[Federal Register: July 8, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 130)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39435-39441]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jy05-10]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2005-21779; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-349-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10 Series
Airplanes; DC-9-20 Series Airplanes; DC-9-30 Series Airplanes; DC-9-40
Series Airplanes; and DC-9-50 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain McDonnell Douglas transport
category airplanes. The existing AD requires, among other things,
revision of an existing program of structural inspections. This
proposed AD would require the implementation of a program of structural
inspections of baseline structure to detect and correct fatigue
cracking in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's original fatigue design
life goal. This proposed AD is prompted by a significant number of
these airplanes approaching or exceeding the design service goal on
which the initial type certification approval was
[[Page 39436]]
predicated. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking that could compromise the structural integrity of these
airplanes.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD.
DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL-
401, on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. This
docket number is FAA-2005-21779; the directorate identifier for this
docket is 2002-NM-349-AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone (562) 627-5324; fax (562) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2005-21779;
Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-349-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will
also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of our
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You can review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
can visit http://dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-
5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.
Discussion
On June 12, 1996, we issued AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR
31009, June 19, 1996), for all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, -50, and C-9 (Military) series airplanes. (Since the issuance
of that AD, the FAA has revised the applicability of the existing AD to
identify model designations as published in the most recent type
certificate data sheet for the affected models.) That AD requires
implementation of a program of structural inspections to detect and
correct fatigue cracking in order to ensure the continued airworthiness
of these airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's original fatigue
design life goal. That AD also requires, among other things, revision
of the existing program to require additional visual inspections of
additional structure. That AD was prompted by data submitted by the
manufacturer indicating that certain revisions to the program were
necessary in order to increase the confidence level of the statistical
program to ensure timely detection of cracks in various airplane
structures. We issued that AD to prevent fatigue cracking that could
compromise the structural integrity of those airplanes.
Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) ADs
In the early 1980's, as part of our continuing work to maintain the
structural integrity of older transport category airplanes, we
concluded that the incidence of fatigue cracking may increase as these
airplanes reach or exceed their design service goal (DSG). A
significant number of these airplanes were approaching or had exceeded
the DSG on which the initial type certification approval was
predicated. In light of this, and as a result of increased utilization,
longer operational lives, and the high levels of safety expected of the
currently operated transport category airplanes, we determined that a
supplemental structural inspection program (SSIP) was necessary to
ensure a high level of structural integrity for all airplanes in the
transport fleet.
Issuance of Advisory Circular
As a follow-on from that determination, we issued Advisory Circular
(AC) No. 91-56, ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large
Transport Category Airplanes,'' dated May 6, 1981. That AC provides
guidance material to manufacturers and operators for use in developing
a continuing structural integrity program to ensure safe operation of
older airplanes throughout their operational lives. This guidance
material applies to transport airplanes that were certified under the
fail-safe requirements of part 4b (``Airplane Airworthiness, Transport
Categories'') of the Civil Air Regulations of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR part 25), and that have a maximum gross
weight greater than 75,000 pounds. The procedures set forth in that AC
are applicable to transport category airplanes operated under subpart D
(``Special Flight Operations'') of part 91 of the FAR (14 CFR part 91);
part 121 (``Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental
Operations''); part 125 (``Certification and Operations: Airplanes
having a Seating Capacity of 20 or More Passengers or a Maximum Payload
of 6,000 Pounds or More''); and part 135 (``Operating Requirements:
Commuter and On-Demand Operations'') of the FAR (14 CFR parts 121, 125,
and 135). The objective of the SSIP was to establish inspection
programs to ensure timely detection of fatigue cracking.
Aging Aircraft Safety Act (AASA)
In October 1991, Congress enacted Title IV of Public Law 102-143,
the AASA of 1991, to address aging aircraft concerns. That Act
instructed the FAA administrator to prescribe regulations
[[Page 39437]]
that will ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft.
