Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 Airplanes, 8303-8305 [E7-3170]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(1) In lieu of the requirements of
§ 25.1323(c)(1), the following special
conditions apply:
VMO to Vmin with the flaps retracted.
(2) In lieu of the requirements of
§ 25.1323(c)(2), the following special
conditions apply:
Vmin to VFE with flaps in the landing
position.
7. Flight Envelope Protection: Normal
Load Factor (g) Limiting
In addition to the requirements of
§ 25.143(a)—and in the absence of other
limiting factors—the following special
conditions apply:
a. The positive limiting load factor
must not be less than:
(1) 2.5g for the Electronic Flight
Control System (EFCS) normal state.
(2) 2.0g for the EFCS normal state
with the high lift devices extended.
b. The negative limiting load factor
must be equal to or more negative than:
(1) Minus 1.0g for the EFCS normal
state.
(2) 0.0g for the EFCS normal state
with high lift devices extended.
Note: This special condition does not
impose an upper bound for the normal load
factor limit, nor does it require that the limit
exist. If the limit is set at a value beyond the
structural design limit maneuvering load
factor ‘‘n,’’ indicated in §§ 25.333(b) and
25.337(b) and (c), there should be a very
positive tactile feel built into the controller
and obvious to the pilot that serves as a
deterrent to inadvertently exceeding the
structural limit.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
8. Flight Envelope Protection: Pitch,
Roll, and High Speed Limiting
Functions
In addition to § 25.143, the following
special conditions apply:
a. Operation of the high speed limiter
during all routine and descent
procedure flight must not impede
normal attainment of speeds up to the
overspeed warning.
b. The pitch limiting function must
not impede airplane maneuvering,
including an all-engines operating
takeoff, for pitch angles up to the
maximum required for normal
operations plus a suitable margin in the
pitch axis to allow for satisfactory speed
control.
c. The high speed limiting function
must not impede normal attainment of
speeds up to VMO/MMO during all
routine and descent procedure flight
conditions.
d. The pitch and roll limiting
functions must not restrict nor prevent
attaining bank angles up to 65 degrees
and pitch attitudes necessary for
emergency maneuvering. Positive spiral
stability, which is introduced above 35
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:00 Feb 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
degrees bank angle, must not require
excessive pilot strength on the side stick
controller to achieve bank angles up to
65 degrees. Stick force at bank angles
greater than 35 degrees must not be so
light that over-control would lead to
pilot-induced oscillations.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
15, 2007.
Stephen Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–3213 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2007–27338; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–148–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell
Douglas Model 717–200 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 all
McDonnell Douglas Model 717–200
airplanes. The existing AD currently
requires revising the Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) of the
Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness to incorporate new
removal limits for certain components
of the flap system and to reduce the
interval of inspections for fatigue
cracking of certain principal structural
elements (PSEs). This proposed AD
would require revising the ALS of the
Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness to incorporate reduced
initial inspection and repeat inspection
intervals for certain PSEs. This
proposed AD results from a revised
damage tolerance analysis. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, which
could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by April 12, 2007.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8303
• 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.
Contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,
California 90846, Attention: Data and
Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A
(D800–0024), for the service information
identified in this proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Rathfelder, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712–4137; telephone (562)
627–5229; fax (562) 627–5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant
written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your
comments to an address listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Include the docket
number ‘‘FAA–2007–27338; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–148–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 may can visit https://
dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov, or in
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
8304
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules
person at the Docket Management
Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The Docket
Management Facility office (telephone
(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza
level of the Nassif Building at the DOT
street address stated in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after the Docket
Management System receives them.
Discussion
On August 11, 2003, we issued AD
2003–17–01, amendment 39–13274 (68
FR 49686, August 19, 2003), for all
McDonnell Douglas Model 717–200
airplanes. That AD requires revising the
Airworthiness Limitations Section of
the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness, Airworthiness
Limitations Instructions (ALI), to
incorporate new removal limits for
certain components of the flap system
and to reduce the interval of inspections
for fatigue cracking of certain principal
structural elements (PSEs). That AD
resulted from a revised damage
tolerance analysis. We issued that AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of
certain PSEs, which could adversely
affect the structural integrity of the
airplane.
information is intended to adequately
address the identified 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 develop on
other airplanes of the same type design.
For this reason, we are proposing this
AD, which would supersede AD 2003–
17–01. This proposed AD would retain
the requirements of AD 2003–17–01.
This proposed AD would also require
operators to incorporate the Boeing 717–
200 ALI, Report MDC–96K9063,
Revision 5, dated February 2006, into
the applicable maintenance and
inspection program.
Change to Existing AD
This proposed AD would retain the
requirements of AD 2003–17–01. Since
AD 2003–17–01 was issued, the AD
format has been revised, and certain
paragraphs have been rearranged. As a
result, paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD
2003–17–01 have been re-identified as
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this proposed
AD.
Relevant Service Information
Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that 108 airplanes
of U.S. registry are affected by AD 2003–
17–01, that it takes approximately 1
work hour per airplane to accomplish
the required actions, and that the
average labor rate is $80 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact
on U.S. operators of the actions required
by AD 2003–17–01 and retained in this
proposed AD is estimated to be $8,640,
or $80 per airplane.
There are about 155 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet.
This proposed AD would affect about
121 airplanes of U.S. registry. The new
proposed maintenance and inspection
program revision would take about 1
work hour per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based
on these figures, the estimated cost of
the new proposed AD to U.S. operators
is $9,680, or $80 per airplane.
We have reviewed Boeing 717–200
Airworthiness Limitations Instructions
(ALI), Report MDC–96K9063, Revision
5, dated February 2006. Among other
things, Revision 5 of the ALI revises
intervals for initial and repeat
inspections for fatigue cracking of
certain PSEs. Additionally, Revision 5
updates certain portions of the nondestructive inspection (NDI) techniques
and procedures, and corrects some
typographical errors that appeared in an
earlier revision. Accomplishment of the
actions specified in the service
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
Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Since we issued AD 2003–17–01,
Boeing has made a further damage
tolerance analysis of certain PSEs on
Model 717–200 airplanes. The analysis
was repeated to divide one larger PSE
into several smaller PSEs and to include
new inspection procedures. The damage
tolerance analysis resulted in a
reduction to the inspection initial and
repeat intervals of some PSEs and an
increase to intervals for other PSEs.
The actions specified by the proposed
AD are intended to detect fatigue
cracking of certain PSEs. Fatigue
cracking, if not detected and corrected,
could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:00 Feb 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this proposed AD and placed it in the
AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section
for a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by removing amendment 39–13274 (68
FR 49686, August 19, 2003) and adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA–2007–
27338; Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–
148–AD.
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules
paragraph (h) of this AD have been done, no
alternative inspection intervals or
replacement times may be approved for the
PSEs and safe-life limited parts specified in
Boeing 717–200 ALI, Report MDC–96K9063,
Revision 5, dated February 2006.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by April 12, 2007.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2003–17–01.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell
Douglas Model 717–200 airplanes,
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD requires revisions to
certain operator maintenance documents to
incorporate new inspections for fatigue
cracking of principal structural elements
(PSEs). Compliance with these inspections is
required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered,
or repaired in the areas addressed by these
inspections, the operator may not be able to
incorporate the inspections described in the
revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14
CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of
compliance according to paragraph (j) of this
AD. The request should include a description
of changes to the required inspections that
will ensure the continued damage tolerance
of the affected structure. The FAA has
provided guidance for this determination in
Advisory Circular (AC) 25–1529–1.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a revised damage
tolerance analysis. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain
PSEs, which could adversely affect the
structural integrity of the airplane.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(j)(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) 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 the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(3) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
16, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–3170 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
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.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Restatement of Requirements of AD 2003–
17–01
14 CFR Part 39
Revising Airworthiness Limitations Section
(f) Within 180 days after September 23,
2003 (the effective date of AD 2003–17–01),
revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section
of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness, Airworthiness Limitations
Instructions (ALI), in accordance with Boeing
Report MDC–96K9063, Revision 3, dated
August 2002.
(g) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of
this AD: After the actions specified in
paragraph (f) of this AD have been done, no
alternative inspection intervals or
replacement times may be approved for the
PSEs and safe-life limited parts specified in
Boeing Report Number MDC–96K9063,
Revision 3, dated August 2002.
[Docket No. FAA–2007–27340; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–271–AD]
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
New Requirements of This AD
Revising Airworthiness Limitations Section
Using Revision 5
(h) Within 180 days after the effective date
of this AD: Revise the Airworthiness
Limitations Section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness, ALI, in accordance
with Boeing 717–200 ALI, Report MDC–
96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006.
(i) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of
this AD: After the actions specified in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:00 Feb 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
Federal Aviation Administration
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell
Douglas Model DC–10–30 and DC–10–
30F (KC–10A and KDC–10) Airplanes,
Model DC–10–40 and DC–10–40F
Airplanes, and Model MD–10–30F
Airplanes
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 McDonnell Douglas Model DC–
10–30 and DC–10–30F (KC–10A and
KDC–10) airplanes, Model DC–10–40
and DC–10–40F airplanes, and Model
MD–10–30F airplanes. This proposed
AD would require installing bracket
assemblies and jumper wires in the
center main wheel well to improve the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8305
bonding path between the structure
(wall) of the lower auxiliary fuel tank
and its internal fuel pumps; measuring
the electrical resistance between the fuel
pump housings and the fuel tank
structure; and doing corrective actions if
necessary. This proposed AD results
from fuel system reviews conducted by
the manufacturer. We are proposing this
AD to detect and correct an inadequate
bond between the internal fuel pump
housings and the structure of the lower
auxiliary fuel tank. This condition, if
not corrected, could fail to meet fault
current requirements and result in a
potential ignition source that, in
combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could cause a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by April 12, 2007.
