Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 8465 

TABLE 8—TEMPORARY REVISIONS PREVIOUSLY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE—Continued 

Canadair TR— Dated— To the— 

604/20 .................................................. April 17, 2006 ..................................... Canadair Challenger Model CL–604 AFM, PSP 604–1. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 CoˆteVertu Road West, Dorval, Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, 

Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514– 

855–7401; e-mail 

thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; Internet 

http://www.bombardier.com. 

(4) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 

(5) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

16, 2010. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3463 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0783; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–081–AD; Amendment 

39–16213; AD 2010–05–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Corporation Model MD–90–30 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Model MD–90–30 airplanes. This AD 

requires repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the overwing frames at 

stations 883, 902, 924, 943, and 962, left 

and right sides, and corrective actions if 

necessary. This AD results from reports 

of cracked overwing frames. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct 

such cracking, which could sever the 

frame, increase the loading of adjacent 

frames, and result in damage to adjacent 

structure and loss of overall structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective April 1, 

2010. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of April 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, California 90846–0001; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; 

fax 206–766–5683; e-mail 

dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the Document Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 

627–5233; fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an airworthiness 

directive (AD) that would apply to all 

Model MD–90–30 airplanes. That NPRM 

was published in the Federal Register 

on September 4, 2009 (74 FR 45785). 

That NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive inspections for cracking of the 

overwing frames at stations 883, 902, 

924, 943, and 962, left and right sides, 

and corrective actions if necessary. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received from 

the sole commenter. 

Request To Revise Wording in the 

Summary Section and Unsafe 

Condition Paragraph of the NPRM 

The Boeing Company requests that we 

revise the wording of the precipitating 

event in the Summary section and 

Unsafe Condition paragraph of the 

NPRM to clarify that the reported 

cracking was found on Model MD–80 

airplanes, and that frames of the same 

design are installed on Model MD–90 

airplanes. The commenter explains that 

the proposed revision will be in line 

with the first paragraph of the 

‘‘Discussion’’ section of the NPRM. The 

commenter asserts that otherwise, the 

Summary section and paragraph (e) of 

the NPRM read that ‘‘Model MD–90 

overwing frames have cracked,’’ which 

is not the case. 

We agree that clarification might be 

necessary. While the commenter’s 

proposed revision is more precise with 

respect to the history of the service 

difficulties, the Summary section of ADs 

is designed to provide only a brief 

description of the action being 

proposed. Likewise, the Unsafe 

Condition paragraph in the regulatory 

text of an AD is meant to be only a brief 

statement. Detailed background 

information is provided in the 

Discussion section of a proposed AD. 

We addressed the issues raised by the 

commenter in the Discussion section of 

the NPRM. That section is not restated 

in this final rule. We have not changed 

the AD in this regard. 

Request To Revise Wording in the 

Discussion Section of the NPRM 

The Boeing Company requests that we 

revise the first sentence of the second 

paragraph of the ‘‘Discussion’’ section of 

the NPRM to read, ‘‘The cracked 

overwing frames on McDonnell Douglas 

Model MD–90–30 airplanes have the 

same design as those installed on Model 

MD–80 series airplanes.’’ The 

commenter explains that the proposed 

revision sounds more logical than how 

it reads in the NPRM and that the issue 

is the Model MD–90 frames cracking, 

not the Model MD–80 frames. 

We agree that clarification is needed. 

The proposed revision would indicate 

that we have reports of cracks on Model 

MD–90–30 airplanes, which is not the 

case. As stated in the NPRM, the reports 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
8466 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

we received were of cracked frames on 

Model MD–80 airplanes. This AD is 

being issued because Model MD–90–30 

airplanes have frames with the same 

design, and therefore, are also 

susceptible to the unsafe condition 

addressed by this AD. Regardless, the 

Discussion section of the NPRM is not 

restated in this final rule. No change to 

the AD is necessary in this regard. 

Explanation of Name Change Made to 

This AD 

We have revised this AD to identify 

the legal name of the manufacturer as 

published in the most recent type 

certificate data sheet for the affected 

airplane models. 

