[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 130 (Friday, July 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39435-39441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13436]


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

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