlier than one-half of the threshold
(1⁄2Nth), specified for all PSE’s listed in
Volume III–95, dated September 1995, of the
SID, inspect each PSE sample in accordance
with the non-destructive inspection (NDI)
procedures set forth in Section 2 of Volume
II, dated July 1993. Thereafter, repeat the
inspection for that PSE at intervals not to
exceed DNDI/2 of the NDI procedure that is
specified in Volume III–95, dated September
1995, of the SID.
(2) The NDI techniques set forth in Section
2 of Volume II, dated July 1993, of the SID
provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by
this paragraph.
(3) All inspection results (negative or
positive) must be reported to McDonnell
Douglas, in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III–95,
dated September 1995, of the SID.
Information collection requirements
contained in this regulation have been
approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB
Control Number 2120–0056.
Note 2: Volume II of the SID, dated July
1993, is comprised of the following:
TABLE 1
Volume designation
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Revision level
shown on volume
II–10/20 .............
II–20/30 .............
II–40 ..................
II–50 ..................
4
5
4
4
Note 3: NDI inspections accomplished in
accordance with the following Volume II of
the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by
this paragraph:
TABLE 2
Volume designation
Revision
level
Date
of revision
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
4
3
2
1
Original
5
4
3
2
1
July 1993.
April 1991.
April 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
July 1993.
April 1991.
April 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
II–10/20
II–10–20
II–10/20
II–10/20
II–20 .....
II–20/30
II–20/30
II–20/30
II–20/30
II–20/30
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Jul 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
TABLE 2—Continued
Volume designation
Revision
level
Date
of revision
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
4
3
2
1
Original
4
3
2
1
Original
July 1993.
April 1991.
April 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
July 1993.
April 1991.
April 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
II–40
II–40
II–40
II–40
II–40
II–50
II–50
II–50
II–50
II–50
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
(g) Any cracked structure detected during
the inspections required by paragraph (f) of
this AD must be repaired before further
flight, in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate.
Note 4: Requests for approval of any PSE
repair that would affect the FAA-approved
maintenance inspection program that is
required by this AD should include a damage
tolerance assessment for that PSE.
(3) For airplanes that have reached or
exceeded the fatigue life threshold (Nth) as of
the effective date of the AD: Perform an NDI
within 18 months after the effective date of
this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection for
that PSE at intervals not to exceed DNDI/2.
Note 5: Volume II of the SID, dated
November 2004 is comprised of the
following:
TABLE 3
Volume designation
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Revision
level
shown on
volume
II–10/20 .........................
II–20/30 .........................
II–40 ..............................
II–50 ..............................
6
7
6
6
Acceptable Methods of Compliance With
Paragraph (j) of This AD
(j) The following revision levels of Volume
II of the SID provide acceptable methods of
compliance with the inspections required by
paragraph (i) of this AD.
New Requirements of This AD
Revision of the Maintenance Inspection
Program
(h) Within 12 months after the effective
date of this AD, incorporate a revision into
the FAA-approved maintenance inspection
program that provides for inspection(s) of the
PSEs, in accordance with Boeing Report No.
L26–008, ‘‘DC–9 All Series, Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume I,
Revision 6, dated November 2002.’’ Unless
otherwise specified, all further references in
this AD to the ‘‘SID’’ are to Revision 6, dated
November 2002.
Non-Destructive Inspections (NDIs)
(i) For all PSEs listed in Section 2 of
Volume I of the SID, perform an NDI for
fatigue cracking of each PSE in accordance
with the NDI procedures specified in Section
2 of Volume II, dated November 2004 of the
SID, at the times specified in paragraph (i)(1),
(i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes that have less than three
quarters of the fatigue life threshold (3⁄4Nth)
as of the effective date of the AD: Perform an
NDI for fatigue cracking no earlier than onehalf of the threshold (1⁄2Nth) but prior to
reaching three-quarters of the threshold
(3⁄4Nth, or within 60 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
Inspect again prior to reaching the threshold
(Nth) or DNDI/2, whichever occurs later, but
no earlier than (3⁄4Nth). Thereafter, after
passing the threshold (Nth), repeat the
inspection for that PSE at intervals not to
exceed DNDI/2.
(2) For airplanes that have reached or
exceeded three-quarters of the fatigue life
threshold (3⁄4Nth), but less than the threshold
(Nth), as of the effective date of the AD:
Perform an NDI prior to reaching the
threshold (Nth), or within 18 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later. Thereafter, after passing the threshold
(Nth), repeat the inspection for that PSE at
intervals not to exceed DNDI/2.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TABLE 4
Volume
designation
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
II–10/20
II–10/20
II–10/20
II–10/20
II–10/20
II–10/20
II–20 .....
II–20/30
II–20/30
II–20/30
II–20/30
II–20/30
II–20/30
II–20/30
II–40 .....
II–40 .....
II–40 .....
II–40 .....
II–40 .....
II–40 .....
II–40 .....
II–50 .....
II–50 .....
II–50 .....
II–50 .....
II–50 .....
II–50 .....
II–50 .....
Revision
level
Date of
revision
6
5
4
3
2
1
Original
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
Original
6
5
4
3
2
1
Original
Nov. 2004.
July 1997.
July 1993.
April 1991.
April 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
Nov. 2004.
July 1997.
July 1993.
April 1991.
April 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
Nov. 2004
July 1997.
July 1993.
April 1991.
April 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
Nov. 2004.
July 1997.
July 1993.
April 1991.
April 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
Discrepant Findings
(k) If any discrepancy (e.g., a PSE cannot
be inspected as specified in Volume II of the
SID or does not match rework, repair, or
modification description in Volume I of the
SID) is detected during any inspection
required by paragraph (i) of this AD,
accomplish the action specified in paragraph
(k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) If a discrepancy is detected during any
inspection performed prior to 3⁄4Nth or Nth:
The area of the PSE affected by the
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
discrepancy must be inspected prior to Nth or
within 18 months of the discovery of the
discrepancy, whichever is later, per a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO,
FAA.
(2) If a discrepancy is detected during any
inspection performed after Nth: The area of
the PSE affected by the discrepancy must be
inspected prior to the accumulation of an
additional ∆NDI/2, measured from the last
non-discrepant inspection finding, or within
18 months of the discovery of the
discrepancy, whichever occurs later, per a
method approved by the Manager of the Los
Angeles ACO.
Reporting Requirements
(l) All negative, positive, or discrepant
(discrepant finding examples are described in
paragraph (k) of this AD) findings of the
inspections accomplished under paragraph
(i) of this AD must be reported to Boeing, at
the times specified in, and in accordance
with the instructions contained in, Section 4
of Volume I of the SID. Information
collection requirements contained in this
regulation have been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been
assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.
Corrective Actions
(m) Any cracked structure of a PSE
detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (j) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO or in accordance with data
meeting the certification basis of the airplane
approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who has been
authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (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.
Accomplish follow-on actions described in
paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this
AD, at the times specified.
(1) Within 18 months after repair, perform
a damage tolerance assessment (DTA) that
defines the threshold for inspection of the
repair and submit the assessment for
approval.
(2) Before reaching 75% of the repair
threshold as determined in paragraph (m)(1)
of this AD, submit the inspection methods
and repetitive inspection intervals for the
repair for approval.
(3) Before the repair threshold, as
determined in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD,
incorporate the inspection method and
repetitive inspection intervals into the FAAapproved structural maintenance or
inspection program for the airplane.
Note 6: For the purposes of this AD, we
anticipate that submissions of the DTA of the
repair, if acceptable, should be approved
within six months after submission.
Note 7: Advisory Circular AC 25.1529–1,
‘‘Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of
Structural Repairs on Transport Airplanes,’’
dated August 1, 1991, is considered to be
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Jul 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
additional guidance concerning the approval
of repairs to PSEs.
Inspection for Transferred Airplanes
(n) Before any airplane that has exceeded
the fatigue life threshold (Nth) can be added
to an air carrier’s operations specifications, a
program for the accomplishment of the
inspections required by this AD must be
established per paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of
this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes that have been inspected
in accordance with this AD, the inspection of
each PSE must be accomplished by the new
operator per the previous operator’s schedule
and inspection method, or the new operator’s
schedule and inspection method, at
whichever time would result in the earlier
accomplishment date for that PSE inspection.
The compliance time for accomplishment of
this inspection must be measured from the
last inspection accomplished by the previous
operator. After each inspection has been
performed once, each subsequent inspection
must be performed per the new operator’s
schedule and inspection method.
(2) For airplanes that have not been
inspected in accordance with this AD, the
inspection of each PSE required by this AD
must be accomplished either prior to adding
the airplane to the air carrier’s operations
specification, or per a schedule and an
inspection method approved by the Manager,
Los Angeles ACO. After each inspection has
been performed once, each subsequent
inspection must be performed per the new
operator’s schedule.
Inspections Accomplished Before the
Effective Date of This AD
(o) Inspections accomplished prior to the
effective date of this AD per Boeing Report
No. L26–008, ‘‘DC–9 All Series Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume I,
Revision 6, dated November 2002 are
acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD.
Acceptable for Compliance
(p) McDonnell Douglas Report No.