SSID Team
In April 2000 the Transport Airplane Directorate (TAD) chartered a
SSID Team to develop recommendations to standardize the SID/SSID ADs
regarding the treatment of repairs, alterations, and modifications
(RAMs). The report can be accessed at http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/transport.htm
.
FAA Responses to AASA
In addition to the SSID Team activity, there are other on-going
activities associated with FAA's Aging Aircraft Program. This includes,
among other initiatives, our responses to the AASA.
On January 25, 2005, as one of the responses to the AASA, we issued
the Aging Airplane Safety; Final Rule (AASFR) (70 FR 5518, February 2,
2005). The AASFR revised the interim final rule that was published on
December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72726, December 6, 2002) and revised by
technical amendment (68 FR 69307, December 12, 2004). The AASFR applies
to certain transport category, turbine powered airplanes with a type
certificate issued after January 1, 1958 (including the airplanes that
would be subject to this AD) that are operated under 14 CFR parts 121
or 129, with the exception of airplanes operated within the State of
Alaska. Sections 121.370a and 129.16 of the AASFR require the
maintenance programs of those airplanes to include damage tolerance-
based inspections and procedures for structure that is susceptible to
fatigue cracking that could contribute to a catastrophic failure. The
inspections and procedures must take into account the adverse affects
that repairs, alterations, and modifications may have on fatigue
cracking and the inspection of the structure. The procedures are to be
established and incorporated before December 20, 2010. Compliance with
this proposed AD would also be compliance with some aspects of the
AASFR.
Public Technical Meeting
The TAD also held a public meeting regarding standardization of the
FAA approach to RAMs in SID/SSID ADs on February 27, 2003, in Seattle,
Washington. We presented our views and heard comments from the public
concerning issues regarding the standardization of the requirements of
ADs for certain transport category airplanes that mandate SSIDs, and
that address the treatment of RAMs for those certain transport category
airplanes. Our presentation included a plan for the standardization of
SID/SSID ADs, the results of the SSID Team findings, and the TAD vision
of how SID/SSID ADs may support compliance to the AASIFR. We also asked
for input from operators on the issues addressing RAMs in SID/SSID ADs.
One of the major comments presented at the public meeting was that
operators do not have the capability to accomplish the damage tolerance
assessments, and they will have to rely on the manufacturers to perform
those assessments. Furthermore, the operators believe that the
timeframes to accomplish the damage tolerance assessments will not
permit manufacturers to support the operators. Another major comment
presented was from the Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (AAWG) of
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). The AAWG requested
that we withdraw the damage tolerance requirements from the final rule
and task AAWG to develop a new RAM damage tolerance based program with
timelines to be developed by ARAC. The public meeting presentations can
be accessed at http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/transport.htm.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 All Series
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID), Volume 1, Revision 6, dated
November 2002. The purpose of Boeing Report No. L26-008 is to define
the mandatory inspection requirements for the Principal Structural
Elements (PSEs) and to provide specific non-destructive inspection
(NDI) techniques and procedures for each PSE. Revision 6 also revises
the maintenance program by removing provisions for the sampling
inspection program. However, Revision 6 retains the program goal to
inspect airplanes in advance of a certain threshold for the possibility
of increasing that threshold and using service history to justify
delaying inspections on the younger portion of the fleet. As with
previous revisions, Revision 6 provides credit for inspections
previously accomplished within the required intervals. The SID provides
a description of PSEs, NDI locations, planning and reporting procedures
and certain criteria upon which the supplemental inspection program is
based.
