[Federal Register: June 4, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 108)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31514-31518]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04jn04-2]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2000-NM-110-AD; Amendment 39-13653; AD 2004-11-07]
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, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
[[Page 31515]]
applicable 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
requires implementation of a program of structural inspections of
baseline structure to detect and correct fatigue cracking in order to
ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes as they approach
the manufacturer's original fatigue design life goal. This action is
necessary to detect and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise
the structural integrity of these airplanes. This action is intended to
address the identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Effective July 9, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 9, 2004.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and
Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be
examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California; 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: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562)
627-5325; fax (562) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable 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 was published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2003
(68 FR 58046). That action 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.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (b) of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)
One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that paragraph
(b) of the NPRM be clarified to specify what an operator should do to
inspect a discrepant principal structural element (PSE). The commenter
states that the preamble of the NPRM alludes to what to do, but that
the body of the NPRM does not specify what actions to accomplish.
Specifically, the commenter requests that the following clarification
be added to paragraph (b) of the NPRM: ``If, during the inspection of
the PSE per Supplemental Inspection Document Volume II, a discrepancy
is determined to exist, then the following applies: For an inspection
prior to \3/4\Nth or Nth: The area of the PSE
affected by the discrepancy must be inspected prior to Nth
with a method approved by the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO). For an inspection 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, with a method approved by the Los
Angeles ACO.''
The FAA agrees that clarification is needed. We have added a new
paragraph (c) of this AD to clarify the actions and compliance times
required if any discrepancy is detected during the inspections required
by paragraph (b) of this AD. Paragraphs subsequent to paragraph (b) of
the NPRM have been renumbered accordingly in this AD.
Request To Clarify the Method for Approving a Repair
One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests clarification
concerning the multiple state approach used for approving repairs.
Specifically, the commenter requests that a ``note'' be added after
paragraph (d) of the NPRM to clarify that Advisory Circular AC 25.1529-
1, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of Structural Repairs on
Transport Airplanes, dated August 1, 1991, is appropriate guidance
concerning the approval of repairs to PSEs.
We agree with the commenter's request and have revised the final
rule to add a new ``Note 2'' advising that AC 25.1529-1 provides
additional guidance concerning the approval of repairs.
Request To Clarify Compliance ``Threshold'' of Paragraph (d) of the
NPRM
One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that the
``threshold'' specified in paragraph (d)(2) of the NPRM be clarified.
The commenter asserts that the ``threshold'' could be interpreted as
reaching 75% of the PSE inspection threshold and not the repair
threshold. The commenter requests that paragraph (d)(2) of the NPRM be
revised as follows: ``(2) Prior to reaching 75% of the threshold as
determined in paragraph (d)(1) of the NPRM, submit the inspection
methods and repetitive inspection intervals for the repair for approval
by the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.'' The commenter notes that
paragraph (d)(3) of the NPRM is clear concerning what threshold is
being referred to.
We agree with the commenter that clarification is warranted. We
have redesignated paragraph (d)(2) of the NPRM as paragraph (e)(2) of
the final rule and revised the wording of new paragraph (e)(2) to
clarify the threshold accordingly.
Request To Clarify the Compliance Times of Paragraph (e) of the NPRM
One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that paragraph
(e) of the NPRM be revised to delete the phrase that limits the
applicability of paragraph (e) of the NPRM to airplanes that have
exceeded the compliance times specified in paragraph (b) of the NPRM.
The commenter states that, if the airplane has not exceeded these
times, then the operator would only be required to comply per paragraph
(b) of the NPRM.
We do not concur with the commenter's request. The purpose of this
limitation is to avoid the need for air carriers to comply with this
paragraph (redesignated as paragraph (f) in this final rule) if they
are able to comply with paragraph (b) within the compliance times
specified in paragraph (b) of the AD. Without this limitation, for
example, an air carrier placing a relatively new airplane into service
would either have to perform the inspections before placing it into
service or obtain an FAA approval for performing them later.