MDC91K0263, ‘‘DC–9/MD–80 Aging Aircraft
Repair Assessment Program Document,’’
Revision 1, dated October 2000, provides
inspection/replacement programs for certain
repairs to the fuselage pressure shell. These
repairs and inspection/replacement programs
are considered acceptable for compliance
with the requirements of paragraphs (i) and
(m) of this AD for repairs subject to that
document.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(q) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(r) AMOCs approved previously for
alternative inspection procedures per AD 87–
14–07 R1, amendment 39–6019; AD 94–03–
01, amendment 39–8807; and AD 96–13–03,
amendment 39–9671; are acceptable for
compliance with the actions required by
paragraph (i) of this AD for inspections
accomplished before the effective date of this
AD.
(s) AMOCs approved previously for repairs
per AD 87–14–07 R1, amendment 39–6019;
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39441
AD 94–03–01, amendment 39–8807; and AD
96–13–03, amendment 39–9671; are
acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (m) of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 28,
2005.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–13436 Filed 7–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR–2004–0238; FRL–7935–5]
RIN 2060–AM16
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Oil and
Natural Gas Production Facilities
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action is a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking to our
February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6288) proposed
national emissions standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to
limit emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from oil and natural
gas production facilities that are area
sources. The final NESHAP for major
sources was promulgated on June 17,
1999 (64 FR 32610), but final action
with respect to area sources was
deferred. This action proposes changes
to the 1998 proposed rule for area
sources, proposes alternative
applicability criteria and reopens the
public comment period to solicit
comment on the changes proposed
today. The proposal also includes the
addition of ASTM D6420–99 as an
alternative test method to EPA Method
18. Oil and natural gas production is
included as an area source category for
regulation under the Urban Air Toxics
Strategy (Strategy)(64 FR 38706, July 19,
1999). As explained below, we included
oil and natural gas production facilities
in the Strategy because of benzene
emissions from triethylene glycol (TEG)
dehydration units located at such
facilities.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
OAR–2004–0238, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 130 (Friday, July 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39435-39441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13436]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2005-21779; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-349-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10 Series
Airplanes; DC-9-20 Series Airplanes; DC-9-30 Series Airplanes; DC-9-40
Series Airplanes; 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 supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain McDonnell Douglas transport
category airplanes. The existing AD requires, among other things,
revision of an existing program of structural inspections. This
proposed AD would require the implementation of a program of structural
inspections of baseline structure to detect and correct fatigue
cracking in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's original fatigue design
life goal. This proposed AD is prompted by a significant number of
these airplanes approaching or exceeding the design service goal on
which the initial type certification approval was
[[Page 39436]]
predicated. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking that could compromise the structural integrity of these
airplanes.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD.
DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
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.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
https://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL-
401, on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. This
docket number is FAA-2005-21779; the directorate identifier for this
docket is 2002-NM-349-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. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2005-21779;
Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-349-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 https://
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 our
docket 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 can review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
can visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
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 DMS receives them.
Discussion
On June 12, 1996, we issued AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR
31009, June 19, 1996), for all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, -50, and C-9 (Military) series airplanes. (Since the issuance
of that AD, the FAA has revised the applicability of the existing AD to
identify model designations as published in the most recent type
certificate data sheet for the affected models.) That AD requires
implementation of a program of structural inspections to detect and
correct fatigue cracking in order to ensure the continued airworthiness
of these airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's original fatigue
design life goal. That AD also requires, among other things, revision
of the existing program to require additional visual inspections of
additional structure. That AD was prompted by data submitted by the
manufacturer indicating that certain revisions to the program were
necessary in order to increase the confidence level of the statistical
program to ensure timely detection of cracks in various airplane
structures. We issued that AD to prevent fatigue cracking that could
compromise the structural integrity of those airplanes.
Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) ADs
In the early 1980's, as part of our continuing work to maintain the
structural integrity of older transport category airplanes, we
concluded that the incidence of fatigue cracking may increase as these
airplanes reach or exceed their design service goal (DSG). A
significant number of these airplanes were approaching or had exceeded
the DSG on which the initial type certification approval was
predicated. In light of this, and as a result of increased utilization,
longer operational lives, and the high levels of safety expected of the
currently operated transport category airplanes, we determined that a
supplemental structural inspection program (SSIP) was necessary to
ensure a high level of structural integrity for all airplanes in the
transport fleet.
Issuance of Advisory Circular
As a follow-on from that determination, we issued Advisory Circular
(AC) No. 91-56, ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large
Transport Category Airplanes,'' dated May 6, 1981. That AC provides
guidance material to manufacturers and operators for use in developing
a continuing structural integrity program to ensure safe operation of
older airplanes throughout their operational lives. This guidance
material applies to transport airplanes that were certified under the
fail-safe requirements of part 4b (``Airplane Airworthiness, Transport
Categories'') of the Civil Air Regulations of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR part 25), and that have a maximum gross
weight greater than 75,000 pounds. The procedures set forth in that AC
are applicable to transport category airplanes operated under subpart D
(``Special Flight Operations'') of part 91 of the FAR (14 CFR part 91);
part 121 (``Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental
Operations''); part 125 (``Certification and Operations: Airplanes
having a Seating Capacity of 20 or More Passengers or a Maximum Payload
of 6,000 Pounds or More''); and part 135 (``Operating Requirements:
Commuter and On-Demand Operations'') of the FAR (14 CFR parts 121, 125,
and 135). The objective of the SSIP was to establish inspection
programs to ensure timely detection of fatigue cracking.