We have also reviewed Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Series 10/
20 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID), Volume II--10/20, Revision
6, dated November 2004;'' ``DC-9 Series 20/30 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID), Volume II--20/30, Revision 7, dated November 2004;''
``DC-9 Series 40 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID, Volume II--40,
Revision 6, dated November 2004;'' and ``DC-9 Series 50 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID), Volume II--50, Revision 6, dated November
2004.'' Those Volume II documents describe specific non-destructive
testing inspections of the SID, and have been approved as an acceptable
alternative method of compliance with corresponding paragraphs of AD
96-13-03.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information
described above is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. This proposed AD would retain the
requirements of AD 96-13-03. This proposed AD also would continue to
require revision of the FAA-approved maintenance program. This proposed
AD would require implementation of a structural inspection program of
baseline structure to detect and correct fatigue cracking in order to
ensure the continued airworthiness of airplanes as they approach the
manufacturer's original fatigue design life goal. For the purposes of
this proposed AD, a PSE is defined as an element that contributes
significantly to the carrying of flight, ground or pressurization
loads, and the integrity of that element is essential in maintaining
the overall structural integrity of the airplane.
Editorial Clarifications
Paragraph (b) of AD 96-13-03 (which is renumbered as paragraph (f)
of this AD) requires, among other things, that the maintenance program
be revised to include the inspection threshold and repetitive
inspections (planning data) defined in Section 2 of Volume III-95 of
the SID. Paragraph (b)(3) of AD 96-13-03 (renumbered as paragraph
(f)(3) of this AD) also requires inspection results to be reported in
accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-95. Those planning and data
reporting requirements are now contained in Section 4 of Volume 1,
Revision 6, dated November 2002. Therefore, this proposed AD would
require use of the information in Section 4 of Volume 1, Revision 6,
and reference to Volume III has been removed in the new requirements of
this proposed AD.
The following paragraphs summarize certain specific actions
proposed in this AD.
[[Page 39438]]
Revision of the Maintenance Program
Paragraph (h) of the proposed AD would require a revision of the
maintenance inspection program that provides for inspection(s) of the
PSE per Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 All Series, Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume 1, Revision 6, dated November 2002.
PSEs are also defined and specified in the SID. Unless otherwise
specified, references in this proposed AD to the ``SID'' are to
Revision 6, dated November 2002.
Non-Destructive Inspections (NDI)
Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD would specify that the SID be
implemented on a PSE-by-PSE basis before structure exceeds its 75%
fatigue life threshold (\3/4\Nth), and its full fatigue life
threshold (Nth). The threshold value is defined as the life
of the structure measured in total landings, when the probability of
failure reaches one in a billion. The DC-9 All Series SID program is
not a sampling program. Airplanes would be inspected once prior to
reaching both PSE thresholds (once by \3/4\Nth and once by
Nth). In order for the inspection to have value, no PSE
would be inspected prior to half of the fatigue life threshold, \1/
2\Nth. The additional \3/4\Nth threshold aids in
advancing the threshold for some PSEs as explained in Section 4 of
Volume I of the SID. Inspection of each PSE should be accomplished in
accordance with the NDI procedures set forth in Volume II of the SID.
For airplanes past the threshold Nth, the proposed AD
would require that the PSE be inspected at repetitive intervals not to
exceed [Delta]NDI/2 as specified in Section 4 of Volume I of the SID
per the NDI procedure, which is specified in Volume II of the SID. The
definition of [Delta]NDI/2 is half of the life for a crack to grow from
a given NDI detectable crack size to instability.
Paragraph (i) of this proposed AD also would require, for airplanes
that have exceeded the Nth, that each PSE be inspected
within 18 months after the effective date of this AD. The entire PSE
must be inspected regardless of whether or not it has been repaired,
altered, or modified.
Certain Acceptable Methods of Compliance
Paragraph (j) of this proposed AD specifies certain revision levels
of Volume II of the SID that provide acceptable methods of compliance
with the requirements of paragraph (j) of this proposed AD.
Discrepant Findings
Paragraph (k) of this proposed AD would require that, if any PSE is
repaired, altered, or modified, it must be considered a ``discrepant
finding.'' A discrepant PSE indicates that it could not be completely
inspected because the NDI procedure could not be accomplished due to
differences on the airplane from the NDI reference standard (i.e.,
RAMs). For any discrepancy (e.g., a PSE cannot be inspected as
specified in Volume II of the SID or does not match rework, repair, or
modification description in Volume I of the SID), this proposed AD
would require that the discrepancy be inspected in accordance with a
method approved by the FAA.
Reporting Requirements
Paragraph (l) of this proposed AD would require that all negative,
positive, or discrepant findings of the inspection accomplished in
paragraph (i) of the AD be reported to Boeing at the times specified,
and in instructions contained in Section 4 of Volume 1 of the SID.
Corrective Action
Paragraph (m) of this proposed AD would require that any cracked
structure detected during any inspection required per paragraph (i) of
this AD be repaired before further flight. Additionally, paragraph (m)
of this AD would require accomplishment of follow-on actions as
specified in paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this proposed AD,
at the times specified below.
1. Within 18 months after repair, accomplish a Damage Tolerance
Assessment (DTA) that defines the threshold for inspection and submit
the assessment for approval to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
2. Prior to reaching 75% of the threshold, submit the inspection
methods and repetitive inspections intervals for the repair for
approval by the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.
3. Prior to the threshold, the inspection method and repetitive
inspection intervals are to be incorporated into the FAA-approved
structural maintenance or inspection program for the airplane.
For the purposes of this proposed AD, the FAA anticipates that
submissions of the DTA of the repair, if acceptable, should be approved
within six months after submission.
Transferability of Airplanes
Paragraph (n) of this proposed AD specifies the requirements of the
inspection program for transferred airplanes. Before any airplane that
is subject to this proposed AD can be added to an air carrier's
operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the
inspections required by this proposed AD must be established. Paragraph
(n) of the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the following:
1. For airplanes that have been inspected per this proposed AD, the
inspection of each PSE must be accomplished by the new operator per the
previous operator's schedule and inspection method, or per the new
operator's schedule and inspection method, at whichever time would
result in the earlier accomplishment date for that PSE inspection. The
compliance time for accomplishment of this inspection must be measured
from the last inspection accomplished by the previous operator. After
each inspection has been performed once, each subsequent inspection
must be performed per the new operator's schedule and inspection
method.
2. For airplanes that have not been inspected per this proposed AD,
the inspection of each PSE must be accomplished either prior to adding
the airplane to the air carrier's operations specification, or per a
schedule and an inspection method approved by the FAA. After each
inspection has been performed once, each subsequent inspection must be
performed per the new operator's schedule.
Accomplishment of these actions will ensure that: (1) An operator's
newly acquired airplanes comply with its SSIP before being operated;
and (2) frequently transferred airplanes are not permitted to operate
without accomplishment of the inspections defined in the SSID.
Inspections Accomplished Before the Effective Date of this AD
Paragraph (o) of this proposed AD merely provides approval of
Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 All Series Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated November 2002; as
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (i) of
this proposed AD for inspections accomplished before the effective date
of the proposed AD.
Acceptable for Compliance
Paragraph (p) of this proposed AD also provides approval of
McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC91K0263, ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging Aircraft
Repair Assessment Program Document,'' Revision 1, dated October 2000 as
an acceptable means of compliance with the requirements of paragraphs
(i) and (m) of this proposed AD for repairs and
[[Page 39439]]
inspection/replacement for certain repairs to the fuselage pressure
shell accomplished prior to the effective date of the proposed AD.
Change to Existing AD
This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 96-13-03.
Since AD 96-13-03 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following table:
Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding requirement
Requirement in AD 96-13-03 in this proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a)............................. Paragraph (f).
Paragraph (b)............................. Paragraph (g).
Paragraph (c)............................. Paragraph (h).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Editorial Changes
The ``tables'' specified in the regulatory text of this proposed
rule, including the tables restated from AD 96-13-03, have been
numbered for easy reference.
Interim Action
This is considered to be interim action. We are currently
considering requiring damage tolerance-based inspections and procedures
that include all major structural RAMs, which may result in additional
rulemaking. That rulemaking may include appropriate recommendations
from the previously mentioned FAA team and a public meeting on how to
address RAMs.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 710 McDonnell Douglas transport category airplanes
worldwide of the affected design. This proposed AD would affect about
477 airplanes of U.S. registry, or 26 U.S. airline operators.
The recurring inspection costs, as required by AD-96-13-03, take
362 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently
required actions is $11,223,810, or $23,530 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
The incorporation of the revised procedures in this AD action will
require approximately 20 additional work hours per operator to
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost to the 26 affected U.S. operators to
incorporate these revised procedures into the SID program is estimated
to be $33,800, or $1,300, per operator.
Additionally, the number of required work hours for each proposed
inspection (and the SID program), as indicated above, is presented as
if the accomplishment of those actions were to be conducted as ``stand
alone'' actions. However, in actual practice, these actions for the
most part will be accomplished coincidently or in combination with
normally scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance program
tasks. Further, any costs associated with special airplane scheduling
are expected to be minimal.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by removing amendment 39-9671 (61 FR
31009, June 19, 1996) and adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2005-21779; Directorate Identifier
2002-NM-349-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on
this airworthiness directive (AD) action by August 22, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671 (61 FR
31009, June 19, 1996).
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-11, DC-
9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F airplanes; DC-9-21
airplanes; DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F,
DC-9-34; DC-9-34F, and DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B) airplanes; DC-9-41
airplanes; and DC-9-51 airplanes; certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by a significant number of these
airplanes approaching or exceeding the design service goal on which
the initial type certification approval was predicated. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking that could
compromise the structural integrity of these airplanes.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Requirements of AD 96-13-03
Revision of the FAA-Approved Maintenance Inspection Program
(f) Within 6 months after July 24, 1996 (the effective date of
AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671), replace the FAA-approved
maintenance inspection program with a revision that provides for
inspection(s) of the principal structural elements (PSEs) defined in
McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-008,
[[Page 39440]]
``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Section 2 of Volume
I of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Revision 4, dated July 1993, in
accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of
the SID.
Note 1: Operators should note that certain visual inspections of
FLOS PSE's that were previously specified in earlier revisions of
Volume III of the SID are no longer specified in Volume III-95 of
the SID.
(1) Prior to reaching the threshold (Nth), but no
earlier than one-half of the threshold (\1/2\Nth),
specified for all PSE's listed in Volume III-95, dated September
1995, of the SID, inspect each PSE sample in accordance with the
non-destructive inspection (NDI) procedures set forth in Section 2
of Volume II, dated July 1993. Thereafter, repeat the inspection for
that PSE at intervals not to exceed [Dgr]NDI/2 of the NDI procedure
that is specified in Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of the
SID.
(2) The NDI techniques set forth in Section 2 of Volume II,
dated July 1993, of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph.
(3) All inspection results (negative or positive) must be
reported to McDonnell Douglas, in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of
the SID. Information collection requirements contained in this
regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0056.
Note 2: Volume II of the SID, dated July 1993, is comprised of
the following:
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision level
Volume designation shown on volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20...................................... 4
Volume II-20/30...................................... 5
Volume II-40......................................... 4
Volume II-50......................................... 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 3: NDI inspections accomplished in accordance with the
following Volume II of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph:
Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Volume designation level Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20.................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-10-20.................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-10/20.................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-10/20.................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-20....................... Original Nov. 1987.
Volume II-20/30.................... 5 July 1993.
Volume II-20/30.................... 4 April 1991.
Volume II-20/30.................... 3 April 1990.
Volume II-20/30.................... 2 June 1989.
Volume II-20/30.................... 1 Nov. 1987.
Volume II-40....................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-40....................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-40....................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-40....................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-40....................... Original Nov. 1987.
Volume II-50....................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-50....................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-50....................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-50....................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-50....................... Original Nov. 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Any cracked structure detected during the inspections
required by paragraph (f) of this AD must be repaired before further
flight, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate.
Note 4: Requests for approval of any PSE repair that would
affect the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that is
required by this AD should include a damage tolerance assessment for
that PSE.
New Requirements of This AD
Revision of the Maintenance Inspection Program
(h) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection
program that provides for inspection(s) of the PSEs, in accordance
with Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 All Series, Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated November
2002.'' Unless otherwise specified, all further references in this
AD to the ``SID'' are to Revision 6, dated November 2002.
Non-Destructive Inspections (NDIs)
(i) For all PSEs listed in Section 2 of Volume I of the SID,
perform an NDI for fatigue cracking of each PSE in accordance with
the NDI procedures specified in Section 2 of Volume II, dated
November 2004 of the SID, at the times specified in paragraph
(i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes that have less than three quarters of the
fatigue life threshold (\3/4\Nth) as of the effective
date of the AD: Perform an NDI for fatigue cracking no earlier than
one-half of the threshold (\1/2\Nth) but prior to
reaching three-quarters of the threshold (\3/4\Nth, or
within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later. Inspect again prior to reaching the threshold
(Nth) or [Delta]NDI/2, whichever occurs later, but no
earlier than (\3/4\Nth). Thereafter, after passing the
threshold (Nth), repeat the inspection for that PSE at
intervals not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
(2) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded three-quarters
of the fatigue life threshold (\3/4\Nth), but less than
the threshold (Nth), as of the effective date of the AD:
Perform an NDI prior to reaching the threshold (Nth), or
within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later. Thereafter, after passing the threshold
(Nth), repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals
not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
(3) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded the fatigue life
threshold (Nth) as of the effective date of the AD:
Perform an NDI within 18 months after the effective date of this AD.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals not to
exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
Note 5: Volume II of the SID, dated November 2004 is comprised
of the following:
Table 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
level
Volume designation shown on
volume
------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20..................... 6
Volume II-20/30..................... 7
Volume II-40........................ 6
Volume II-50........................ 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptable Methods of Compliance With Paragraph (j) of This AD
(j) The following revision levels of Volume II of the SID
provide acceptable methods of compliance with the inspections
required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
Table 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Volume designation level Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20.................... 6 Nov. 2004.
Volume II-10/20.................... 5 July 1997.
Volume II-10/20.................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-10/20.................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-10/20.................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-10/20.................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-20....................... Original Nov. 1987.
Volume II-20/30.................... 7 Nov. 2004.
Volume II-20/30.................... 6 July 1997.
Volume II-20/30.................... 5 July 1993.
Volume II-20/30.................... 4 April 1991.
Volume II-20/30.................... 3 April 1990.
Volume II-20/30.................... 2 June 1989.
Volume II-20/30.................... 1 Nov. 1987.
Volume II-40....................... 6 Nov. 2004
Volume II-40....................... 5 July 1997.
Volume II-40....................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-40....................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-40....................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-40....................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-40....................... Original Nov. 1987.
Volume II-50....................... 6 Nov. 2004.
Volume II-50....................... 5 July 1997.
Volume II-50....................... 4 July 1993.
Volume II-50....................... 3 April 1991.
Volume II-50....................... 2 April 1990.
Volume II-50....................... 1 June 1989.
Volume II-50....................... Original Nov. 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discrepant Findings
(k) If any discrepancy (e.g., a PSE cannot be inspected as
specified in Volume II of the SID or does not match rework, repair,
or modification description in Volume I of the SID) is detected
during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD,
accomplish the action specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of
this AD, as applicable.
(1) If a discrepancy is detected during any inspection performed
prior to \3/4\Nth or Nth: The area of the PSE
affected by the
[[Page 39441]]
discrepancy must be inspected prior to Nth or within 18
months of the discovery of the discrepancy, whichever is later, per
a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA.