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.
Contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,
California 90846, Attention: Data and
Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A
(D800–0024), for the service information
identified in this proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA,
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California 90712–4137;
telephone (562) 627–5262; fax (562)
627–5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant
written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your
comments to an address listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Include the docket
number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2007–27340;
Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–271–
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 37 (Monday, February 26, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8303-8305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3170]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2007-27338; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-148-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200
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 all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200
airplanes. The existing AD currently requires revising the
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new removal limits for certain
components of the flap system and to reduce the interval of inspections
for fatigue cracking of certain principal structural elements (PSEs).
This proposed AD would require revising the ALS of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness to incorporate reduced initial inspection and
repeat inspection intervals for certain PSEs. This proposed AD results
from a revised damage tolerance analysis. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, which could
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2007.
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.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and
Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service
information identified in this proposed AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Rathfelder, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone (562) 627-5229; fax (562) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``FAA-2007-
27338; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-148-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 may
can visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov, or in
[[Page 8304]]
person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the
plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.
Discussion
On August 11, 2003, we issued AD 2003-17-01, amendment 39-13274 (68
FR 49686, August 19, 2003), for all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200
airplanes. That AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Airworthiness
Limitations Instructions (ALI), to incorporate new removal limits for
certain components of the flap system and to reduce the interval of
inspections for fatigue cracking of certain principal structural
elements (PSEs). That AD resulted from a revised damage tolerance
analysis. We issued that AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of
certain PSEs, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of
the airplane.
Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued
Since we issued AD 2003-17-01, Boeing has made a further damage
tolerance analysis of certain PSEs on Model 717-200 airplanes. The
analysis was repeated to divide one larger PSE into several smaller
PSEs and to include new inspection procedures. The damage tolerance
analysis resulted in a reduction to the inspection initial and repeat
intervals of some PSEs and an increase to intervals for other PSEs.
The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect
fatigue cracking of certain PSEs. Fatigue cracking, if not detected and
corrected, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the
airplane.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed Boeing 717-200 Airworthiness Limitations
Instructions (ALI), Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February
2006. Among other things, Revision 5 of the ALI revises intervals for
initial and repeat inspections for fatigue cracking of certain PSEs.
Additionally, Revision 5 updates certain portions of the non-
destructive inspection (NDI) techniques and procedures, and corrects
some typographical errors that appeared in an earlier revision.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the identified 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 develop on other airplanes of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD 2003-17-01. This proposed AD would retain the
requirements of AD 2003-17-01. This proposed AD would also require
operators to incorporate the Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063,
Revision 5, dated February 2006, into the applicable maintenance and
inspection program.
Change to Existing AD
This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2003-17-01.
Since AD 2003-17-01 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, paragraphs (a)
and (b) of AD 2003-17-01 have been re-identified as paragraphs (f) and
(g) of this proposed AD.
Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that 108 airplanes of U.S. registry are affected
by AD 2003-17-01, that it takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane
to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is
$80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S.
operators of the actions required by AD 2003-17-01 and retained in this
proposed AD is estimated to be $8,640, or $80 per airplane.
There are about 155 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 121 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The new proposed maintenance and inspection program
revision would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor
rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the new proposed AD to U.S. operators is $9,680, or $80 per
airplane.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
removing amendment 39-13274 (68 FR 49686, August 19, 2003) and adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2007-27338; Directorate Identifier
2006-NM-148-AD.
[[Page 8305]]
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 12,
2007.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-17-01.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200
airplanes, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to incorporate new inspections for fatigue
cracking of principal structural elements (PSEs). Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to incorporate the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA
has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC) 25-1529-1.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a revised damage tolerance analysis. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of
certain PSEs, which could adversely affect the structural integrity
of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Restatement of Requirements of AD 2003-17-01
Revising Airworthiness Limitations Section
(f) Within 180 days after September 23, 2003 (the effective date
of AD 2003-17-01), revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section of
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Airworthiness
Limitations Instructions (ALI), in accordance with Boeing Report
MDC-96K9063, Revision 3, dated August 2002.
(g) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD: After the
actions specified in paragraph (f) of this AD have been done, no
alternative inspection intervals or replacement times may be
approved for the PSEs and safe-life limited parts specified in
Boeing Report Number MDC-96K9063, Revision 3, dated August 2002.
New Requirements of This AD
Revising Airworthiness Limitations Section Using Revision 5
(h) Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness, ALI, in accordance with Boeing 717-200 ALI,
Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006.
(i) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD: After the
actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD have been done, no
alternative inspection intervals or replacement times may be
approved for the PSEs and safe-life limited parts specified in
Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February
2006.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(j)(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) 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 the approval must specifically refer to
this AD.
(3) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with Sec.
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards
Certificate Holding District Office.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 16, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-3170 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