Aging Aircraft Safety Act (AASA)
In October 1991, Congress enacted Title IV of Public Law 102-143,
the AASA of 1991, to address aging aircraft concerns. That Act
instructed the FAA administrator to prescribe regulations
[[Page 39437]]
that will ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft.
SSID Team
In April 2000 the Transport Airplane Directorate (TAD) chartered a
SSID Team to develop recommendations to standardize the SID/SSID ADs
regarding the treatment of repairs, alterations, and modifications
(RAMs). The report can be accessed at https://www.faa.gov/certification/
aircraft/transport.htm.
FAA Responses to AASA
In addition to the SSID Team activity, there are other on-going
activities associated with FAA's Aging Aircraft Program. This includes,
among other initiatives, our responses to the AASA.
On January 25, 2005, as one of the responses to the AASA, we issued
the Aging Airplane Safety; Final Rule (AASFR) (70 FR 5518, February 2,
2005). The AASFR revised the interim final rule that was published on
December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72726, December 6, 2002) and revised by
technical amendment (68 FR 69307, December 12, 2004). The AASFR applies
to certain transport category, turbine powered airplanes with a type
certificate issued after January 1, 1958 (including the airplanes that
would be subject to this AD) that are operated under 14 CFR parts 121
or 129, with the exception of airplanes operated within the State of
Alaska. Sections 121.370a and 129.16 of the AASFR require the
maintenance programs of those airplanes to include damage tolerance-
based inspections and procedures for structure that is susceptible to
fatigue cracking that could contribute to a catastrophic failure. The
inspections and procedures must take into account the adverse affects
that repairs, alterations, and modifications may have on fatigue
cracking and the inspection of the structure. The procedures are to be
established and incorporated before December 20, 2010. Compliance with
this proposed AD would also be compliance with some aspects of the
AASFR.
Public Technical Meeting
The TAD also held a public meeting regarding standardization of the
FAA approach to RAMs in SID/SSID ADs on February 27, 2003, in Seattle,
Washington. We presented our views and heard comments from the public
concerning issues regarding the standardization of the requirements of
ADs for certain transport category airplanes that mandate SSIDs, and
that address the treatment of RAMs for those certain transport category
airplanes. Our presentation included a plan for the standardization of
SID/SSID ADs, the results of the SSID Team findings, and the TAD vision
of how SID/SSID ADs may support compliance to the AASIFR. We also asked
for input from operators on the issues addressing RAMs in SID/SSID ADs.
One of the major comments presented at the public meeting was that
operators do not have the capability to accomplish the damage tolerance
assessments, and they will have to rely on the manufacturers to perform
those assessments. Furthermore, the operators believe that the
timeframes to accomplish the damage tolerance assessments will not
permit manufacturers to support the operators. Another major comment
presented was from the Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (AAWG) of
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). The AAWG requested
that we withdraw the damage tolerance requirements from the final rule
and task AAWG to develop a new RAM damage tolerance based program with
timelines to be developed by ARAC. The public meeting presentations can
be accessed at https://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/transport.htm.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 All Series
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID), Volume 1, Revision 6, dated
November 2002. The purpose of Boeing Report No. L26-008 is to define
the mandatory inspection requirements for the Principal Structural
Elements (PSEs) and to provide specific non-destructive inspection
(NDI) techniques and procedures for each PSE. Revision 6 also revises
the maintenance program by removing provisions for the sampling
inspection program. However, Revision 6 retains the program goal to
inspect airplanes in advance of a certain threshold for the possibility
of increasing that threshold and using service history to justify
delaying inspections on the younger portion of the fleet. As with
previous revisions, Revision 6 provides credit for inspections
previously accomplished within the required intervals. The SID provides
a description of PSEs, NDI locations, planning and reporting procedures
and certain criteria upon which the supplemental inspection program is
based.
We have also reviewed Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Series 10/
20 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID), Volume II--10/20, Revision
6, dated November 2004;'' ``DC-9 Series 20/30 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID), Volume II--20/30, Revision 7, dated November 2004;''
``DC-9 Series 40 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID, Volume II--40,
Revision 6, dated November 2004;'' and ``DC-9 Series 50 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID), Volume II--50, Revision 6, dated November
2004.'' Those Volume II documents describe specific non-destructive
testing inspections of the SID, and have been approved as an acceptable
alternative method of compliance with corresponding paragraphs of AD
96-13-03.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information
described above 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 products
of this same type design. This proposed AD would retain the
requirements of AD 96-13-03. This proposed AD also would continue to
require revision of the FAA-approved maintenance program. This proposed
AD would require implementation of a structural inspection program of
baseline structure to detect and correct fatigue cracking in order to
ensure the continued airworthiness of airplanes as they approach the
manufacturer's original fatigue design life goal. For the purposes of
this proposed AD, a PSE is defined as an element that contributes
significantly to the carrying of flight, ground or pressurization
loads, and the integrity of that element is essential in maintaining
the overall structural integrity of the airplane.
Editorial Clarifications
Paragraph (b) of AD 96-13-03 (which is renumbered as paragraph (f)
of this AD) requires, among other things, that the maintenance program
be revised to include the inspection threshold and repetitive
inspections (planning data) defined in Section 2 of Volume III-95 of
the SID. Paragraph (b)(3) of AD 96-13-03 (renumbered as paragraph
(f)(3) of this AD) also requires inspection results to be reported in
accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-95. Those planning and data
reporting requirements are now contained in Section 4 of Volume 1,
Revision 6, dated November 2002. Therefore, this proposed AD would
require use of the information in Section 4 of Volume 1, Revision 6,
and reference to Volume III has been removed in the new requirements of
this proposed AD.
The following paragraphs summarize certain specific actions
proposed in this AD.
[[Page 39438]]
Revision of the Maintenance Program
Paragraph (h) of the proposed AD would require a revision of the
maintenance inspection program that provides for inspection(s) of the
PSE per Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 All Series, Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume 1, Revision 6, dated November 2002.
PSEs are also defined and specified in the SID. Unless otherwise
specified, references in this proposed AD to the ``SID'' are to
Revision 6, dated November 2002.
Non-Destructive Inspections (NDI)
Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD would specify that the SID be
implemented on a PSE-by-PSE basis before structure exceeds its 75%
fatigue life threshold (\3/4\Nth), and its full fatigue life
threshold (Nth). The threshold value is defined as the life
of the structure measured in total landings, when the probability of
failure reaches one in a billion. The DC-9 All Series SID program is
not a sampling program. Airplanes would be inspected once prior to
reaching both PSE thresholds (once by \3/4\Nth and once by
Nth). In order for the inspection to have value, no PSE
would be inspected prior to half of the fatigue life threshold, \1/
2\Nth. The additional \3/4\Nth threshold aids in
advancing the threshold for some PSEs as explained in Section 4 of
Volume I of the SID. Inspection of each PSE should be accomplished in
accordance with the NDI procedures set forth in Volume II of the SID.
For airplanes past the threshold Nth, the proposed AD
would require that the PSE be inspected at repetitive intervals not to
exceed [Delta]NDI/2 as specified in Section 4 of Volume I of the SID
per the NDI procedure, which is specified in Volume II of the SID. The
definition of [Delta]NDI/2 is half of the life for a crack to grow from
a given NDI detectable crack size to instability.
Paragraph (i) of this proposed AD also would require, for airplanes
that have exceeded the Nth, that each PSE be inspected
within 18 months after the effective date of this AD. The entire PSE
must be inspected regardless of whether or not it has been repaired,
altered, or modified.
Certain Acceptable Methods of Compliance
Paragraph (j) of this proposed AD specifies certain revision levels
of Volume II of the SID that provide acceptable methods of compliance
with the requirements of paragraph (j) of this proposed AD.
Discrepant Findings
Paragraph (k) of this proposed AD would require that, if any PSE is
repaired, altered, or modified, it must be considered a ``discrepant
finding.'' A discrepant PSE indicates that it could not be completely
inspected because the NDI procedure could not be accomplished due to
differences on the airplane from the NDI reference standard (i.e.,
RAMs). For any discrepancy (e.g., a PSE cannot be inspected as
specified in Volume II of the SID or does not match rework, repair, or
modification description in Volume I of the SID), this proposed AD
would require that the discrepancy be inspected in accordance with a
method approved by the FAA.
Reporting Requirements
Paragraph (l) of this proposed AD would require that all negative,
positive, or discrepant findings of the inspection accomplished in
paragraph (i) of the AD be reported to Boeing at the times specified,
and in instructions contained in Section 4 of Volume 1 of the SID.
Corrective Action
Paragraph (m) of this proposed AD would require that any cracked
structure detected during any inspection required per paragraph (i) of
this AD be repaired before further flight. Additionally, paragraph (m)
of this AD would require accomplishment of follow-on actions as
specified in paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this proposed AD,
at the times specified below.