(2) If a discrepancy is detected during any inspection performed
after Nth: The area of the PSE affected by the
discrepancy must be inspected prior to the accumulation of an
additional [Delta]NDI/2, measured from the last non-discrepant
inspection finding, or within 18 months of the discovery of the
discrepancy, whichever occurs later, per a method approved by the
Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.
Reporting Requirements
(l) All negative, positive, or discrepant (discrepant finding
examples are described in paragraph (k) of this AD) findings of the
inspections accomplished under paragraph (i) of this AD must be
reported to Boeing, at the times specified in, and in accordance
with the instructions contained in, Section 4 of Volume I of the
SID. Information collection requirements contained in this
regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0056.
Corrective Actions
(m) Any cracked structure of a PSE detected during any
inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO or in accordance with data meeting the
certification basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization
Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), to make those findings. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to
this AD. Accomplish follow-on actions described in paragraphs
(m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this AD, at the times specified.
(1) Within 18 months after repair, perform a damage tolerance
assessment (DTA) that defines the threshold for inspection of the
repair and submit the assessment for approval.
(2) Before reaching 75% of the repair threshold as determined in
paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, submit the inspection methods and
repetitive inspection intervals for the repair for approval.
(3) Before the repair threshold, as determined in paragraph
(m)(1) of this AD, incorporate the inspection method and repetitive
inspection intervals into the FAA-approved structural maintenance or
inspection program for the airplane.
Note 6: For the purposes of this AD, we anticipate that
submissions of the DTA of the repair, if acceptable, should be
approved within six months after submission.
Note 7: Advisory Circular AC 25.1529-1, ``Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness of Structural Repairs on Transport
Airplanes,'' dated August 1, 1991, is considered to be additional
guidance concerning the approval of repairs to PSEs.
Inspection for Transferred Airplanes
(n) Before any airplane that has exceeded the fatigue life
threshold (Nth) can be added to an air carrier's
operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the
inspections required by this AD must be established per paragraph
(n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes that have been inspected in accordance with
this AD, the inspection of each PSE must be accomplished by the new
operator per the previous operator's schedule and inspection method,
or the new operator's schedule and inspection method, at whichever
time would result in the earlier accomplishment date for that PSE
inspection. The compliance time for accomplishment of this
inspection must be measured from the last inspection accomplished by
the previous operator. After each inspection has been performed
once, each subsequent inspection must be performed per the new
operator's schedule and inspection method.
(2) For airplanes that have not been inspected in accordance
with this AD, the inspection of each PSE required by this AD must be
accomplished either prior to adding the airplane to the air
carrier's operations specification, or per a schedule and an
inspection method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. After
each inspection has been performed once, each subsequent inspection
must be performed per the new operator's schedule.
Inspections Accomplished Before the Effective Date of This AD
(o) Inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of this
AD per Boeing Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 All Series Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated November
2002 are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (i) of this AD.
Acceptable for Compliance
(p) McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC91K0263, ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging
Aircraft Repair Assessment Program Document,'' Revision 1, dated
October 2000, provides inspection/replacement programs for certain
repairs to the fuselage pressure shell. These repairs and
inspection/replacement programs are considered acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (m) of this
AD for repairs subject to that document.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(q) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(r) AMOCs approved previously for alternative inspection
procedures per AD 87-14-07 R1, amendment 39-6019; AD 94-03-01,
amendment 39-8807; and AD 96-13-03, amendment 39-9671; are
acceptable for compliance with the actions required by paragraph (i)
of this AD for inspections accomplished before the effective date of
this AD.
(s) AMOCs approved previously for repairs per AD 87-14-07 R1,
amendment 39-6019; AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8807; and AD 96-13-03,
amendment 39-9671; are acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (m) of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 28, 2005.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-13436 Filed 7-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P