Explanation of Delegation 

Authorization Change Made to This AD 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes has 

received an Organization Designation 

Authorization (ODA), which replaces 

their previous designation as a 

Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) 

holder. We have revised paragraph 

(h)(3) of this AD to delegate the 

authority to approve an alternative 

method of compliance for any repair 

required by this AD to the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes ODA. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comment received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We also determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the NPRM, we have 

increased the labor rate used in the 

Costs of Compliance from $80 per workhour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of 

Compliance information, below, reflects 

this increase in the specified hourly 

labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 16 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it takes about 10 workhours per product to comply with this 

AD. The average labor rate is $85 per 

work-hour. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. 

operators to be $13,600, or $850 per 

product. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and 

(3) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance in the AD Docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

2010–05–04 McDonnell Douglas 

Corporation: Amendment 39–16213. 

Docket No. FAA–2009–0783; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–081–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective April 1, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell 

Douglas Corporation Model MD–90–30 

airplanes, certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53: Fuselage. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from reports of cracked 

overwing frames. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct such cracking, which 

could sever the frame, increase the loading of 

adjacent frames, and result in damage to 

adjacent structure and loss of overall 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspections 

(g) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 60 months after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later: Do general visual and high frequency 

eddy current inspections for cracking of the 

overwing frames, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD90–53A031, dated April 

10, 2009. Do the applicable corrective actions 

before further flight, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD90–53A031, dated April 

10, 2009. Repeat the inspections thereafter at 

the applicable time specified in paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin MD90–53A031, dated April 10, 

2009. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Roger 

Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712– 

4137; telephone (562) 627–5233; fax (562) 

627–5210. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 8467 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(i) You must use Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin MD90–53A031, dated April 10, 

2009, to do the actions required by this AD, 

unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC 

D800–0019, Long Beach, California 90846– 

0001; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; 

fax 206–766–5683; e-mail 

dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

16, 2010. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3469 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0130; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–087–AD; Amendment 

39–16214; AD 2010–05–05] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; BAE 

SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model 

ATP Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above that would 

supersede an existing AD. This AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

A review of the results of the final fuselage 

fatigue test identified the need for additional 

and revised safety-related fatigue- and 

environmental inspections for the fuselage. 

These additional tasks were introduced by 

Service Bulletin (SB) ATP–51–002 * * *. 

As it was determined that these 

inspections were necessary to maintain the 

structural integrity of the aeroplane, EASA 

AD 2006–0090 [which corresponds to FAA 

AD 2007–15–08] was issued * * *. 

Since the original Issue of the SB, three 

revisions have been published. Revision 1 of 

the SB included only editorial changes. 

Revision 2 of the SB corrected the fuselage 

frame designations in Parts 50 and 50A and 

extended the allowable time before initial 

inspection. In addition, the repeat inspection 

interval in Part 43 of the SB was reduced. In 

the latest Revision 3 of the SB, the grace 

period for the initial inspection in Part 50 has 

been clarified. 

* * * * * 

The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking 

of certain structural elements, which 

could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane and consequent 

rapid decompression of the airplane. 

This AD requires actions that are 

intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

March 12, 2010. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of March 12, 2010. 

On September 21, 2006 (71 FR 52418, 

September 6, 2006), the Director of the 

Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of a certain 

other publication listed in this AD. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by April 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations office (telephone 

(800) 647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Thompson, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–1175; fax (425) 

227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

On July 15, 2007, we issued AD 2007– 

15–08, Amendment 39–15137 (72 FR 

40230, July 24, 2007). That AD required 

actions intended to address an unsafe 

condition on the products listed above. 

Since we issued AD 2007–15–08, the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2009–0074, 

dated March 31, 2009 (referred to after 

this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

A review of the results of the final fuselage 

fatigue test identified the need for additional 

and revised safety-related fatigue- and 

environmental inspections for the fuselage. 

These additional tasks were introduced by 

Service Bulletin (SB) ATP–51–002, which 

supplemented and in some cases revised 

those previously published in the Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual (AMM) Chapter 05–10– 

17 and the Maintenance Review Board 

Report (MRBR). 

As it was determined that these 

inspections were necessary to maintain the 

structural integrity of the aeroplane, EASA 

AD 2006–0090 [which corresponds to FAA 

AD 2007–15–08] was issued to require the 

inspections and, depending on findings, 

corrective actions as defined in BAE Systems 

(Operations) Limited SB ATP–51–002 (the 

SB) at original issue. 

Since the original Issue of the SB, three 

revisions have been published. Revision 1 of 

the SB included only editorial changes. 

Revision 2 of the SB corrected the fuselage 

frame designations in Parts 50 and 50A and 

extended the allowable time before initial 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES