Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 Airplanes, 38883-38885 [E8-14472]

Download as PDF 38883 Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 131 Tuesday, July 8, 2008 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2007–29335; Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–045–AD; Amendment 39–15592; AD 2008–13–29] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC– 9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC– 9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES AGENCY: 14:13 Jul 07, 2008 Jkt 214001 Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https:// www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5233; fax (562) 627–5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD– 88 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the overwing frames from stations 845 to 905 (MD–87 stations 731 to 791), left and right sides, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of cracked overwing frames. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could sever the frame, increase the loading of adjacent frames, and result in damage to adjacent structure and loss of overall structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective August 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service VerDate Aug<31>2005 Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800– 0024). We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD– 88 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55111). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the overwing frames from stations 845 to 905 (MD–87 stations 731 to 791), left and right sides, and corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Request To Extend Compliance Time Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member American Airlines, states that a 24-month compliance period for the initial inspections would be overly burdensome. The commenters request that we extend the compliance time to 48 months so operators can integrate the required actions with planned heavy maintenance visits. The commenters add that we did not PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 consider the size of the fleet and the availability of parts when we determined the compliance period. American Airlines finds that a longer compliance time can be justified by applying statistically based risk analysis methods and accounting for the effect of flight cycles. We do not agree to extend the compliance time. We have no data or analysis to support such an extension of the compliance period. For airplanes that have accumulated more than 20,000 total flight cycles, the extent of damage already accumulated on the affected fuselage frames cannot be predetermined, so accounting for subsequent flight cycles will provide no benefit. The 24-month compliance period is considered appropriate in light of the characteristics of crack growth, the probability of crack initiation, and the ability of operators to integrate the required actions into established maintenance practices. Currently there are insufficient statistical or other data to justify a compliance period beyond the proposed 24 months. However, paragraph (h) of this final rule provides operators the opportunity to request an extension of the compliance time if data are presented to justify such an extension. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Request To Delay Issuance of AD Pending Parts Availability ATA, on behalf of its member American Airlines, notes that the rate of cracking noted in early inspections suggests that the supply of available spare parts is insufficient to support completion of the proposed actions within the 24-month compliance period. Delta Air Lines also expresses concern over the availability of spare frames and reports that all its repairs done to date have been done by frame replacement with a like part. We infer that the commenters request that we wait to issue the final rule until sufficient parts are available. We disagree with the need to delay the final rule. Boeing has arranged to have additional frames manufactured as demand builds during the 24-month compliance period. Boeing expects a sufficient supply to be available to support the AD requirements. We are proceeding with issuance of the final rule as proposed. E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1 38884 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations Request To Revise Cost Estimate ATA, on behalf of its member Delta Air Lines, notes that the estimated work hours to do the required actions assume that access to the overwing frames is available during a scheduled maintenance visit. The commenters assert that the 4-hour labor estimate applies only when the inspection can be done during a scheduled heavy maintenance visit, when the airplane is already opened up. Delta states that, in reality, up to 67 percent of its fleet will not be due for the heavy maintenance visit during the proposed compliance time. That portion of the fleet will require special-schedule inspection visits, and add at least 16 work hours to gain access to the inspection areas. We infer that the commenters are requesting that we revise the cost estimate provided in the NPRM. We do not agree. The cost information provided in AD actions describes only the direct costs of the specific requirements. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours to do the required actions for this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs, such as the time necessary for access and close, in addition to the direct costs. These incidental costs can vary significantly among operators. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Interim Action We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we may consider additional rulemaking. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,189 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. ESTIMATED COSTS Average labor rate per hour Work hours 4 ..................... $80 Number of U.S.registered airplanes Parts Cost per airplane None ............... $320, per inspection cycle ............... ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES 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. (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866, (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. Regulatory Findings This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:13 Jul 07, 2008 Jkt 214001 List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: I 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: I 2008–13–29 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39–15592. Docket No. PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Fleet cost 670 $214,400, per inspection cycle. FAA–2007–29335; Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–045–AD. Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 12, 2008. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD– 87), and MD–88 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from reports of cracked overwing frames. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could sever the frame, increase the loading of adjacent frames, and result in damage to adjacent structure and loss of overall structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections (f) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do general visual and high frequency eddy current inspections, and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80–53A301, Revision 1, dated May 25, 2007. Do the applicable E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations corrective actions before further flight after accomplishing the inspections. Repeat the inspections thereafter at applicable intervals not to exceed those specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of the service bulletin. Actions According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin BILLING CODE 4910–13–P (g) Inspections and related investigative and corrective actions are also acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80–53A301, dated January 9, 2007. (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES Material Incorporated by Reference (i) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80–53A301, Revision 1, dated May 25, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–0024). (3) You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: https:// www.archives.gov/federal_register/ code_of_federal_regulations/ ibr_locations.html. 14:13 Jul 07, 2008 Jkt 214001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2007–0395; Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–157–AD; Amendment 39–15588; AD 2008–13–25] Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) VerDate Aug<31>2005 Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8–14472 Filed 7–7–08; 8:45 am] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737–300 and –400 Series Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 737–300 and –400 series airplanes. This AD requires testing and inspecting a certain web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck to determine the material type and thickness; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from several reports indicating that cracks ranging from 0.8 to 8.0 inches long were found on a certain web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck, which could result in venting and consequent decompression of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective August 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https:// www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) is the Document Management Facility, PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 38885 U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6447; fax (425) 917–6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737–300 and –400 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 10, 2008 (73 FR 1846). That NPRM proposed to require testing and inspecting a certain web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck to determine the material type and thickness; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Request To Change the Description of the Unsafe Condition Boeing asks that the unsafe condition (end level effect) specified in the applicable sections of the NPRM be changed from ‘‘rapid decompression’’ to ‘‘controlled decompression.’’ Boeing states that the most probable result of the cracking would be pressure loss or controlled depressurization. Boeing has received reports of cracks ranging from 4.5 to 8 inches in the web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck; the reports included the following data: • Cabin crews reported a loud hissing noise coming from the area below seats 14A, B, and C. No depressurization was reported. • The crew reported a loud hissing noise from the cabin lining on the lefthand side at row 15. The cabin windows along the left-hand side progressively frosted up until, after about 2 hours, all the windows were frosted up between rows 11 through 17. • It was reported that it was not possible to pressurize another airplane. We partially agree with Boeing. We agree to change the end level effect of the unsafe condition by removing the word ‘‘rapid,’’ since Boeing has provided data verifying that the decompression does not happen quickly. However, we do not agree that E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 8, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38883-38885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-14472]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 8, 2008 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 38883]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29335; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-045-AD; 
Amendment 39-15592; AD 2008-13-29]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-
83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive 
inspections for cracking of the overwing frames from stations 845 to 
905 (MD-87 stations 731 to 791), left and right sides, and corrective 
actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of cracked overwing 
frames. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, 
which could sever the frame, increase the loading of adjacent frames, 
and result in damage to adjacent structure and loss of overall 
structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective August 12, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 12, 
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood 
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service 
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, 
any comments received, and other information. The address for the 
Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; 
telephone (562) 627-5233; fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to 
all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 
(MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. That NPRM was published 
in the Federal Register on September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55111). That NPRM 
proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the overwing 
frames from stations 845 to 905 (MD-87 stations 731 to 791), left and 
right sides, and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member American 
Airlines, states that a 24-month compliance period for the initial 
inspections would be overly burdensome. The commenters request that we 
extend the compliance time to 48 months so operators can integrate the 
required actions with planned heavy maintenance visits. The commenters 
add that we did not consider the size of the fleet and the availability 
of parts when we determined the compliance period. American Airlines 
finds that a longer compliance time can be justified by applying 
statistically based risk analysis methods and accounting for the effect 
of flight cycles.
    We do not agree to extend the compliance time. We have no data or 
analysis to support such an extension of the compliance period. For 
airplanes that have accumulated more than 20,000 total flight cycles, 
the extent of damage already accumulated on the affected fuselage 
frames cannot be predetermined, so accounting for subsequent flight 
cycles will provide no benefit. The 24-month compliance period is 
considered appropriate in light of the characteristics of crack growth, 
the probability of crack initiation, and the ability of operators to 
integrate the required actions into established maintenance practices. 
Currently there are insufficient statistical or other data to justify a 
compliance period beyond the proposed 24 months. However, paragraph (h) 
of this final rule provides operators the opportunity to request an 
extension of the compliance time if data are presented to justify such 
an extension. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Delay Issuance of AD Pending Parts Availability

    ATA, on behalf of its member American Airlines, notes that the rate 
of cracking noted in early inspections suggests that the supply of 
available spare parts is insufficient to support completion of the 
proposed actions within the 24-month compliance period. Delta Air Lines 
also expresses concern over the availability of spare frames and 
reports that all its repairs done to date have been done by frame 
replacement with a like part.
    We infer that the commenters request that we wait to issue the 
final rule until sufficient parts are available. We disagree with the 
need to delay the final rule. Boeing has arranged to have additional 
frames manufactured as demand builds during the 24-month compliance 
period. Boeing expects a sufficient supply to be available to support 
the AD requirements. We are proceeding with issuance of the final rule 
as proposed.

[[Page 38884]]

Request To Revise Cost Estimate

    ATA, on behalf of its member Delta Air Lines, notes that the 
estimated work hours to do the required actions assume that access to 
the overwing frames is available during a scheduled maintenance visit. 
The commenters assert that the 4-hour labor estimate applies only when 
the inspection can be done during a scheduled heavy maintenance visit, 
when the airplane is already opened up. Delta states that, in reality, 
up to 67 percent of its fleet will not be due for the heavy maintenance 
visit during the proposed compliance time. That portion of the fleet 
will require special-schedule inspection visits, and add at least 16 
work hours to gain access to the inspection areas.
    We infer that the commenters are requesting that we revise the cost 
estimate provided in the NPRM. We do not agree. The cost information 
provided in AD actions describes only the direct costs of the specific 
requirements. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer 
provided the number of work hours to do the required actions for this 
AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, 
operators might incur incidental costs, such as the time necessary for 
access and close, in addition to the direct costs. These incidental 
costs can vary significantly among operators. We have not changed the 
final rule regarding this issue.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD as proposed.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently 
developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition 
identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, 
and available, we may consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 1,189 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for 
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                                         Estimated Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                               Number of U.S.-
             Work hours               Average labor          Parts                          Cost per  airplane                    registered                       Fleet cost
                                      rate per hour                                                                               airplanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4..................................             $80  None.................  $320, per inspection cycle.......................             670  $214,400, per inspection cycle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of 
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-13-29 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-15592. Docket No. FAA-
2007-29335; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-045-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 12, 
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 
airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of cracked overwing frames. We 
are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could 
sever the frame, increase the loading of adjacent frames, and result 
in damage to adjacent structure and loss of overall structural 
integrity of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this 
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the 
actions have already been done.

Inspections

    (f) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or 
within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever 
occurs later: Do general visual and high frequency eddy current 
inspections, and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance 
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin MD80-53A301, Revision 1, dated May 25, 2007. Do the 
applicable

[[Page 38885]]

corrective actions before further flight after accomplishing the 
inspections. Repeat the inspections thereafter at applicable 
intervals not to exceed those specified in paragraph 1.E., 
``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin.

Actions According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

    (g) Inspections and related investigative and corrective actions 
are also acceptable for compliance with the requirements of 
paragraph (f) of this AD if done before the effective date of this 
AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A301, 
dated January 9, 2007.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 
requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different 
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. 
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC 
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA 
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an 
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized 
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a 
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification 
basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the 
approval must specifically refer to this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A301, 
Revision 1, dated May 25, 2007, to do the actions required by this 
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood 
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service 
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
    (3) You may review copies of the service information 
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information 
on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or 
go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2008.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-14472 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.