1. Within 18 months after repair, accomplish a Damage Tolerance
Assessment (DTA) that defines the threshold for inspection and submit
the assessment for approval to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
2. Prior to reaching 75% of the threshold, submit the inspection
methods and repetitive inspections intervals for the repair for
approval by the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.
3. Prior to the threshold, the inspection method and repetitive
inspection intervals are to be incorporated into the FAA-approved
structural maintenance or inspection program for the airplane.
For the purposes of this proposed AD, the FAA anticipates that
submissions of the DTA of the repair, if acceptable, should be approved
within six months after submission.
Transferability of Airplanes
Paragraph (n) of this proposed AD specifies the requirements of the
inspection program for transferred airplanes. Before any airplane that
is subject to this proposed AD can be added to an air carrier's
operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the
inspections required by this proposed AD must be established. Paragraph
(n) of the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the following:
1. For airplanes that have been inspected per this proposed AD, the
inspection of each PSE must be accomplished by the new operator per the
previous operator's schedule and inspection method, or per the new
operator's schedule and inspection method, at whichever time would
result in the earlier accomplishment date for that PSE inspection. The
compliance time for accomplishment of this inspection must be measured
from the last inspection accomplished by the previous operator. After
each inspection has been performed once, each subsequent inspection
must be performed per the new operator's schedule and inspection
method.
2. For airplanes that have not been inspected per this proposed AD,
the inspection of each PSE must be accomplished either prior to adding
the airplane to the air carrier's operations specification, or per a
schedule and an inspection method approved by the FAA. After each
inspection has been performed once, each subsequent inspection must be
performed per the new operator's schedule.
Accomplishment of these actions will ensure that: (1) An operator's
newly acquired airplanes comply with its SSIP before being operated;
and (2) frequently transferred airplanes are not permitted to operate
without accomplishment of the inspections defined in the SSID.
Inspections Accomplished Before the Effective Date of this AD
Paragraph (o) of this proposed AD merely provides approval of
Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 All Series Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated November 2002; as
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (i) of
this proposed AD for inspections accomplished before the effective date
of the proposed AD.
Acceptable for Compliance
Paragraph (p) of this proposed AD also provides approval of
McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC91K0263, ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging Aircraft
Repair Assessment Program Document,'' Revision 1, dated October 2000 as
an acceptable means of compliance with the requirements of paragraphs
(i) and (m) of this proposed AD for repairs and
[[Page 39439]]
inspection/replacement for certain repairs to the fuselage pressure
shell accomplished prior to the effective date of the proposed AD.
Change to Existing AD
This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 96-13-03.
Since AD 96-13-03 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following table:
Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding requirement
Requirement in AD 96-13-03 in this proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a)............................. Paragraph (f).
Paragraph (b)............................. Paragraph (g).
Paragraph (c)............................. Paragraph (h).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Editorial Changes
The ``tables'' specified in the regulatory text of this proposed
rule, including the tables restated from AD 96-13-03, have been
numbered for easy reference.
Interim Action
This is considered to be interim action. We are currently
considering requiring damage tolerance-based inspections and procedures
that include all major structural RAMs, which may result in additional
rulemaking. That rulemaking may include appropriate recommendations
from the previously mentioned FAA team and a public meeting on how to
address RAMs.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 710 McDonnell Douglas transport category airplanes
worldwide of the affected design. This proposed AD would affect about
477 airplanes of U.S. registry, or 26 U.S. airline operators.
The recurring inspection costs, as required by AD-96-13-03, take
362 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently
required actions is $11,223,810, or $23,530 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
The incorporation of the revised procedures in this AD action will
require approximately 20 additional work hours per operator to
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost to the 26 affected U.S. operators to
incorporate these revised procedures into the SID program is estimated
to be $33,800, or $1,300, per operator.
Additionally, the number of required work hours for each proposed
inspection (and the SID program), as indicated above, is presented as
if the accomplishment of those actions were to be conducted as ``stand
alone'' actions. However, in actual practice, these actions for the
most part will be accomplished coincidently or in combination with
normally scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance program
tasks. Further, any costs associated with special airplane scheduling
are expected to be minimal.
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. 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 FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by removing amendment 39-9671 (61 FR
31009, June 19, 1996) and adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2005-21779; Directorate Identifier
2002-NM-349-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on
this airworthiness directive (AD) action by August 22, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR
31009, June 19, 1996).
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas 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.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by a significant number of these
airplanes approaching or exceeding the design service goal on which
the initial type certification approval was predicated. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking that could
compromise the structural integrity of these airplanes.
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.
