[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58046-58050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-25493]



[[Page 58046]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000-NM-110-AD]
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new 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. This proposal 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 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: Comments must be received by November 24, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-0NM-110-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this 
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. 
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 
[email protected]. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must 
contain ``Docket No. 2000-NM-110-AD'' in the subject line and need not 
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached 
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or 
ASCII text.
    The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: 
Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). 
This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Lee , Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los 
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 
Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5325; fax (562) 627-
5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as 
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number 
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All 
communications received on or before the closing date for comments, 
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the 
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Submit comments using the following format:
    [sbull] Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a 
request to change the compliance time and a request to change the 
service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
    [sbull] For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed 
AD is being requested.
    [sbull] Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each 
request.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All 
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing 
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested 
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with 
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Number 2000-NM-110-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped 
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules 
Docket No. 2000-NM-110-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    In the early 1980's, as part of its continuing work to maintain the 
structural integrity of older transport category airplanes, the FAA 
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, the FAA 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.

[[Page 58047]]

Development of the Supplemental Structural Inspection Program

    In order to evaluate the effect of increased fatigue cracking, with 
respect to maintaining fail-safe design and damage tolerance of the 
structure of 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 (commonly referred 
to as Model MD-80 and MD-88 airplanes), Boeing conducted a structural 
reassessment of those airplanes, using modern damage tolerance 
evaluation techniques. Boeing accomplished this reassessment using the 
criteria contained in AC No. 91-56, as well as 14 CFR 25.571; Amdt. 25-
45. During the reassessment, members of the airline industry 
participated with Boeing in working group sessions and developed the 
SSIP for Model MD-80 and MD-88 airplanes. Engineers and maintenance 
specialists from the FAA also attended these sessions to observe these 
developments. Subsequently, based on the working group's 
recommendations, Boeing developed the Supplemental Inspection Document 
(SID) for Model MD-80 and MD-88 airplanes.

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 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 November 1, 2002, as one of the responses to the AASA, we issued 
the Aging Airplane Safety Interim Final Rule (AASIFR) (67 FR 72726, 
December 6, 2002). The applicability of that rule addresses airplanes 
that are operated under part 121 of the FAR (14 CFR part 121), all U.S. 
registered multi-engine airplanes operated under part 129 of the FAR 
(14 CFR part 129), and all multi-engine airplanes used in scheduled 
operations under part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
part 135). The AASIFR requires the maintenance programs of those 
airplanes to include damage tolerance-based inspections and procedures 
that include all major structural RAMs. Currently, the ASSIFR requires 
that these procedures must be established and incorporated within four 
years after December 8, 2003, the effective date specified by the 
AASIFR.

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.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Report No. L26-022, ``MD-
80 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Revision B, dated March 
2003, which provides a description of Principal Structural Elements 
(PSEs) and Non Destructive Inspection (NDI) procedures and thresholds 
with repetitive inspection intervals for inspections of PSEs. For the 
purposes of this 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.
    The FAA also has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Report No. 
MDC 91K0263, ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging Aircraft Repair Assessment Program 
Document,'' dated July 1997, which provides procedures to determine the 
appropriate inspection or replacement program for certain repairs to 
the fuselage pressure boundary. These repairs and inspection/
replacement programs are acceptable alternative methods of compliance 
for the repair and repair inspection programs specified in this 
proposed AD.

Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule

    Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to 
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the 
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.

Revision of the Maintenance Program

    Paragraph (a) 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. L26-022, ``MD-80 SID,'' Revision B, dated 
March 2003. PSEs are also defined and specified in the SID. All 
references in this AD to the ``SID'' are to Revision B dated March 
2003.