In considering this comment, however, we recognize that the only
time that an air carrier would need to address this issue is when the
airplane
[[Page 31516]]
has exceeded the fatigue life threshold (Nth). Before that
time, paragraph (b) of the AD allows for performance of the inspections
within the compliance times specified in that paragraph. Therefore, we
have revised paragraph (f) of the AD to reference only the fatigue life
threshold (Nth).
Request To Revise Certain Terminology
One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that the terms
``SSIP'' and ``SSI'' be removed from the NPRM and replaced with the
terms ``SIP'' and ``PSE,'' respectively, to be consistent with the
terminology used in the MD-80 Supplemental Inspection Document.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have redesignated
paragraph (e) of the NPRM as paragraph (f) of the final rule, and where
those terms appeared in paragraph (e) of the NPRM, paragraph (f) of the
final rule reflects those changes. However, other sections where usage
of those terms appeared in the preamble of the NPRM do not appear in
the final rule, and it is not necessary to revise in the final rule in
that regard.
Request To Clarify a Reference in the SID
One commenter, an airline operator, requests that clarification be
given regarding possible misinterpretation of notes (**) and (***) of
the Boeing MD80 SID, Volume 1. The commenter states that the two PSEs
(PSEs 53.80.004 and 54.80.005) referenced in notes (**) and (***) can
be inspected at ``intervals specified'' in the Maintenance Review Board
(MRB) Report, and that the MRB Report mentions ``C'' check intervals.
Therefore, the commenter suggests that the two PSEs could mistakenly be
inspected at intervals of every ``C'' check.
We acknowledge the commenter's request for clarification, but note
that no change is necessary to the final rule for the following
reasons. The intent of notes (**) and (***) in the SID is to allow
operators the opportunity to receive credit for MD80 SID inspections of
the forward and aft engine pylon isolators land conebolts when
inspections are performed at engine changes. However, the
Nth still remains at 50,000 landings and [Delta]NDI/2
intervals still remain at 10,000 landings even if the inspections are
performed at engine changes per notes (**) and (***) of the SID.
Request To Correct ``SIP Inspection Requirements'' of the Discussion
One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, points out that the first
sentence of the ``SIP Inspection Requirements'' of the Discussion
section of the NPRM should be revised to reflect the correct threshold
requirements. Specifically, the commenter requests that the first
sentence be revised to read, ``Paragraph (b) of this proposed AD also
would require, for airplanes that have exceeded the Nth/2,
that each PSE be inspected prior to reaching the established thresholds
(\3/4\Nth and Nth) or within 18 months after the
effective date of this AD.'' The commenter notes that inspection of a
PSE that exceeds Nth cannot be inspected prior to
Nth.
We acknowledge the commenter's request to revise that paragraph of
the Discussion section. Since that section of the preamble does not
reappear in the final rule, no change to the final rule is necessary in
that regard.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
Interim Action
This is considered to be interim action. The FAA is currently
considering requiring damage tolerance-based inspections and procedures
that include all major structural repairs and modifications (RAMs),
which may result in additional rulemaking.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 1,167 Model DC-9-80 and MD-88 airplanes of
the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 665
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
Incorporation of the SIP into an operator's maintenance program is
estimated to require 1,062 work hours (per operator), at an average
labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost to
the 18 affected U.S. operators to incorporate the SIP is estimated to
be $1,242,540.
The recurring inspection costs in this AD are estimated to be 362
work hours per airplane per year, at an average labor rate of $65 per
work hour. Based on these figures, the recurring inspection costs are
estimated to be $23,530 per airplane, per inspection, or $15,647,450
for the affected U.S. fleet.
Based on the above figures, the total cost impact of this AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,242,540 for the first year, and
$15,647,450 for each year thereafter. These ``total cost impact''
figures assume that no operator has yet accomplished any of the
requirements of this AD.