Requirements of AD 96-13-03
Revision of the FAA-Approved Maintenance Inspection Program
(f) Within 6 months after July 24, 1996 (the effective date of
AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671), replace the FAA-approved
maintenance inspection program with a revision that provides for
inspection(s) of the principal structural elements (PSEs) defined in
McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-008,
[[Page 39440]]
``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Section 2 of Volume
I of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Revision 4, dated July 1993, in
accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of
the SID.
Note 1: Operators should note that certain visual inspections of
FLOS PSE's that were previously specified in earlier revisions of
Volume III of the SID are no longer specified in Volume III-95 of
the SID.
(1) Prior to reaching the threshold (Nth), but no
earlier than one-half of the threshold (\1/2\Nth),
specified for all PSE's listed in Volume III-95, dated September
1995, of the SID, inspect each PSE sample in accordance with the
non-destructive inspection (NDI) procedures set forth in Section 2
of Volume II, dated July 1993. Thereafter, repeat the inspection for
that PSE at intervals not to exceed [Dgr]NDI/2 of the NDI procedure
that is specified in Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of the
SID.
(2) The NDI techniques set forth in Section 2 of Volume II,
dated July 1993, of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph.
(3) All inspection results (negative or positive) must be
reported to McDonnell Douglas, in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of
the SID. Information collection requirements contained in this
regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0056.
Note 2: Volume II of the SID, dated July 1993, is comprised of
the following:
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision level
Volume designation shown on volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20...................................... 4
Volume II-20/30...................................... 5
Volume II-40......................................... 4
Volume II-50......................................... 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 3: NDI inspections accomplished in accordance with the
following Volume II of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph:
Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Volume designation level Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20.................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-10-20.................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-10/20.................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-10/20.................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-20....................... Original Nov. 1987.
Volume II-20/30.................... 5 July 1993.
Volume II-20/30.................... 4 April 1991.
Volume II-20/30.................... 3 April 1990.
Volume II-20/30.................... 2 June 1989.
Volume II-20/30.................... 1 Nov. 1987.
Volume II-40....................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-40....................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-40....................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-40....................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-40....................... Original Nov. 1987.
Volume II-50....................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-50....................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-50....................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-50....................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-50....................... Original Nov. 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Any cracked structure detected during the inspections
required by paragraph (f) of this AD must be repaired before further
flight, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate.
Note 4: Requests for approval of any PSE repair that would
affect the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that is
required by this AD should include a damage tolerance assessment for
that PSE.
New Requirements of This AD
Revision of the Maintenance Inspection Program
(h) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection
program that provides for inspection(s) of the PSEs, in accordance
with Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 All Series, Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated November
2002.'' Unless otherwise specified, all further references in this
AD to the ``SID'' are to Revision 6, dated November 2002.
Non-Destructive Inspections (NDIs)
(i) For all PSEs listed in Section 2 of Volume I of the SID,
perform an NDI for fatigue cracking of each PSE in accordance with
the NDI procedures specified in Section 2 of Volume II, dated
November 2004 of the SID, at the times specified in paragraph
(i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes that have less than three quarters of the
fatigue life threshold (\3/4\Nth) as of the effective
date of the AD: Perform an NDI for fatigue cracking no earlier than
one-half of the threshold (\1/2\Nth) but prior to
reaching three-quarters of the threshold (\3/4\Nth, or
within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later. Inspect again prior to reaching the threshold
(Nth) or [Delta]NDI/2, whichever occurs later, but no
earlier than (\3/4\Nth). Thereafter, after passing the
threshold (Nth), repeat the inspection for that PSE at
intervals not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
(2) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded three-quarters
of the fatigue life threshold (\3/4\Nth), but less than
the threshold (Nth), as of the effective date of the AD:
Perform an NDI prior to reaching the threshold (Nth), or
within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later. Thereafter, after passing the threshold
(Nth), repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals
not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
(3) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded the fatigue life
threshold (Nth) as of the effective date of the AD:
Perform an NDI within 18 months after the effective date of this AD.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals not to
exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
Note 5: Volume II of the SID, dated November 2004 is comprised
of the following:
Table 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
level
Volume designation shown on
volume
------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20..................... 6
Volume II-20/30..................... 7
Volume II-40........................ 6
Volume II-50........................ 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptable Methods of Compliance With Paragraph (j) of This AD
(j) The following revision levels of Volume II of the SID
provide acceptable methods of compliance with the inspections
required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
Table 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Volume designation level Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20.................... 6 Nov. 2004.
Volume II-10/20.................... 5 July 1997.
Volume II-10/20.................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-10/20.................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-10/20.................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-10/20.................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-20....................... Original Nov. 1987.
Volume II-20/30.................... 7 Nov. 2004.
Volume II-20/30.................... 6 July 1997.
Volume II-20/30.................... 5 July 1993.
Volume II-20/30.................... 4 April 1991.
Volume II-20/30.................... 3 April 1990.
Volume II-20/30.................... 2 June 1989.
Volume II-20/30.................... 1 Nov. 1987.
Volume II-40....................... 6 Nov. 2004
Volume II-40....................... 5 July 1997.
Volume II-40....................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-40....................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-40....................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-40....................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-40....................... Original Nov. 1987.
Volume II-50....................... 6 Nov. 2004.
Volume II-50....................... 5 July 1997.
Volume II-50....................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-50....................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-50....................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-50....................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-50....................... Original Nov. 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discrepant Findings
(k) If any discrepancy (e.g., a PSE cannot be inspected as
specified in Volume II of the SID or does not match rework, repair,
or modification description in Volume I of the SID) is detected
during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD,
accomplish the action specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of
this AD, as applicable.
(1) If a discrepancy is detected during any inspection performed
prior to \3/4\Nth or Nth: The area of the PSE
affected by the
[[Page 39441]]
discrepancy must be inspected prior to Nth or within 18
months of the discovery of the discrepancy, whichever is later, per
a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA.
(2) If a discrepancy is detected during any inspection performed
after Nth: The area of the PSE affected by the
discrepancy must be inspected prior to the accumulation of an
additional [Delta]NDI/2, measured from the last non-discrepant
inspection finding, or within 18 months of the discovery of the
discrepancy, whichever occurs later, per a method approved by the
Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.
Reporting Requirements
(l) All negative, positive, or discrepant (discrepant finding
examples are described in paragraph (k) of this AD) findings of the
inspections accomplished under paragraph (i) of this AD must be
reported to Boeing, at the times specified in, and in accordance
with the instructions contained in, Section 4 of Volume I of the
SID. Information collection requirements contained in this
regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0056.
Corrective Actions
(m) Any cracked structure of a PSE detected during any
inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO or in accordance with data meeting the
certification basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization
Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (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. Accomplish follow-on actions described in paragraphs
(m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this AD, at the times specified.
(1) Within 18 months after repair, perform a damage tolerance
assessment (DTA) that defines the threshold for inspection of the
repair and submit the assessment for approval.
(2) Before reaching 75% of the repair threshold as determined in
paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, submit the inspection methods and
repetitive inspection intervals for the repair for approval.
(3) Before the repair threshold, as determined in paragraph
(m)(1) of this AD, incorporate the inspection method and repetitive
inspection intervals into the FAA-approved structural maintenance or
inspection program for the airplane.
Note 6: For the purposes of this AD, we anticipate that
submissions of the DTA of the repair, if acceptable, should be
approved within six months after submission.
Note 7: Advisory Circular AC 25.1529-1, ``Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness of Structural Repairs on Transport
Airplanes,'' dated August 1, 1991, is considered to be additional
guidance concerning the approval of repairs to PSEs.
Inspection for Transferred Airplanes
(n) Before any airplane that has exceeded the fatigue life
threshold (Nth) can be added to an air carrier's
operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the
inspections required by this AD must be established per paragraph
(n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes that have been inspected in accordance with
this AD, the inspection of each PSE must be accomplished by the new
operator per the previous operator's schedule and inspection method,
or the new operator's schedule and inspection method, at whichever
time would result in the earlier accomplishment date for that PSE
inspection. The compliance time for accomplishment of this
inspection must be measured from the last inspection accomplished by
the previous operator. After each inspection has been performed
once, each subsequent inspection must be performed per the new
operator's schedule and inspection method.
(2) For airplanes that have not been inspected in accordance
with this AD, the inspection of each PSE required by this AD must be
accomplished either prior to adding the airplane to the air
carrier's operations specification, or per a schedule and an
inspection method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. After
each inspection has been performed once, each subsequent inspection
must be performed per the new operator's schedule.
Inspections Accomplished Before the Effective Date of This AD
(o) Inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of this
AD per Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 All Series Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated November
2002 are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (i) of this AD.
Acceptable for Compliance
(p) McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC91K0263, ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging
Aircraft Repair Assessment Program Document,'' Revision 1, dated
October 2000, provides inspection/replacement programs for certain
repairs to the fuselage pressure shell. These repairs and
inspection/replacement programs are considered acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (m) of this
AD for repairs subject to that document.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(q) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(r) AMOCs approved previously for alternative inspection
procedures per AD 87-14-07 R1, amendment 39-6019; AD 94-03-01,
amendment 39-8807; and AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671; are
acceptable for compliance with the actions required by paragraph (i)
of this AD for inspections accomplished before the effective date of
this AD.
(s) AMOCs approved previously for repairs per AD 87-14-07 R1,
amendment 39-6019; AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8807; and AD 96-13-03,
amendment 39-9671; are acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (m) of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 28, 2005.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-13436 Filed 7-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
