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, 11328-11333 [06-2157]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11328
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
number of small entities. Consequently,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Government Paperwork Elimination
Act (GPEA)
FSIS is committed to achieving the
goals of the GPEA, which requires that
Government agencies, in general,
provide the public with the option of
submitting information or transacting
business electronically to the maximum
extent possible. Under this proposed
rule, basic information provided to FSIS
by official meat and poultry products
establishments voluntarily recalling
adulterated meat and poultry products
may be submitted to the Agency
electronically via e-mail or facsimile.
Allowing recalling establishments to do
this would reduce data collection time,
and information processing and
handling by the establishments and
FSIS.
Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of
rulemaking and policy development is
important. Consequently, in an effort to
ensure that the public and in particular
minorities, women, and persons with
disabilities, are aware of this proposed
rule, FSIS will announce it on-line
through the FSIS Web page located at
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
regulations_&_policies/
2006_Proposed_Rules_Index/index.asp.
The Regulations.gov Web site is the
central online rulemaking portal of the
United States government. It is being
offered as a public service to increase
participation in the Federal
government’s regulatory activities. FSIS
participates in Regulations.gov and will
accept comments on documents
published on the site. The site allows
visitors to search by keyword or
Department or Agency for rulemakings
that allow for public comment. Each
entry provides a quick link to a
comment form so that visitors can type
in their comments and submit them to
FSIS. The Web site is located at
https://www.regulations.gov.
FSIS also will make copies of this
Federal Register publication available
through the FSIS Constituent Update,
which is used to provide information
regarding FSIS policies, procedures,
regulations, Federal Register notices,
FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other
types of information that could affect or
would be of interest to our constituents
and stakeholders. The update is
communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail
subscription service consisting of
industry, trade, and farm groups,
consumer interest groups, allied health
professionals, scientific professionals,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
and other individuals who have
requested to be included. The update
also is available on the FSIS Web page.
Through Listserv and the Web page,
FSIS is able to provide information to a
much broader, more diverse audience.
In addition, FSIS offers an email
subscription service which provides an
automatic and customized notification
when popular pages are updated,
including Federal Register publications
and related documents. This service is
available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
news_and_events/email_subscription/
and allows FSIS customers to sign up
for subscription options across eight
categories. Options range from recalls to
export information to regulations,
directives and notices. Customers can
add or delete subscriptions themselves
and have the option to password protect
their account.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 390
SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier
NPRM for an airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to certain McDonnell
Douglas transport category airplanes.
The original NPRM would have
superseded an existing AD that
currently requires, among other things,
revision of an existing program of
structural inspections. The original
NPRM proposed to require
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. The original NPRM resulted
from a significant number of these
airplanes approaching or exceeding the
design service goal on which the initial
type certification approval was
predicated. This new action revises the
original NPRM by removing certain
service information as acceptable
methods of compliance. We are
proposing this supplemental NPRM to
detect and correct fatigue cracking that
could compromise the structural
integrity of these airplanes.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this supplemental NPRM by April 3,
2006.
Confidential business information,
Freedom of information, Government
employees.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9
CFR Chapter III, Subchapter D, as
follows:
PART 390—FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION AND PUBLIC
INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for part 390
would be revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 21 U.S.C.
451–471, 601–695; 7 CFR 1.3, 2.7.
2. A new § 390.10 would added to
read as follows:
§ 390.10 Availability of Lists of Retail
Consignees during Meat or Poultry Product
Recalls.
(a) The Administrator of the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), or
designee, will publicly disclose the lists
of the retail consignees of recalled meat
or poultry products that the Agency has
compiled to verify the removal of
recalled product. These lists will be
available on the FSIS Web site.
(b) The lists that will be disclosed will
contain only the names of the identified
retail consignees of recalled meat and
poultry products and their locations.
Done in Washington, DC, March 1, 2006.
Barbara J. Masters,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06–2125 Filed 3–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM);
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
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.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,
California 90846, Attention: Data and
Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A
(D800–0024), for service information
identified in this proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712–4137; telephone (562)
627–5324; fax (562) 627–5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
We invite you to submit any relevant
written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposal. Send your
comments to an address listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Include the docket
number ‘‘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
this supplemental NPRM. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
supplemental NPRM in light of those
comments.
We will post all comments submitted,
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 supplemental NPRM. Using the
search function of that Web site, anyone
can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including the name of
the individual who sent the comment
(or signed the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov, or in
person at the Docket Management
Facility offices between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 ADDRESSES.
Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after the Docket
Management System receives them.
Discussion
We proposed to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
part 39) with a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD (the
‘‘original NPRM’’) for certain McDonnell
Douglas transport category airplanes.
The original NPRM proposed to
supersede AD 96–13–03, amendment
39–9671 (61 FR 31009, June 19, 1996),
which applies to 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.) The original NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on
July 8, 2005 (70 FR 39435). The original
NPRM proposed to retain the
requirements of AD 96–13–03. The
original NPRM also proposed to
continue to require revision of the FAAapproved maintenance program. The
original NPRM also proposed to 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. The original
NPRM resulted from a significant
number of these airplanes approaching
or exceeding the design service goal on
which the initial type certification
approval was predicated. That
condition, if not corrected, could result
in fatigue cracking that could
compromise the structural integrity of
these airplanes.
Comments
We have considered the following
comments on the original NPRM.
Comments That Resulted in a Change to
the Original NPRM
Request To Remove Paragraph (j) of the
Original NPRM
One commenter, the manufacturer,
points out that the provisions of
paragraph (j) of the original NPRM
would allow for the use of older
outdated versions of Section 2 of
Volume II of Boeing Report No. L26–
008, ‘‘DC–9 All Series, Supplemental
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11329
Inspection Document (SID),’’ to satisfy
future requirements of the original
NPRM. The commenter advises that
only the November 2004 revision of
Volume II should be allowed for
compliance with the proposed new
requirements, except for future
alternative methods of compliance
(AMOCs). Therefore, the commenter
requests that paragraph (j) of the original
NPRM be removed.
We agree to remove paragraph (j) of
the original NPRM for the reason the
commenter specified, and we have
identified the paragraphs of the
supplemental NPRM accordingly.
Request To Revise Certain AMOC
Language
The same commenter also requests
that paragraph (r) of the original NPRM
be revised to extend the time during
which certain AMOCs would be
acceptable for compliance with the
actions required by paragraph (f) of the
original NPRM. (Paragraph (f) of the
original NPRM is part of the restatement
of AD 96–13–03.) The commenter points
out that the restatement of the
requirements of paragraph (f) of the
original NPRM addresses only those
revisions of the DC–9 SID that are listed
in AD 96–13–03. The commenter
concludes that, since the new
requirements of paragraph (h) of the
original NPRM are required within 12
months of the effective date, any
operator using an AMOC to AD 96–13–
03 would potentially be out of
compliance during the required
compliance period of paragraph (h) of
the original NPRM.
We agree that paragraph (r) of the
original NPRM, now identified as
paragraph (p)(4) of the supplemental
NPRM, should be revised. We infer that
the commenter interprets the
requirements of paragraph (h) of the
supplemental NPRM to effect the
accomplishment of the requirements of
paragraph (f) of the supplemental
NPRM. This is not the case and in order
to clarify the requirements and
compliance times of this supplemental
NPRM, we have added an explanation
in paragraph (f) of the supplemental
NPRM specifying that the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (f) of
the supplemental NPRM must be
repeated until the requirements of
paragraph (i) of the supplemental NPRM
are accomplished. Consequently, we
have revised the language of paragraph
(p)(4) of the supplemental NPRM to
specify that AMOCs approved
previously for alternative inspection
procedures and planning requirements
of AD 96–13–03 are acceptable for
compliance with the actions required by
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
11330
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
paragraph (f) of the supplemental NPRM
until the requirements, at the times
specified in paragraph (i) of the
supplemental NPRM, are accomplished.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (m) of the
Original NPRM
This same commenter states that
paragraph (m) of the original NPRM
(that paragraph discusses corrective
actions if required) is not clear as to
whether or not Authorized
Representatives (ARs) may approve
alternative methods of compliance
(AMOCs).
We agree that paragraph (m) of the
original NPRM (identified as paragraph
(l) of the supplemental NPRM) should
be revised. Since the issuance of the
original NPRM, we have determined
that the description of the approval of
corrective actions such as those
specified in paragraph (l) of the
supplemental NPRM can be simplified
by referring to the ‘‘Alternative Methods
of Compliance (AMOC),’’ paragraph (p)
of this supplemental NPRM. In addition,
our policy is that all future repairs to an
airplane must meet damage tolerance
requirements of 14 CFR 25.571,
amendment 45. The purpose of this
policy is to detect and repair fatigue
cracks that may occur in a repair before
they become another unsafe condition.
Therefore, we have also revised the
paragraph addressing AMOCs,
paragraph (p) of this supplemental
NPRM, to include that requirement.
Comments That Did Not Result in a
Change to the Original NPRM
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Request To Add a New Principal
Structural Element (PSE)
One commenter states that the latest
revision (November 2002) of the DC–9
SID, Volume I, created a new PSE
53.09.059. The commenter states that
the new PSE is not included in the latest
revision (November 2004) of Volume II
of the SID, and that operators will not
be able to complete inspections of the
PSE 53.09.059 area without proper
definition of that PSE in Volume II. The
commenter requests that the ‘‘oversight’’
be corrected with a revision to Volume
II of the DC–9 SID, and that the latest
revision be specified in the final rule.
We do not agree. We have discussed
this issue with the manufacturer, and it
has advised us that the DC–9 SID,
Volume I, page 1.11, cross-references
PSE 53.09.059 to non-destructive
inspection (NDI) procedure 53–10–06,
with a notation specified on the bottom
of the page. The PSE inspection
threshold for PSE 53.09.059 specified on
page 1.11 states that only sequence 2 of
the NDI procedure applies to PSE
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
53.09.059. Volume 1, Section 4, page
4.10, of the DC–9 SID, also refers to
Volume II, procedure 53–10–06. We
received no other requests from
operators concerning this issue, and the
manufacturer is confident that the
previous references are sufficient to
allow operators to satisfy the SID
requirements for this PSE. No change
has been made to the supplemental
NPRM in this regard.
Request To Consider ‘‘Advancing
Thresholds’’
One commenter requests the original
NPRM be revised to ‘‘advance the
thresholds’’ prior to the implementation
of the final rule (the 100% inspection
program) if supported by data collected
from the SID sampling program. The
commenter states that this would
minimize the impact to operators that
have inspected any PSE shortly after
1⁄2N , only to find that after that
th
inspection the Nth is increased. The
commenter requests that, if a revision to
the DC–9 SID is pending, the thresholds
should be revised based on service
history.
We do not agree to extend the
thresholds. The manufacturer has
advised us that the service data
collected so far is not sufficient to
justify extending the threshold values at
this time. Additionally, the
manufacturer has advised that there are
no plans to increase any PSE inspection
threshold values specified in Volume I
of the DC–9 SID. No change has been
made to the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.
Request To Revise the Costs of
Compliance
One commenter agrees that the
original NPRM would require
approximately 20 additional hours of
labor to inspect each airplane. However,
the commenter’s data show that the time
required to complete the inspections
required by existing AD 96–13–03 is 571
labor hours rather than 362 work hours
as specified in the existing AD. The
commenter bases these labor hours on
over 2,000 NDIs performed as part of the
SID sampling program. The commenter
also notes that the 571 hours of labor do
not include time for access, since it
performs these inspections at
maintenance checks with access already
opened. The commenter is requesting
that the costs of compliance be revised
accordingly.
We do not agree that the Costs of
Compliance section needs to be revised.
Although we acknowledge that the work
hours for the commenter’s fleet is more
than the work hours estimated in the
original NPRM, we also recognize that
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
other operators’ fleets may not require
the same amount of work hours for the
inspections. The work hours specified
in the Costs of Compliance section are
simply estimates based on the
information that we have available from
the manufacturer. Because of the
differences involved with various
airplane configurations and differences
in airline maintenance procedures, there
may be a significant difference in work
hours necessary for operators to
accomplish the inspections. Even if
additional work hours are necessary for
some airplanes, we do not have
sufficient information to evaluate the
number of airplanes that may be so
affected or the number of additional
work hours that may be required.
Consequently, attempting to estimate
work hours for each operator would be
futile. No change is necessary to the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Editorial Change
We have revised this supplemental
NPRM to clarify the appropriate
procedure for notifying the principal
inspector before using any approved
AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies.
Additionally, we have determined
that accomplishment of the
requirements of paragraph (o) of the
supplemental AD (inspection/
replacement for certain repairs to the
fuselage pressure shell in accordance
with Boeing Report No. MDC 91K0263,
‘‘DC–9/MD–80 Aging Aircraft Repair
Assessment Program Document,’’
Revision 1, dated October 2000), are
also acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (m) of the
supplemental AD and have revised
paragraph (o) of the supplemental AD
accordingly.
Explanation of Change Made to This AD
We have simplified paragraph (l) of
the supplemental AD of this AD by
referring to the ‘‘Alternative Methods of
Compliance (AMOCs)’’ paragraph of this
AD for repair methods.
FAA’s Determination and Proposed
Requirements of the Supplemental
NPRM
Certain changes discussed above
expand the scope of the original NPRM;
therefore, we have determined that it is
necessary to reopen the comment period
to provide additional opportunity for
public comment on this supplemental
NPRM. 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
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Regulatory Findings
the overall structural integrity of the
airplane.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 710 McDonnell
Douglas transport category airplanes
worldwide of the affected design. This
supplemental NPRM 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 coincidentally 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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 supplemental NPRM and placed it
in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the
regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by 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 FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by April 3, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 96–13–03.
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–
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11331
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,
‘‘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 fleet leader operator
sampling 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, until the requirements of
paragraph (i) of this AD are accomplished.
(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.
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
11332
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
olume
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
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–20 ............
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–50 ............
II–50 ............
II–50 ............
II–50 ............
II–50 ............
Revision
level
Date of
revision
4 ...........
3 ...........
2 ...........
1 ...........
Original
5 ...........
4 ...........
3 ...........
2 ...........
1 ...........
4 ...........
3 ...........
2 ...........
1 ...........
Original
4 ...........
3 ...........
2 ...........
1 ...........
Original
July 1993.
Apr. 1991.
Apr. 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
July 1993.
Apr. 1991.
Apr. 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
July 1993.
Apr. 1991.
Apr. 1990.
June 1989.
Nov. 1987.
July 1993.
Apr. 1991.
Apr. 1990.
June 1989.
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
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Mar 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 threequarters 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.
(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 comprises the following:
TABLE 3
Revision level
shown on
volume
Volume designation
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
II–10/20 ...................
II–20/30 ...................
II–40 ........................
II–50 ........................
6
7
6
6
Discrepant Findings
(j) 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
(j)(1) or (j)(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
discrepancy must be inspected prior to Nth or
within 18 months of the discovery of the
discrepancy, whichever is later, in
accordance with 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 DNDI/2, measured from the last
non-discrepant inspection finding, or within
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18 months of the discovery of the
discrepancy, whichever occurs later, in
accordance with a method approved by the
Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.
Reporting Requirements
(k) All negative, positive, or discrepant
(discrepant finding examples are described in
paragraph (j) 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
(l) Any cracked structure of a PSE detected
during any inspection required by paragraph
(i) of this AD must be repaired before further
flight in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, or by
using a method approved in accordance with
procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this
AD. Accomplish follow-on actions described
in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(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 (l)(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 (l)(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
additional guidance concerning the approval
of repairs to PSEs.
Inspection for Transferred Airplanes
(m) 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 (m)(1) or (m)(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 in accordance with 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
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 in accordance with 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 in accordance with 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
(n) Inspections accomplished prior to the
effective date of this AD in accordance with
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Acceptable for Compliance
(o) Boeing Report MDC 91K0263, ‘‘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), (l), and
(m) of this AD for repairs subject to that
document.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(p)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD,
if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with CFR 39.19 on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair
required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who has been
authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles
ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet
the certification basis of the airplane and 14
CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) 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 (f) of this AD for inspections
performed before the requirements of
paragraph (i) are accomplished.
(5) AMOCs approved previously for repairs
per AD 87–14–07 R1, amendment 39–6019;
AD 94–03–01, amendment 39–8807; and AD
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
11333
[Docket No. FAA–2006–24076; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–015–AD]
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Contact Empresa Brasileira de
Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box
343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos
Campos—SP, Brazil, for service
information identified in this proposed
AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125;
fax (425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
RIN 2120–AA64
Comments Invited
Airworthiness Directives; Empresa
Brasileira del Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB–120, –120ER,
–120FC, –120QC, and –120RT
Airplanes
We invite you to submit any relevant
written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your
comments to an address listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Include the docket
number ‘‘FAA–2006–24076; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–015–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 that Web
site, anyone can find and read the
comments in any of our dockets,
including the name of the individual
who sent the comment (or signed the
comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78), or you may visit https://
dms.dot.gov.
96–13–03, amendment 39–9671; are
acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
23, 2006.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 06–2157 Filed 3–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain EMBRAER Model EMB–120,
–120ER, –120FC, –120QC, and –120RT
airplanes. This proposed AD would
require replacing the shut-off and
crossbleed valves of the bleed air system
with new valves having hermetically
sealed switches. This proposed AD
results from fuel system reviews
conducted by the manufacturer. We are
proposing this AD to prevent a potential
source of ignition near a fuel tank,
which, in combination with flammable
fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.
We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by April 6, 2006.
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.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Examining the Docket
You may 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
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11328-11333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2157]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain McDonnell Douglas transport
category airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing
AD that currently requires, among other things, revision of an existing
program of structural inspections. The original NPRM proposed to
require 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. The original NPRM
resulted from a significant number of these airplanes approaching or
exceeding the design service goal on which the initial type
certification approval was predicated. This new action revises the
original NPRM by removing certain service information as acceptable
methods of compliance. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to
detect and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise the
structural integrity of these airplanes.
DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by April 3,
2006.
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.
[[Page 11329]]
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and
Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for service information
identified in this proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone (562) 627-5324; fax (562) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``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 this
supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those
comments.
We will post all comments submitted, 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 supplemental NPRM. Using the search function
of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility offices
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 ADDRESSES. Comments will be available in the
AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.
Discussion
We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD
(the ``original NPRM'') for certain McDonnell Douglas transport
category airplanes. The original NPRM proposed to supersede AD 96-13-
03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR 31009, June 19, 1996), which applies to
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.) The original NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on July 8, 2005 (70 FR 39435). The original NPRM
proposed to retain the requirements of AD 96-13-03. The original NPRM
also proposed to continue to require revision of the FAA-approved
maintenance program. The original NPRM also proposed to 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. The original NPRM resulted from a significant
number of these airplanes approaching or exceeding the design service
goal on which the initial type certification approval was predicated.
That condition, if not corrected, could result in fatigue cracking that
could compromise the structural integrity of these airplanes.
Comments
We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM.
Comments That Resulted in a Change to the Original NPRM
Request To Remove Paragraph (j) of the Original NPRM
One commenter, the manufacturer, points out that the provisions of
paragraph (j) of the original NPRM would allow for the use of older
outdated versions of Section 2 of Volume II of Boeing Report No. L26-
008, ``DC-9 All Series, Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' to
satisfy future requirements of the original NPRM. The commenter advises
that only the November 2004 revision of Volume II should be allowed for
compliance with the proposed new requirements, except for future
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). Therefore, the commenter
requests that paragraph (j) of the original NPRM be removed.
We agree to remove paragraph (j) of the original NPRM for the
reason the commenter specified, and we have identified the paragraphs
of the supplemental NPRM accordingly.
Request To Revise Certain AMOC Language
The same commenter also requests that paragraph (r) of the original
NPRM be revised to extend the time during which certain AMOCs would be
acceptable for compliance with the actions required by paragraph (f) of
the original NPRM. (Paragraph (f) of the original NPRM is part of the
restatement of AD 96-13-03.) The commenter points out that the
restatement of the requirements of paragraph (f) of the original NPRM
addresses only those revisions of the DC-9 SID that are listed in AD
96-13-03. The commenter concludes that, since the new requirements of
paragraph (h) of the original NPRM are required within 12 months of the
effective date, any operator using an AMOC to AD 96-13-03 would
potentially be out of compliance during the required compliance period
of paragraph (h) of the original NPRM.
We agree that paragraph (r) of the original NPRM, now identified as
paragraph (p)(4) of the supplemental NPRM, should be revised. We infer
that the commenter interprets the requirements of paragraph (h) of the
supplemental NPRM to effect the accomplishment of the requirements of
paragraph (f) of the supplemental NPRM. This is not the case and in
order to clarify the requirements and compliance times of this
supplemental NPRM, we have added an explanation in paragraph (f) of the
supplemental NPRM specifying that the repetitive inspections required
by paragraph (f) of the supplemental NPRM must be repeated until the
requirements of paragraph (i) of the supplemental NPRM are
accomplished. Consequently, we have revised the language of paragraph
(p)(4) of the supplemental NPRM to specify that AMOCs approved
previously for alternative inspection procedures and planning
requirements of AD 96-13-03 are acceptable for compliance with the
actions required by
[[Page 11330]]
paragraph (f) of the supplemental NPRM until the requirements, at the
times specified in paragraph (i) of the supplemental NPRM, are
accomplished.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (m) of the Original NPRM
This same commenter states that paragraph (m) of the original NPRM
(that paragraph discusses corrective actions if required) is not clear
as to whether or not Authorized Representatives (ARs) may approve
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs).
We agree that paragraph (m) of the original NPRM (identified as
paragraph (l) of the supplemental NPRM) should be revised. Since the
issuance of the original NPRM, we have determined that the description
of the approval of corrective actions such as those specified in
paragraph (l) of the supplemental NPRM can be simplified by referring
to the ``Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC),'' paragraph (p) of
this supplemental NPRM. In addition, our policy is that all future
repairs to an airplane must meet damage tolerance requirements of 14
CFR 25.571, amendment 45. The purpose of this policy is to detect and
repair fatigue cracks that may occur in a repair before they become
another unsafe condition. Therefore, we have also revised the paragraph
addressing AMOCs, paragraph (p) of this supplemental NPRM, to include
that requirement.
Comments That Did Not Result in a Change to the Original NPRM
Request To Add a New Principal Structural Element (PSE)
One commenter states that the latest revision (November 2002) of
the DC-9 SID, Volume I, created a new PSE 53.09.059. The commenter
states that the new PSE is not included in the latest revision
(November 2004) of Volume II of the SID, and that operators will not be
able to complete inspections of the PSE 53.09.059 area without proper
definition of that PSE in Volume II. The commenter requests that the
``oversight'' be corrected with a revision to Volume II of the DC-9
SID, and that the latest revision be specified in the final rule.
We do not agree. We have discussed this issue with the
manufacturer, and it has advised us that the DC-9 SID, Volume I, page
1.11, cross-references PSE 53.09.059 to non-destructive inspection
(NDI) procedure 53-10-06, with a notation specified on the bottom of
the page. The PSE inspection threshold for PSE 53.09.059 specified on
page 1.11 states that only sequence 2 of the NDI procedure applies to
PSE 53.09.059. Volume 1, Section 4, page 4.10, of the DC-9 SID, also
refers to Volume II, procedure 53-10-06. We received no other requests
from operators concerning this issue, and the manufacturer is confident
that the previous references are sufficient to allow operators to
satisfy the SID requirements for this PSE. No change has been made to
the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Consider ``Advancing Thresholds''
One commenter requests the original NPRM be revised to ``advance
the thresholds'' prior to the implementation of the final rule (the
100% inspection program) if supported by data collected from the SID
sampling program. The commenter states that this would minimize the
impact to operators that have inspected any PSE shortly after \1/
2\Nth, only to find that after that inspection the
Nth is increased. The commenter requests that, if a revision
to the DC-9 SID is pending, the thresholds should be revised based on
service history.
We do not agree to extend the thresholds. The manufacturer has
advised us that the service data collected so far is not sufficient to
justify extending the threshold values at this time. Additionally, the
manufacturer has advised that there are no plans to increase any PSE
inspection threshold values specified in Volume I of the DC-9 SID. No
change has been made to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance
One commenter agrees that the original NPRM would require
approximately 20 additional hours of labor to inspect each airplane.
However, the commenter's data show that the time required to complete
the inspections required by existing AD 96-13-03 is 571 labor hours
rather than 362 work hours as specified in the existing AD. The
commenter bases these labor hours on over 2,000 NDIs performed as part
of the SID sampling program. The commenter also notes that the 571
hours of labor do not include time for access, since it performs these
inspections at maintenance checks with access already opened. The
commenter is requesting that the costs of compliance be revised
accordingly.
We do not agree that the Costs of Compliance section needs to be
revised. Although we acknowledge that the work hours for the
commenter's fleet is more than the work hours estimated in the original
NPRM, we also recognize that other operators' fleets may not require
the same amount of work hours for the inspections. The work hours
specified in the Costs of Compliance section are simply estimates based
on the information that we have available from the manufacturer.
Because of the differences involved with various airplane
configurations and differences in airline maintenance procedures, there
may be a significant difference in work hours necessary for operators
to accomplish the inspections. Even if additional work hours are
necessary for some airplanes, we do not have sufficient information to
evaluate the number of airplanes that may be so affected or the number
of additional work hours that may be required. Consequently, attempting
to estimate work hours for each operator would be futile. No change is
necessary to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Editorial Change
We have revised this supplemental NPRM to clarify the appropriate
procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.
Additionally, we have determined that accomplishment of the
requirements of paragraph (o) of the supplemental AD (inspection/
replacement for certain repairs to the fuselage pressure shell in
accordance with Boeing Report No. MDC 91K0263, ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging
Aircraft Repair Assessment Program Document,'' Revision 1, dated
October 2000), are also acceptable for compliance with the requirements
of paragraph (m) of the supplemental AD and have revised paragraph (o)
of the supplemental AD accordingly.
Explanation of Change Made to This AD
We have simplified paragraph (l) of the supplemental AD of this AD
by referring to the ``Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)''
paragraph of this AD for repair methods.
FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM
Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the original
NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on
this supplemental NPRM. 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
[[Page 11331]]
the overall structural integrity of the airplane.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 710 McDonnell Douglas transport category airplanes
worldwide of the affected design. This supplemental NPRM 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 coincidentally 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 supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See
the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
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 FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 3,
2006.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 96-13-03.
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, ``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
fleet leader operator sampling 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 [Delta]NDI/2 of the NDI
procedure that is specified in Volume III-95, dated September 1995,
of the SID, until the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD are
accomplished.
(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.
[[Page 11332]]
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume designation Revision level Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20................... 4............... July 1993.
Volume II-10-20................... 3............... Apr. 1991.
Volume II-10/20................... 2............... Apr. 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............... Apr. 1991.
Volume II-20/30................... 3............... Apr. 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............... Apr. 1991.
Volume II-40...................... 2............... Apr. 1990.
Volume II-40...................... 1............... June 1989.
Volume II-40...................... Original........ Nov. 1987.
Volume II-50...................... 4............... July 1993.
Volume II-50...................... 3............... Apr. 1991.
Volume II-50...................... 2............... Apr. 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 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 comprises 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discrepant Findings
(j) 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 (j)(1) or (j)(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 discrepancy must be inspected prior to
Nth or within 18 months of the discovery of the
discrepancy, whichever is later, in accordance with 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, in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.
Reporting Requirements
(k) All negative, positive, or discrepant (discrepant finding
examples are described in paragraph (j) 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
(l) Any cracked structure of a PSE detected during any
inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, or by using a method approved in
accordance with procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
Accomplish follow-on actions described in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2),
and (l)(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 (l)(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
(l)(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
(m) 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
(m)(1) or (m)(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 in accordance with 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
[[Page 11333]]
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 in accordance with 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 in accordance with 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
(n) Inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of this
AD in accordance with 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
(o) Boeing Report MDC 91K0263, ``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), (l), and (m) of this AD for
repairs subject to that document.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(p)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with CFR 39.19
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate
principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding
District Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) 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 (f)
of this AD for inspections performed before the requirements of
paragraph (i) are accomplished.
(5) 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 (l) of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 23, 2006.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 06-2157 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