Additionally, the number of required work hours for each required
inspection (and the SIP), as indicated above, is presented as if the
accomplishment of those actions are 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.
Therefore, the actual number of necessary additional work hours will be
minimal in many instances. Further, any cost associated with special
airplane scheduling can be expected to be minimal.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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.
[[Page 31517]]
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:
2004-11-07 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-13653. Docket 2000-NM-
110-AD.
Applicability: 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.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To detect and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise the
structural integrity of these airplanes, accomplish the following:
Revision of the Maintenance Inspection Program
(a) 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 Principal Structural
Elements (PSEs), in accordance with Section 3 of Volume I , Revision
B, dated March 2003, of Boeing Report No. L26-022, ``MD-80
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID).'' PSEs are also specified in
the SID. Unless otherwise specified, all references in this AD to
the ``SID'' are to Revision B, dated March 2003.
Non-Destructive Inspections (NDIs)
(b) For all PSEs listed in Section 3 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 of the SID,
at the times specified in paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(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 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later. Inspect again prior to reaching the threshold
(Nth), 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.
Discrepant Findings
(c) If any discrepancy (e.g., differences on the airplane from
the NDI reference standard, such as PSEs that have been repaired,
altered, or modified) is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (b) of this AD, accomplish the action specified in
paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(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 per a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (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, per a method approved by the Manager of the Los
Angeles ACO.
Reporting Requirements
(d) All negative, positive, or discrepant (discrepant finding
examples are described in paragraph (c) of this AD) findings of the
inspections accomplished under paragraph (b) of this AD must be
reported to Boeing, at the times specified in, and in accordance
with the instructions contained in, Section 3 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
(e) Any cracked structure of a PSE detected during any
inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight in accordance with an FAA-approved method.
Accomplish follow-on actions described in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2),
and (e)(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 to the Manager of the
Los Angeles ACO.
(2) Prior to reaching 75% of the threshold as determined in
paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, submit the inspection methods and
repetitive inspection intervals for the repair for approval by the
Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.
(3) Prior to the threshold as determined in paragraph (e)(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 1: For the purposes of this AD, the FAA anticipates that
submissions of the damage tolerance assessment of the repair, if
acceptable, should be approved within six months after submission.
Note 2: 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
(f) 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
(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes that have been inspected per this AD, the
inspection of each PSE must be accomplished by the new operator per
the previous operator's schedule and inspection method, or the new
operator's schedule and inspection method, at whichever time would
result in the earlier accomplishment date for that PSE inspection.
The compliance time for accomplishment of this inspection must be
measured from the last inspection accomplished by the previous
operator. After each inspection has been performed once, each
subsequent inspection must be performed per the new operator's
schedule and inspection method.
(2) For airplanes that have not been inspected per this AD, the
inspection of each PSE required by this AD must be accomplished
either prior to adding the airplane to the air carrier's operations
specification, or per a schedule and an inspection method approved
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. After each inspection has been
performed once, each subsequent inspection must be performed per the
new operator's schedule.
Inspections Accomplished Before the Effective Date of This AD
(g) Inspections per Boeing Report No. L26-022, ``MD-80
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Revision A, dated
September 2000, accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD,
are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b)
of this AD.
Acceptable for Compliance
(h) McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 91K0263, ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging
Aircraft Repair Assessment Program Document,'' dated July 1997,
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 (b) and (e) of this AD for repairs
subject to that document.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(i) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles
ACO, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance
(AMOCs) for this AD.
Incorporation by Reference
(j) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be
done in accordance with Section 3 of Volume I, Revision B, dated
March 2003, of Boeing Report No. L26-022, ``MD-80 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID).'' This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention:
[[Page 31518]]
Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California; 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: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.
Effective Date
(k) This amendment becomes effective on July 9, 2004.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 5, 2004.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service
[FR Doc. 04-12398 Filed 6-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P