Supplemental Inspection Program (SIP)

    Paragraph (b) of the proposed AD would specify that the 
supplemental inspection program 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 MD-80 SID program is not a sampling 
program. All 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 3 of 
Volume I, of the SID. Inspection of each PSE should be accomplished in

[[Page 58048]]

accordance with the NDI procedures set forth in Section 2 of Volume II, 
Revision B, dated March 2003.
    Once threshold Nth is passed, the PSE would be inspected 
at repetitive intervals not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2 as specified in 
Section 3 of Volume I of the SID per the NDI procedure, which is 
specified in Section 2 of Volume II of the SID. [Delta]NDI/2 is defined 
as half of the life for a crack to grow from a given NDI detectable 
crack size to instability.

SIP Inspection Requirements

    Paragraph (b) of this proposed AD also would require, for airplanes 
that have exceeded the Nth, 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 entire PSE must be inspected regardless of whether or not it 
has been repaired, altered, or modified. If any PSE is repaired, 
altered, or modified, it must be reported as ``discrepant.'' A 
discrepant report indicates that a PSE 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).

Reporting Requirements

    Paragraph (c) of this proposed AD would require that all negative, 
positive, or discrepant findings of the inspection accomplished in 
paragraph (b) of the AD must be reported to Boeing at the times 
specified, and in accordance with, the instructions contained in 
Section 3 of Volume 1 of the SID.

Corrective Action

    Paragraph (d) of this proposed AD would require that any cracked 
structure detected during any inspection required per paragraph (b) of 
this AD must be repaired before further flight. Additionally, paragraph 
(d) of this AD would require accomplishment of follow-on actions as 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(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, Transport Airplane Directorate.
    (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 LAACO.
    (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 damage tolerance assessment of the repair, if 
acceptable, should be approved within six months after submission.

Transferability of Airplanes

    Paragraph (e) 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 
(e) 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 SSI 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 SSI 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 SSI 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 Previously

    Paragraph (f) of this proposed AD merely provides approval of 
Revision A of the SID, dated September 2000, as acceptable compliance 
with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this proposed AD for 
inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of the proposed 
AD.

Acceptable for Compliance

    Paragraph (g) of this proposed AD also provides approval of 
McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 91K0263, ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging Aircraft 
Repair Assessment Program Document,'' dated July 1997, as acceptable 
compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (d) of this 
proposed AD for repairs and inspection/replacement for certain repairs 
to the fuselage pressure shell accomplished prior to the effective date 
of the proposed 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 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.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 1,167 Model DC-9-80 and MD-88 series 
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA 
estimates that 665 airplanes of U.S. registry and 18 U.S. operators 
would be affected by this proposed AD.
    Incorporation of the SID program into an operator's maintenance 
program is estimated to necessitate 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 SID program 
is estimated to be $1,242,540.
    The recurring inspection costs in this proposed 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 $25,530 per airplane, per inspection, or 
$15,647,450 for the affected U.S. fleet.
    Based on the above figures, the total cost impact of the proposed 
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 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,

[[Page 58049]]

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 proposed herein 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 13132.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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) if promulgated, 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 copy of the draft 
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the 
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules 
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

McDonnell Douglas: 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.

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 inspection 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 inspection 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.

Reporting Requirements

    (c) All negative, positive, or discrepant findings (e.g., 
differences on the airplane from the NDI reference standard, such as 
PSEs that have been repaired, altered, or modified) 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

    (d) 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 (d)(1), (d)(2), 
and (d)(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, Los 
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate.
    (2) Prior to reaching 75% of the threshold, 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 determined in paragraph (d)(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

Inspection for Transferred Airplanes

    (e) Before any airplane that is subject to this AD and that has 
exceeded the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph (b) 
of this AD 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 (e)(1) or 
(e)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes that have been inspected per this AD, the 
inspection of each SSI 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 SSI 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 SSI 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, FAA. 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

    (f) 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

[[Page 58050]]

compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.

Acceptable for Compliance

    (g) 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 (d) of this AD for repairs 
subject to that document.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (h) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles 
ACO, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance 
(AMOCs) for this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 1, 2003.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-25493 Filed 10-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P