Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24675

2A previous § 20.304 permitted burial of small

quantities of licensed materials in soil before

January 28, 1981, without specific Commission

authorization. See § 20.304 contained in the 10

CFR, parts 0 to 199, edition revised as of January

1, 1981.

10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section

70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat.

939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also

issued under sec. 57d, Pub. L. 93–377, 88

Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections 70.36 and

70.44 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954,

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.61

also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955

(42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 70.62 also

issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

15. In § 70.25, the introductory text of

paragraph (g) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 70.25 Financial assurance and

recordkeeping for decommissioning.

* * * * *

(g) Each person licensed under this

part shall keep records of information

important to the decommissioning of a

facility in an identified location until

the site is released for unrestricted use.

If records important to the

decommissioning of a facility are kept

for other purposes, reference to these

records and their locations may be used.

Information the Commission considers

important to decommissioning consists

of—

* * * * *

16. In § 70.38, paragraph (k)(4) is

added to read as follows:

§ 70.38 Expiration and termination of

licenses and decommissioning of sites and

separate buildings or outdoor areas.

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(4) Records required by § 70.51(b)(6)

have been received.

17. In § 70.51, footnotes 2 and 3 are

re-designated as footnotes 3 and 4,

paragraph (b)(6) is revised, and a new

paragraph (b)(7) is added to read as

follows:

§ 70.51 Material balance, inventory, and

records requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) Prior to license termination,

licensees shall forward the following

records to the appropriate NRC Regional

Office:

(i) Records of disposal of licensed

material made under § 20.2002

(including burials authorized before

January 28, 1981 2), 20.2003, 20.2004,

20.2005;

(ii) Records required by

§ 20.2103(b)(4); and

(iii) Records required by § 70.25(g).

(7) If licensed activities are transferred

or assigned in accordance with

§ 70.32(a)(3), the licensee shall transfer

the following records to the new

licensee and the new licensee will be

responsible for maintaining these

records until the license is terminated:

(i) Records of disposal of licensed

material made under § 20.2002

(including burials authorized before

January 28, 1981 2), 20.2003, 20.2004,

20.2005;

(ii) Records required by

§ 20.2103(b)(4); and

(iii) Records required by § 70.25(g).

* * * * *

PART 72—LICENSING

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT

NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

18. The authority citation for Part 72

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69,

81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat.

929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954,

955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092,

2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233,

2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub.

L. 86–373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42

U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206,

88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42

U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95–601, sec.

10, 92 Stat. 2951, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C.

5851); sec. 102 Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853

(42 U.S.C. 4332); Secs. 131, 132, 133, 135,

137, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230,

2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100–203, 101

Stat. 1330–235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152,

10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs.

142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100–203, 101

Stat. 1330–232, 1330–236 (42 U.S.C.

10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also

issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2230

(42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also

issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100–203,

101 Stat. 1330–235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)).

Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15),

2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat.

2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244, (42 U.S.C.

10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L

are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230

(42 U.S.C. 10153) and Sec. 218(a), 96 Stat.

2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).

19. In § 72.30, the introductory text of

paragraph (d) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 72.30 Financial assurance and

recordkeeping for decommissioning.

* * * * *

(d) Each person licensed under this

part shall keep records of information

important to the decommissioning of a

facility in an identified location until

the site is released for unrestricted use.

If records important to the

decommissioning of a facility are kept

for other purposes, reference to these

records and their locations may be used.

Information the Commission considers

important to decommissioning consists

of—

* * * * *

20. In § 72.54, paragraph (m)(3) is

added to read as follows:

§ 72.54 Expiration and termination of

licenses and decommissioning of sites and

separate buildings or outdoor areas.

* * * * *

(m) * * *

(3) Records required by § 72.80(e)

have been received.

21. In § 72.80, paragraphs (e) and (f)

are added to read as follows:

§ 72.80 Other records and reports.

* * * * *

(e) Prior to license termination, the

licensee shall forward records required

by §§ 20.2103(b)(4) and 72.30(d) to the

appropriate NRC Regional Office.

(f) If licensed activities are transferred

or assigned in accordance with

§ 72.44(b)(1), the licensee shall transfer

the records required by §§ 20.2103(b)(4)

and 72.30(d) to the new licensee and the

new licensee will be responsible for

maintaining these records until the

license is terminated.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of February 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James M. Taylor,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 96–12166 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–92–AD; Amendment

39–9618; AD 96–10–11]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and DC–9–80

Series Airplanes, Model MD–88

Airplanes, and C–9 (Military) Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to McDonnell Douglas Model

DC–9 and DC–9–80 series airplanes,

Model MD–88 airplanes, and C–9

(military) series airplanes, that currently

requires certain inspections and

structural modifications. This
24676 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

amendment requires additional

inspections and structural

modifications. This amendment is

prompted by an evaluation conducted

by the Airworthiness Assurance

Working Group, which identified

additional inspections and structural

modifications for mandatory action. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent degradation in the

structural capabilities of the affected

airplanes.

DATES: Effective June 20, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

‘‘DC–9/MD–80 aging Aircraft Service

Action Requirements Document,’’

McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC

K1572, Revision B, dated January 15,

1993, as listed in the regulations, is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of June 20, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

‘‘DC–9/MD–80 Aging Aircraft Service

Action Requirements Document,’’

McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC

K1572, Revision A, dated June 1, 1990,

as listed in the regulations, was

approved previously by the Director of

the Federal Register as of September 24,

1990 (55 FR 34704, August 24, 1990).

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from McDonnell Douglas Corporation,

3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Department C1–L51 (2–60). This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Y. J. Hsu, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (310)

627–5323; fax (310) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

was published in the Federal Register

on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56011).

The action proposed to supersede AD

90–18–03, amendment 39–6701 (55 FR

34704, August 24, 1990), which is

applicable to McDonnell Douglas Model

DC–9 and DC–9–80 series airplanes, and

Model MD–88 airplanes, and C–9

(military) series airplanes. That action

proposed to require certain additional

structural modifications and

inspections.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

Several commenters support the

proposed rule.

Request for FAA to Review Future

Revisions of the Service Action

Requirements Document (SARD)

One commenter requests that the FAA

review all subsequent revisions of

service bulletins that are referenced in

McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC

K1572, ‘‘DC–9/MD–80 Aging Aircraft

Service Action Requirements

Document,’’ Revision B, dated January

15, 1993 (hereafter referred to as

‘‘SARD, Revision B’’), to determine

acceptability for compliance with the

requirements of the proposal. The FAA

concurs. Whenever the FAA reviews

and approves a service document, that

document will indicate that it has been

approved by the FAA, and that if is

considered an acceptable alternative

method of compliance for any existing

AD’s. For example, two sources of

service information referenced in the

final rule bear such a statement. (See

page ii, ‘‘Alternative Means of

Compliance,’’ of SARD, Revision B; and

page 22, paragraph 1.E. ‘‘Approval,’’ of

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 53–230, Revision 1, dated

January 12, 1993.)

Request to Permit Operators to Join in

FAA’s Review of Future Revisions to

the SARD

The same commenter also requests

that the FAA, as part of the review

process, obtain input from affected

operators prior to approving any

McDonnell Douglas service bulletin.

The commenter states that this would

reduce the number of errors in service

bulletins, which would eliminate the

need for revisions of service bulletins to

correct any errors in them.

The FAA does not concur. While the

FAA recognizes the value of operators’

review of service bulletins, it considers

their participation to be more timely

and appropriate during the development

of the service bulletin by the

manufacturer, rather than after it has

been submitted to the FAA for approval.

After the FAA has identified an unsafe

condition, the FAA relies upon the

manufacturer to provide the method to

correct that unsafe condition. When that

method of correction of the unsafe

condition results in the issuance of a

service bulletin, the FAA must review

and approve that service bulletin based

upon whether that service bulletin

positively addresses the identified

unsafe condition and whether that

method of correction meets the

airworthiness requirements for the type

design of the affected aircraft. Further,

operators may not be able to provide indepth engineering analysis, such as that

performed by the FAA, since type

design data are proprietary and may not

be available to all operators.

However, the Air Transport

Association (ATA) of America has in

place a system whereby member

operators are afforded the opportunity

to provide input to airworthiness

concerns. The FAA encourages

operators to take advantage of this ATA

system to effect changes to

manufacturer’s service bulletins.

Additionally, operators have the option

of contacting the manufacturer directly

to resolve such difficulties.

Request that Manufacturer Provide

Alternative Rework Drawings to

Operators

The same commenter requests that,

when an earlier version of a rework

drawing is referenced in any rulemaking

action, the FAA ensure that the

manufacturer provide operators with the

most recent revision of that rework

drawing if it has been approved by the

FAA as an alternative method of

compliance for the requirements of that

rulemaking action.

The FAA does not concur. Section

21.99(b), of the Federal Aviation

Regulations [14 CFR 21.99(b)],

‘‘Required design changes,’’ requires

that the manufacturer make information

on design changes that contribute to the

safety of the product available to all

operators of the affected product.

However, the revised rework drawings

may not necessarily contribute to the

safety of the product. The FAA

encourages operators to contact the

manufacturer directly to obtain

revisions of rework drawings. However,

in the event any operator finds it

impossible to accomplish the

requirements of this AD due to the

inability to obtain necessary rework

drawings, those operators are reminded

of the provisions of paragraph (h) of the

final rule, which permit any operator to

apply for approval of an alternative

method of compliance with the

requirements of the final rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24677

Request for Removal of Certain Service

Bulletins from Requirements of the

Rule

The same commenter requests that the

proposed rule be revised by removing

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletins 53–174 and 53–147 from the

requirements. These service bulletins

are referenced in SARD, Revision B,

which is referenced in the proposal as

the appropriate source of service

information. The commenter contends

that these two service bulletins do not

fit within the parameters of the proposal

since they specify continual repetitive

inspections after accomplishment of the

proposed modification. The commenter

asserts that this contradicts the stated

purpose of the proposal, which is to

‘‘reflect the FAA’s decision that long

term continued operational safety

should be assured by actual

modification of the airframe.’’

The FAA does not concur. The FAA

finds that the commenter has restated

only a portion of the purpose of this

rulemaking action; the commenter

omitted two key words from the

Summary section of this rulemaking

action. The FAA’s intent is to require

‘‘modification of the airframe, where

feasible.’’ Service Bulletin 53–174

specifies replacement of a limited

number of rivets with bolts and hi-lok

fasteners and installation of doublers in

the non-ventral bulkhead web and tee.

Service Bulletin 53–147 specifies

installation of an external doubler and

internal finger doublers between

longerons (LN) 14L and 14R in the aft

pressure bulkhead skin splice doubler.

Since fatigue testing and service history

have demonstrated that the location of

the modifications addressed in these

two service bulletins is susceptible to

fatigue cracking, the FAA has

determined that modification alone

cannot ensure safety of the fleet;

therefore, repetitive inspections must

continue to be performed to prevent

degradation in the structural capabilities

of the affected airplanes.

Along this same line, the same

commenter states that it cannot

accomplish the inspections that are

required to be performed following

accomplishment of the modification

specified in McDonnell Douglas DC–9

Service Bulletin 53–174. The

commenter notes that although the

service bulletin provides a method for

accomplishing the modification, it does

not provide a method for accomplishing

the inspections of the modified

structure. From this comment, the FAA

infers that the commenter is requesting

a delay in issuance of the final rule until

such time that the manufacturer has

developed an acceptable inspection

method of the modified structure. The

FAA does not concur. The FAA does

not consider that delaying this action

until that time is warranted since

sufficient technology currently exists to

accomplish the follow-on inspections

within the compliance time. However,

the FAA points out that for airplanes on

which modifications affect performing

the required inspections, operators must

use the provisions of paragraph (h) of

the final rule to request, from the FAA,

approval for an alternative method of

compliance.

Request to Reference Latest Revision of

Service Bulletins

The same commenter requests a

revision to the proposal to reference two

service bulletins that have been revised

since issuance of the notice. The

commenter states that McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–129,

Revision 3, dated November 6, 1987, has

been re-issued as two separate service

bulletins: McDonnell Douglas DC–9

Service Bulletin 57–129, Revision 5,

dated November 10, 1994; and

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 57–200, dated November 10,

1994. The FAA concurs. Three new

notes have been added to the final rule:

NOTE 4, NOTE 11, and NOTE 12. These

notes state that accomplishment of both

of these service bulletins is acceptable

for compliance with the requirement to

accomplish Service Bulletin 57–129,

Revision 3.

Request to Convert Compliance Time

from Flight Hours to Flight Cycles

The same commenter requests a

revision to the proposal that would

provide further guidance for converting

flight hours to an equivalent number of

flight cycles. The commenter notes that

most operators track rotatable

components in terms of flight hours,

rather than flight cycles, as expressed in

the service bulletins referenced in

SARD, Revision B. Further, the

commenter contends that repairable

components are tracked neither by serial

number nor by flight cycles/hours. The

commenter states that ten of the service

bulletins listed in SARD, Revision B,

express thresholds in terms of flight

cycles accumulated on the affected

component.

The FAA does not concur. In reevaluating expressions of thresholds in

terms of flight cycles, the FAA has

verified with several affected operators

(including the commenter) and has

found that repairable and rotatable

components have been tracked by flight

cycles, as well as flight hours. Since this

commenter did not submit utilization

data for each of its airplanes, the FAA

could not provide an appropriate

method to convert flight hours to an

equivalent number of flight cycles.

However, the FAA would address these

unique circumstances, including

conversion of flight hours to flight

cycles, under the alternative method of

compliance provisions of paragraph (h)

of the final rule.

Request to Revise Compliance

Threshold for One Service Bulletin

This same commenter requests a

revision of the threshold specified in

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 53–60, Revision 1 (referenced

in Table 2.3 of SARD, Revision B). The

commenter states that a more

appropriate threshold would be ‘‘prior

to the accumulation of 89,000 total

landings,’’ which would coincide with

the threshold specified in McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 53–166

(referenced in Table 2.1 of SARD,

Revision B). The commenter notes that

Service Bulletin 53–166 recommends

accomplishment of the modification

described in that service bulletin prior

to the accumulation of 89,000 total

landings, while Service Bulletin 53–60

recommends accomplishment of the

modification described in that service

bulletin prior to January 15, 1997. The

commenter further states that Service

Bulletin 53–60 must be accomplished

prior to the accomplishment of Service

Bulletin 53–166.

The FAA does not concur. Service

Bulletin 53–166 states that it ‘‘assumes

that Service Bulletins * * * 53–60 have

been accomplished;’’ it does not state

that Service Bulletin 53–60 must be

accomplished prior to Service Bulletin

53–166. In fact, Service Bulletin 53–166

goes on to state that ‘‘if these service

bulletins have not been accomplished

on applicable aircraft, contact the

Douglas Aircraft Company for special

instructions.’’ Further, the FAA points

out that the final rule does not require

accomplishment of Service Bulletin 53–

60 prior to the accomplishment of

Service Bulletin 53–166, but it would

permit such accomplishment. Therefore,

no change to the final rule is necessary.

Request to Revise Repair Approval

Process

This same commenter questions why

structural repairs accomplished in

accordance with the DC–9 Structural

Repair Manual (SRM), which is an FAAapproved document; and Douglas

Service Rework Drawings, which, for

the most part, are FAA-approved

documents, must be again approved by

the FAA for the purpose of this AD. The

commenter notes that paragraph (c) of
24678 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

the proposal requires FAA-approval of

structural repairs, including those that

are accomplished in accordance with

either of these documents, despite the

fact that they are FAA-approved

documents.

The FAA infers that the commenter is

requesting that proposed paragraph (c)

be revised to allow repairs in

accordance with the SRM and Service

Rework Drawings, without further

approval by the ACO. The FAA does not

concur. The repairs required by

paragraph (c) were not intended to

terminate the requirements for

inspection contained in paragraphs (a)

and (b) of the AD. However, the

inspection procedures referenced in

those paragraphs may not be

appropriate for structure repaired as

required by paragraph (c). Therefore, it

is necessary to obtain ACO approval of

such repairs in order to ensure that the

approval is conditioned upon

identification of appropriate inspection

methods that will continue to meet the

intent of paragraphs (a) and (b). For

example, if a crack identified as a result

of an inspection under paragraph (a) is

within the limits specified for an

appropriate repair in the SRM, an

operator would be required to obtain the

ACO’s approval for that repair. The

approval would be conditioned either

on the ACO’s determination that the

inspection required by paragraph (a)

continues to be appropriate, or on the

operator’s identification of an

acceptable alternative inspection

method.

Request to Clarify Effect of

Requirements on Supplemental

Inspection Document (SID) Program

The same commenter asks what effect

the proposed requirement to modify

Principal Structural Elements (PSE) will

have on AD 94–03–01, amendment 39–

8807 (59 FR 6538, February 11, 1994),

which requires implementation of a SID

sampling program of structural

inspections to detect fatigue cracking.

The commenter notes that, in many

cases, accomplishment of the

terminating modifications required by

the proposal will affect the fleet-leader

operator sampling (FLOS) program of

AD 94–03–01.

The FAA acknowledges that certain

repair and modification requirements of

the final rule may affect the FLOS

program of AD 94–03–01. For this

reason, standardization and continuity

of repairs are especially important in

light of the complexity of the DC–9 SID

program. The FAA has determined that

standardization and continuity of

repairs can best be maintained by

having one single point of approval [i.e.,

the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO)] for all

repairs of cracks in Principal Structural

Element (PSE), including those required

by this final rule.

Further, every repair of PSE structure

requires a Damage Tolerance

Assessment (DTA) to be performed (of

each repair) to establish its effect on the

original inspection requirements of the

repaired structure. The FAA considers

that any repair of any cracked PSE

without the required DTA can only be

considered temporary, and will

eventually need to be coordinated with

the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO. A

PSE structure on which repairs are

made without the required DTA and not

coordinated with the manufacturer and

the Los Angeles ACO, becomes a

‘‘discrepant PSE’’ when the time arrives

for that PSE to be re-inspected. In these

cases, the repair may need to be

removed or reworked at a later time. In

either case, the Manager of the Los

Angeles ACO must ensure that all

repairs of cracked PSE’s comply with

the requirements of AD 94–03–01, as

well as with the requirements of this

final rule.

Most methods of repair specified in

the DC–9 SRM or in relevant service

bulletins, or Designated Engineering

Representative (DER)-designed repairs,

do not include a continuing inspection

program to ensure that the repair is

inspected at the same level of safety as

the original PSE structure. A DTA can

be done most easily at the time of repair,

rather than at a later date when the

details of the repair may be hard to

obtain and, undoubtedly, would be

more costly. Currently, the Manager and

staff of the Los Angeles ACO are

working very closely with the

manufacturer to expedite interim repair

approval requests. Such requests may be

made under the provisions of paragraph

(h) of the final rule.

Request to Include Corrosion

Inspections

Another commenter requests a

revision to proposed paragraphs (a) and

(b) to include inspections to detect

corrosion. The commenter states that

proposed paragraphs (a) and (b), as well

as AD 90–18–03 only require

inspections to detect cracking.

The FAA does not concur that

revision is necessary. NOTE 4 of the

final rule (which was designated NOTE

2 in the proposal) and the Note

following paragraph A.1. of AD 90–18–

03 state that corrective action is

required for discrepancies other than

cracking. Additionally, on May 24,

1993, the FAA issued AD 92–22–08 R1,

amendment 39–8591 (58 FR 32281, June

9, 1993), which requires the

implementation of a corrosion

prevention and control program.

Therefore, the FAA finds that it is

unnecessary to include in this final rule

any additional inspections to detect

corrosion.

Request for Clarification of

Requirements of Service Bulletin 55–31

The same commenter requests a

revision to the proposal to clarify the

requirements specified in McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 55–31,

which is referenced in SARD, Revision

B. The commenter notes that confusion

may arise because Service Bulletin 55–

31 is listed in various sections of SARD,

Revision B.

The FAA concurs. Service Bulletin

55–31 is listed in Table 2.3 and Table

2.4 of SARD, Revision B. Paragraph (b)

of the final rule requires inspections of

aircraft structure specified in Table 2.3

or 2.4 of SARD, Revision B, while

paragraph (e) of the final rule requires

modifications of aircraft structure

specified in Table 2.3 or 2.4 of SARD,

Revision B. A new NOTE 7 has been

added to the final rule to clarify that the

revisions of the service bulletins that are

listed under ‘‘Recommended

Modification’’ are acceptable for

inspections performed prior to the

effective date of the final rule.

Additionally, NOTE 8 of the final rule

(which was designated NOTE 5 in the

proposal) provides additional

clarification by stating that only those

revision levels of the service bulletins

listed in Tables 2.3 and 2.4 are

acceptable for compliance with the

modification requirements of the final

rule. Therefore, the inspections

described in Service Bulletin 55–31 are

required to be performed in accordance

with Revision 4, and the modifications

are required to be accomplished in

accordance with Revision 3 or Revision

4 of Service Bulletin 55–31.

Request to Delete FAA-Approval of

Repair Methods

One commenter requests a revision to

paragraph (c) of the proposal, which

requires repair of cracks prior to further

flight in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager of the Los

Angeles ACO. The commenter states

that this proposed requirement would

impose a severe hardship on operators

since most operators work 365 days a

year, whereas, the Los Angeles ACO

operates on a standard 5-day work

week. The commenter notes that this

difference in hours of operation creates

a problem for operators to obtain FAA

approvals for repair methods. As an

alternative to staffing the Los Angeles
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24679

ACO offices 24 hours a day, 7 days a

week, the commenter suggests that the

FAA provide its engineers and managers

in the Los Angeles ACO with pagers.

The FAA does not concur. Since

repairs are only required when cracks

are found during the inspections

required by this final rule, the FAA

anticipates that operators will

accomplish those inspections and

repairs at a maintenance base during

regularly scheduled ‘‘heavy’’

maintenance visits. Therefore, the FAA

anticipates that operators will have

ample time to obtain approvals from the

Los Angeles ACO without adversely

affecting their operations.

Further, the FAA recognizes that the

required modifications will necessitate a

large number of work hours to

accomplish. However, the thresholds

specified in the service bulletins

referenced in SARD, Revision B, were

developed only after extensive and

detailed consultations between a large

number of operators of Model DC–9

series airplanes and the manufacturer.

Among other things, these consultations

were conducted in order to establish

timeframes (for accomplishing

necessary actions) that would minimize

the economic impacts on operators to

the maximum extent possible, while

still maintaining safety objectives.

Consequently, where safety

considerations allow, the FAA attempts

to impose thresholds that generally

coincide with operators’ maintenance

schedules.

Request for Clarification of When To

Repair vs. When To Modify

The same commenter also requests

clarification of the relationship between

proposed paragraph (c) and proposed

paragraph (f). The commenter points out

that:

1. Paragraph (c) would require that, if

any crack is found during an inspection,

it must either be repaired or the

applicable terminating modification

must be installed; and

2. Paragraph (f) would require that the

terminating modifications be installed

by the time the airplane accumulates a

certain number of landings.

The FAA concurs that clarification is

warranted. Paragraph (c) of the final rule

is applicable to all airplanes, while

paragraph (f) of the final rule is

applicable only to Model DC–9–10, –20,

–30, –40, and –50 series airplanes and

C–9 (military) series airplanes.

Further, the repair or modification

specified in paragraph (c) is an ‘‘on

condition’’ requirement; as such, the

terminating modifications required by

paragraph (c) of the final rule are

required to be accomplished, prior to

further flight, on the condition that

cracking is found. Paragraph (f) of the

final rule, on the other hand, requires

the eventual modification of all

applicable airplanes (prior to the

accumulation of 100,000 total landings),

regardless of whether or not cracking

has been found.

Request for Clarification of the Rule’s

Relationship to Modification

Requirements of Other Related AD’s

The same commenter points to an

inconsistency that may exist between

several existing AD’s that reference

various service bulletins (that are

referenced in SARD, Revision B) and

NOTE 6 of the proposal. The commenter

states that a majority of the service

bulletins referenced in SARD, Revision

B, that describe procedures for

inspections, are required currently by

various other existing AD’s. However,

those AD’s do not provide for

termination of those inspections by

accomplishing the modifications

described in those service bulletins.

Therefore, the commenter questions the

intent of NOTE 6 of the proposal, which

states that the modifications required by

paragraphs (d) and (e) of the proposal do

not terminate the inspection

requirement of other related AD’s unless

those other related AD’s specifically

state so.

The FAA does not find any

inconsistencies between proposed

NOTE 6, which is now designated as

NOTE 14 in the final rule, and the

requirements of other related AD’s. The

NOTE clearly specifies that a

modification required by this final rule

does not automatically terminate

inspections required by another AD,

unless that other AD specifically states

that the modification does constitute

terminating action for that AD’s

inspection requirements (or unless this

final rule specifically states that the

modification constitutes terminating

action for another AD).

Request for Alternatives to

Modifications

Further, the same commenter

supports the proposed modifications

specified in paragraph (e) of the

proposal, but only in cases where:

1. A superior inspection technique is

not subsequently developed;

2. There is no record, worldwide, of

subsequent cracking of aircraft structure

that has had terminating action

modification incorporated;

3. Test data and service experience

support that the terminating action

modification is, without a doubt,

effective; and

4. The accomplishment of the

modification would not pose the threat

of rework included damage/error, as

evidenced by historical catastrophic

failures.

When these conditions do not exist,

the commenter requests that the FAA

consider alternatives to the proposed

modifications.

Since the commenter did not provide

the specifics for any kind of alternative,

the FAA infers that the commenter is

requesting that the proposed inspections

of paragraph (b) be continued

repetitively, without terminating

modifications. In that case, the FAA

does not concur. The FAA has

determined that the degree of assurance

necessary as to the adequacy of

inspections needed to maintain the

safety of the aging transport airplane

fleet, coupled with a better

understanding of the human factors

associated with numerous repetitive

inspections, has caused the FAA to

place less emphasis on repetitive

inspections and more emphasis on

design improvements and material

replacement. Thus, in lieu of its

previous position of allowing continual

inspection, and repair or modification

on condition if cracking is found, the

FAA has decided to require, whenever

practicable, airplane modifications that

remove the source of the particular

aging phenomena.

Request to Supersede AD 88–24–08 R2

One commenter requests that the

proposal be revised by deleting the

requirements of proposed paragraph (f),

and including those requirements in AD

88–24–08 R2, amendment 39–6469 (55

FR 1002, January 11, 1990). The

commenter notes that proposed

paragraph (f) refers to McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 53–230,

Revision 1, dated January 12, 1993;

while AD 88–24–08 R2 refers to

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Alert Service

Bulletin A53–230, Revision 3, dated

September 28, 1989. The commenter

states that superseding AD 88–24–08 R2

would ease the administrative burden

on operators, in lieu of superseding the

proposal whenever the manufacturer

issues new revisions of any of the

service bulletins that are referenced in

the SARD.

The FAA does not concur. The

modifications (specified in Service

Bulletin 53–230 and) required by

paragraph (f) of the final rule terminate

the inspections (specified in Alert

Service Bulletin A53–230 and) required

by AD 88–24–08 R2. Alert Service

Bulletin A53–230 does not specify

procedures for termination of the

inspections described in that service

bulletin. Whereas, Service Bulletin 53–
24680 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

230 describes procedures for

modifications of the fuselage frames

between LN’s 10L and 10R at various

overwing stations between Y=484.000

and Y=851.000. As explained in

paragraph (f) of the final rule,

accomplishment of the modifications

specified in Service Bulletin 53–230

terminates the inspection requirements

of AD 88–24–08 R2. Further, as stated

in the Discussion section of the

preamble to the notice, although Service

Bulletin 53–230 was not included in

SARD, Revision B, the FAA concurs

with the recommendations of the

Airworthiness Assurance Working

Group (AAWG), which recommended

that modifications described in it be

made mandatory in order to prevent

structural degradation of the fleet.

Therefore, the FAA finds it appropriate

to include Service Bulletin 53–230 in

the modification requirements of the

final rule.

However, the FAA will consider

issuing separate rulemaking actions,

including supersedure of existing AD’s,

whenever the manufacturer issues new

revisions to the service bulletins

referenced in those AD’s.

Request To Delete Redundant Language

Concerning Terminating Modifications

One commenter asserts that proposed

paragraph (g) is redundant to proposed

paragraphs (a) and (b), which state that

the modifications in the service

bulletins terminate the inspection

requirements. From this comment, the

FAA infers that the commenter is

requesting the deletion of proposed

paragraph (g), which states that

accomplishment of certain

modifications terminates certain

inspection requirements. The FAA

concurs. Proposed paragraph (g) has

been deleted from the final rule.

Request for Explanation for the

Exclusion of Certain Service Bulletins

This same commenter requests that

proposed rule be revised to include an

explanation as to why MD–80 Service

Bulletins 53–186 (which is referenced in

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 of SARD, Revision B)

and 53–216 (which is referenced in

Table 2.2 of SARD, Revision B) are

excluded from the proposed

requirements. The FAA concurs and

acknowledges that the reason for

excluding these service bulletins from

the requirements of the final rule was

omitted unintentionally. AD 94–08–04,

amendment 39–8875 (59 FR 18952,

April 21, 1994) requires inspections to

detect cracking in the skin and doublers

around the upper anticollision light

cutout, and repair, if necessary; and

stress coining the plate nut clearance

holes; which are specified in those

service bulletins. Therefore, paragraph

(g) of the final rule [which was

designated paragraph (h) in the

proposal] has been revised to state that

AD 94–08–04 addresses the actions

specified in Service Bulletins 53–186

and 53–216; it is for this reason that the

actions specified in those service

bulletins are excluded from the

requirements of the final rule.

Along this same line, the FAA finds

that the actions specified in DC–9

Service Bulletin 54–30 are excluded

from the requirements of the final rule

since AD 77–14–19, amendment 39–

2971 (42 FR 36811, July 18, 1977),

already addresses the actions specified

in that service bulletin. AD 77–14–19

requires repetitive inspections to detect

fatigue cracking of the engine pylon

front spar attachments and upper cap;

and modification of cracked structure.

Procedures for these actions are

described in DC–9 Service Bulletin 54–

30. Paragraph (g) of the final rule has

been revised to reflect this change.

The FAA also finds that the actions

specified in DC–9 Service Bulletins 27–

196 and 27–250 are excluded from the

requirements of the final rule since AD

92–11–10, amendment 39–8260 (57 FR

27149, June 18, 1992), already addresses

the actions specified in these service

bulletins. AD 92–11–10 requires

repetitive inspections to detect cracking

of the forward slat drive drums’

bellcrank shafts, and replacement, as

applicable. Procedures for these actions

are described in DC–9 Service Bulletins

27–196 and 27–50. Paragraph (g) of the

final rule has been revised accordingly.

The FAA also finds that the actions

specified in DC–9 Service Bulletins 57–

125 and 57–148 are excluded from the

requirements of the final rule since AD

96–01–05, amendment 39–9481 (61 FR

2403, January 26, 1996), already

addresses the actions specified in those

service bulletins. DC–9 Service Bulletin

57–125 describes procedures for

replacement of the attach fittings of the

main landing gear (MLG); and DC–9

Service Bulletin 57–148 describes

procedures for inspection and

modification of the attach fittings of the

MLG. Since these actions currently are

required by AD 96–01–05, paragraph (g)

of the final rule has been revised to

exclude these actions.

Additionally, paragraphs (a), (b), (d),

(e) of the final rule have been revised to

note the exclusion provision of

paragraph (g) of the final rule.

Clarification of Provisions for

Obtaining Alternative Methods of

Compliance (AMOC)

One commenter requests further

guidance to determine exactly when

FAA-approval of an AMOC is necessary.

The FAA acknowledges that additional

guidance may be warranted, and has

added a new NOTE 1 to provide this.

The new note specifies that, when

performance of the requirements of the

AD is ‘‘affected,’’ an operator should

apply for approval of an AMOC in order

to show compliance with the AD. The

meaning of the term ‘‘affected’’ can be

understood by applying it to typical

scenarios:

One scenario is when performance of

the requirements of the AD is ‘‘affected’’

in such a way that the operator is unable

to perform those requirements in the

manner described in the AD. An

example of this is when an AD requires

a visual inspection in accordance with

a certain service bulletin, but the

operator cannot perform that inspection

because of the placement of a repair

doubler over the structure to be

inspected; in this case, ‘‘performance of

the AD is affected.’’

Another scenario is when it is

physically possible to perform the

requirements of an AD, but the results

achieved are different from those

specified in the AD. An example of this

is when an AD requires a nondestructive test (NDT) inspection in

accordance with a certain service

bulletin, and the operator is able to

move the NDT probe over the specified

area in the specified manner, but the

results are either meaningless or

inaccurate because of a repair doubler

placed over that area; in this case,

‘‘performance of the AD is affected.’’

While it is not possible to address

every possible situation, ‘‘affected’’ is

normally an easy standard to apply:

either it is possible to perform the

requirements as specified in the AD and

achieve the specified results, or it is not

possible. Therefore, if the requirements

of this AD cannot be performed, then

operators must submit a request for an

approval of an AMOC from the FAA, in

accordance with the provision of

paragraph (h) of the final rule.

Any requirement of an AD, such as a

modification or repair doesn’t ‘‘affect

performance of the AD;’’ it is

performance of the AD. Accordingly,

every AD includes a provision that

states, ‘‘Compliance required as

indicated, unless previously

accomplished.’’ If an operator performs

such a requirement before the AD is

issued, the FAA is confident that the

operator will recognize that it has
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24681

already complied with the AD and no

further action (including obtaining

approval of an AMOC) is required.

Request That FAA Publish Its Policies

on Granting AMOC’s for Aging Aircraft

AD’s

One commenter requests a revision of

the proposed rule to include all FAA

policies pertinent to granting approvals

of alternative methods of compliance for

aging aircraft AD’s. The commenter

made specific reference to an FAA

memo, dated June 9, 1994, which

outlined the criteria that the Aircraft

Certification Offices (ACO) would be

using to grant approvals for alternative

methods of compliance with the aging

aircraft AD’s. (The subject of the memo

was ‘‘Denial of Requests for Extended

Compliance Times with the Aging

Aircraft Modification Airworthiness

Directives.’’) The commenter notes that

the FAA has been inconsistent in

granting approvals of alternative

methods of compliance for aging aircraft

AD’s.

The FAA does not concur. Part 39 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR part 39), ‘‘Airworthiness

Directives,’’ is for the purpose of

correcting unsafe conditions that may

exist or develop in aircraft, not for the

purpose of publishing FAA policy

decisions. The FAA points out that it

will continue to use the criteria outlined

in the memo referenced by the

commenter to review data substantiating

requests for alternative methods of

compliance to the aging aircraft AD’s on

a case-by-case basis. Since the

commenter did not provide any specific

examples of inconsistencies in the

approval of alternative methods of

compliance that have been granted by

the FAA, the FAA cannot address those

inconsistencies. However, the FAA

attempts, to the maximum extent

possible, to accommodate each

operators’ specific operating conditions,

aircraft configurations, maintenance

practices, and other variables, provided

they do not adversely impact safety.

Requests to Clarify Validity of

Previously Approved AMOC’s

This same commenter requests a

revision to the proposal to indicate that

alternative methods of compliance that

were previously approved by the FAA

for the modification requirements of

other related AD’s continue to be

considered acceptable for compliance

with the requirements of the proposal.

The commenter states that the proposal

is too limiting in that only those

AMOC’s that were previously approved

for the requirements of AD 90–18–03 are

to be considered acceptable for

compliance with the requirements of the

proposal. The commenter contends that

revising proposed rule to accept

previously approved AMOC’s would

preclude operators from needlessly

resubmitting additional requests for

AMOC’s for the inspections and

modifications that are required by

proposed paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (f).

The FAA does not concur. The intent

of paragraph (i) of the final rule [which

was designated paragraph (j) in the

proposal] is to have approvals for

alternative methods of compliance to

AD 90–18–03 remain in effect for this

AD. The inspection requirements of

paragraph (a) of the final rule (contained

in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 of SARD,

Revision A and) is a restatement of

paragraph A. of AD 90–18–03, and the

modification requirements of paragraph

(d) of the final rule is a restatement of

paragraph B. of AD 90–18–03. However,

other modifications (contained in Table

2.3, Table 2.4, and Table 3.1 of SARD,

Revision B) that are required by this

final rule provide for a higher level of

safety than that provided by other

modifications required by other related

AD’s. Therefore, alternative methods of

compliance that were previously

approved by the FAA for those other

related AD’s may not provide for an

adequate level of safety as that provided

by the modifications required by the

final rule; therefore, they must be

reviewed individually to determine

their acceptability, as provided in

paragraph (i) of the final rule.

Request that Necessary Parts Be

Available

This commenter further requests

FAA’s intervention to ensure that the

manufacturer take no longer than 15

days to provide required parts to

operators. This commenter states that it

has taken up to 18 months to obtain

necessary parts for modifications

required by AD’s. The FAA cannot

concur with this commenter’s request,

since the FAA has no regulatory

requirement to ensure that

manufacturers of aircraft produce spare

parts in a timely manner. Part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39), ‘‘Airworthiness Directives,’’

limits the FAA’s authority to correct

findings of unsafe conditions that may

exist or develop in aircraft.

Regardless, the FAA has verified with

the manufacturer that parts necessary

for the modifications required by the

final rule will be available to operators

upon submission of a purchase order to

the manufacturer. Additionally, under

the provisions of paragraph (h) of the

final rule, operators may apply for the

approval of an alternative method of

compliance or adjustment of the

compliance time if sufficient parts are

unavailable to operators to accomplish

the requirements of the final rule.

Request for Revision of Cost Estimate

Figures

One commenter requests that the cost

impact information of the proposal be

revised to reflect the ‘‘true cost’’ over

the entire ‘‘modification period.’’ The

commenter notes that, in the proposal,

the costs estimated ‘‘over the initial 4-

year time period,’’ depicts an

inaccurately low figure, since only 33

percent of the service bulletins

referenced in SARD, Revision B,

recommend a threshold of 4 years.

The FAA does not concur that

revision is necessary. The economic

impact information, below, was

developed with data provided by the

manufacturer. In this case, the cost

estimate in the final rule was developed

by the McDonnell Douglas Corporation

only after extensive and detailed

consultations with large numbers of

operators of Model DC–9 and DC–9–80

series airplanes. The FAA acknowledges

that only 33 percent of the service

bulletins referenced in the SARD

recommend a threshold of 4 years; the

remaining 67 percent of the service

bulletins recommend a threshold based

on the number of flight cycles the

airplane has accumulated or on the age

of the airplane. Given the significant

differences in operators’ usage of these

airplanes, an accurate assessment of

when each airplane would reach that

flight cycle threshold would be nearly

impossible to calculate accurately.

Additionally, there is no way of

knowing how many airplanes will be

‘‘phased’’ out of service as they

approach or exceed the original

economic life goal of these airplanes.

Therefore, the FAA considers the 4-year

time period as an appropriate baseline

to calculate the estimated costs for all of

the actions required by the final rule.

Additionally, subsequent to the

issuance of the notice, the FAA

reviewed the figures it used in

calculating the cost of labor relevant to

accomplishing AD activity. In order to

account for various inflationary costs in

the airline industry, the FAA finds it

appropriate to increase the labor rate

used in these calculations from $55 per

work hour to $60 per work hour. The

economic impact information, below,

has been revised to reflect this increase

in the specified hourly labor rate.

Editorial Changes to the Final Rule

For purposes of readability, the FAA

has revised paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and

(e); NOTE 10 [which was designated
24682 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

NOTE 4 in the proposal] and NOTE 13

[which was designated NOTE 5 in the

proposal] of the final rule to remove the

parenthetical phrase that describes the

airplanes applicable to each Table in the

SARD . A new NOTE 2 has been added

to the final rule to explain that Tables

2.1, 2.3, and 3.1 of the SARD are

applicable to Model DC–9–10, –20, –30,

–40, and –50 series airplanes, and C–9

(military) series airplanes; and Tables

2.2 and 2.4 of the SARD are applicable

to Model DC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87

(MD–81, –82, –83, and –87) series

airplanes, and Model MD–88 airplanes.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 892 Model

DC–9 and C–9 (military) series airplanes

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet.

The FAA estimates that 568 Model

DC–9 and C–9 (military) series airplanes

of U.S. registry were originally affected

by AD 90–18–03. The requirements of

that AD were estimated to take

approximately 946 work hours to

accomplish, at a current average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. The cost for

required modification kits was

estimated to be $15,140 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the FAA

estimated that the cost impact of AD 90–

18–03 on U.S. operators of Model DC–

9 and C–9 (military) series airplanes

will be $40,839,200, or $71,900 per

airplane, over the initial 4-year time

period. (These figures do not include

the cost of downtime, planning, set-up,

familiarization, or tool acquisition.)

The FAA estimates that 511 Model

DC–9 and C–9 (military) series airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by the

new requirements specified in this AD.

The new additional requirements of this

AD action will take approximately 638

additional work hours per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts will

cost approximately $37,027 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $38,481,877, or $75,307

per airplane, over a 4-year time period.

(These figures do not include the cost of

downtime, planning, set-up,

familiarization, and tool acquisition.)

There are approximately 1,090 Model

DC–9–80 series airplanes and Model

MD–88 airplanes of the affected design

in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 173 Model

DC–9–80 series airplanes and Model

MD–88 airplanes of U.S. registry were

originally affected by AD 90–18–03. The

requirements of that AD were estimated

to take approximately 47 work hours to

accomplish, at a current average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. The cost for

required modification kits was

estimated to be $752 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the FAA estimated that

the cost impact of AD 90–18–03 on U.S.

operators of Model DC–9–80 series

airplanes and Model MD–88 airplanes

will be $617,956, or $3,572 per airplane,

over the initial 4-year time period.

(These figures do not include the cost of

downtime, planning, set-up,

familiarization, or tool acquisition.)

The FAA estimates that a total of 615

Model DC–9–80 series airplanes and

Model MD–88 airplanes of U.S. registry

will be affected by the new

requirements specified in this AD. This

increase in the number of affected

airplanes is due to various reasons,

including transfer of ownership and the

fact that additional airplanes have

accumulated time-in-service since the

issuance of AD 90–18–03 and have

reached the threshold for modification/

inspection. The new additional

requirements of this AD action will take

approximately 13 additional work hours

per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost an additional

$943 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the additional cost impact of

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $1,059,645, or $1,723 per airplane,

over a 4-year time period. (These figures

do not include the cost of downtime,

planning, set-up, familiarization, or tool

acquisition.)

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished the

currently required or the newly required

actions of this AD; however, it can

reasonably be assumed that a majority of

affected operators have already initiated

the inspections and structural

modifications required by AD 90–18–03

[retained in paragraphs (a) and (d) of

this AD] and many may have already

initiated the additional inspections and

structural modifications in this new AD

action.

The number of required work hours,

as indicated above, is presented as if the

accomplishment of the actions proposed

in this AD were to be conducted as

‘‘stand alone’’ actions. However, in

actual practice, these actions for the

most part would 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 would be minimal in many

instances. Additionally, any costs

associated with special airplane

scheduling would be minimal.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects 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, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–6701 (55 FR

34704, August 24, 1990), and by adding
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24683

a new airworthiness directive (AD),

amendment 39–9618, to read as follows:

96–10–11 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment

39–9618. Docket 94–NM–92–AD.

Supersedes AD 90–18–03, Amendment

39–6701.

Applicability: Model DC–9–10, –20, –30,

–40, and –50 series airplanes; Model DC–9–

81 (MD–81), –82 (MD–82), –83 (MD–83), and

–87 (MD–87) series airplanes; Model MD–88

airplanes; and C–9 (military) series airplanes;

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Note 2: For purposes of this AD, references

to Tables 2.1, 2.3, and 3.1 of the Service

Action Requirements Document (SARD) are

applicable to Model DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40,

and –50 series airplanes, and C–9 (military)

series airplanes; and Tables 2.2 and 2.4 of the

SARD are applicable to Model DC–9–81, –82,

–83, and –87 (MD–81, –82, –83, and –87)

series airplanes, and Model MD–88 airplanes.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent structural failure, accomplish

the following:

Note 3: Paragraph (a) of this AD restates the

requirements for an initial inspection and the

repetitive inspections contained in paragraph

A. of AD 90–18–03. Therefore, for operators

who have previously accomplished at least

the initial inspection in accordance with AD

90–18–03, paragraph (a) of this AD requires

that the next scheduled inspection be

performed within the specified repetitive

inspection interval after the last inspection

performed in accordance with paragraph A.

of AD 90–18–03.

(a) Except as provided by paragraph (g) of

this AD, within the threshold for inspections

specified in the service bulletins listed in

either Table 2.1 or Table 2.2 , as applicable,

of ‘‘DC–9/MD–80 Aging Aircraft Service

Action Requirements Document,’’ McDonnell

Douglas Report No. MDC K1572, Revision A,

dated June 1, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as

‘‘SARD, Revision A’’), or within one

repetitive inspection period specified in

those service bulletins after September 24,

1990 (the effective date of AD 90–18–03,

Amendment 39–6701); whichever occurs

later: Inspect to detect cracks in accordance

with those service bulletins. Repeat these

inspections thereafter at the intervals

specified in the service bulletins listed in

either Table 2.1, or Table 2.2, as applicable,

of SARD, Revision A, until the applicable

terminating modification required by

paragraph (d) of this AD is accomplished.

Note 4: Table 2.1 of SARD, Revision A,

includes the inspections specified in DC–9

Service Bulletin 57–129, Revision 3, dated

November 6, 1987. Since issuance of the

SARD, Revision A, that service bulletin has

been re-issued as two separate service

bulletins: DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–129,

Revision 5, and DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–

200; both dated November 10, 1994.

Therefore, accomplishment of both DC–9

Service Bulletins 57–129, Revision 5, and

57–200 is considered acceptable for

compliance with the inspections specified in

DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–129, Revision 3.

Note 5: The service bulletin revision levels

list under ‘‘Recommended Modification’’ in

either Table 2.1 or Table 2.2, as applicable,

of SARD, Revision A, are acceptable

revisions for inspections performed prior to

September 24, 1994.

(b) Except as provided by paragraph (g) of

this AD, within the threshold for inspections

specified in the service bulletins listed in

Tables 2.3 and 3.1, or Table 2.4, as

applicable, of ‘‘DC–9/MD–80 Aging Aircraft

Service Action Requirements Document,’’

McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC K1572,

Revision B, dated January 15, 1993

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘SARD, Revision

B’’), or within one repetitive inspection

period specified in those service bulletins

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later: Inspect to detect cracks in

accordance with those service bulletins.

Repeat these inspections thereafter at the

intervals specified in the service bulletins

listed in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of

this AD, as applicable, until the applicable

terminating modification required by

paragraph (e) of this AD is accomplished.

Note 6: Accomplishment of the inspections

in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC–

9 Service Bulletin 57–129, Revision 5, dated

November 10, 1994; and McDonnell Douglas

DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–200, dated

November 10, 1994; is acceptable for

compliance with the inspections described in

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

57–129, Revision 3, which is referenced in

SARD, Revision B.

(1) For Model DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40, –50,

and C–9 (military) series airplanes: The

service bulletins listed in Tables 2.3 and 3.1

of SARD, Revision B. Or

(2) For Model DC–9–81, –82, –83, –87

(MD–81, –82, –83, –87), and Model MD–88

airplanes: The service bulletins listed in

Table 2.4 of SARD, Revision B.

Note 7: The service bulletin revision levels

list under ‘‘Recommended Modification’’ or

‘‘Recommended Inspection’’ in Tables 2.3

and 3.1, or Table 2.4, as applicable, of SARD,

Revision B, are acceptable revisions for

inspections performed prior to the effective

date of this AD.

(c) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, either accomplish the

applicable terminating modification in

accordance with paragraph (d) or (e) of this

AD, or repair in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

Note 8: Detection of any discrepancy, other

than cracking, necessitates appropriate

corrective action in accordance with the

provisions of part 43 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 43).

(d) Except as provided by paragraph (g) of

this AD, prior to reaching the incorporation

thresholds listed in either Table 2.1, or Table

2.2, as applicable, of SARD, Revision A or

Revision B; or within 4 years after September

24, 1990 (the effective date of AD 90–18–03);

whichever occurs later: Accomplish the

structural modifications specified in the

service bulletins listed in either Table 2.1, or

Table 2.2, as applicable, of SARD, Revision

A or Revision B. Accomplishment of these

modifications constitutes terminating action

for the applicable inspections required by

paragraph (a) of this AD.

Note 9: Paragraph (d) of this AD restates

the modification requirements of paragraph

B. of AD 90–18–03. As allowed by the

phrase, ‘‘unless accomplished previously,’’ if

the requirements of paragraph B. of AD 90–

18–03 have been accomplished previously,

paragraph (d) of this AD does not require that

they be repeated.

Note 10: The service bulletin revision

levels listed under ‘‘Recommended

Modification’’ in either Table 2.1, or Table

2.2, as applicable, of SARD, Revision A, are

acceptable revisions for modifications

accomplished prior to September 24, 1994.

Note 11: Accomplishment of the

modification in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–129,

Revision 5, dated November 10, 1994; and

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

57–200, dated November 10, 1994; is

acceptable for compliance with the

modifications described in McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–129,

Revision 3, which is referenced in SARD,

Revision A.

(e) Except as provided by paragraph (g) of

this AD, prior to reaching the incorporation

thresholds listed in either Table 2.3, or Table

2.4, as applicable, of SARD, Revision B, or

within 4 years after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later: Accomplish the

structural modifications specified in the

service bulletins listed in either Table 2.3, or

Table 2.4, as applicable, of SARD, Revision

B. Accomplishment of this modification

constitutes terminating action for the

applicable inspections required by paragraph

(b) of this AD.

Note 12: Accomplishment of the

modifications in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–129,

Revision 5, dated November 10, 1994, and

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

57–200, dated November 10, 1994; is

acceptable for compliance with the

modifications described in McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–129,

Revision 3, which is referenced in SARD,

Revision B.

Note 13: The service bulletin revision

levels listed under ‘‘Recommended

Modification’’ in either Table 2.3, or Table

2.4 of SARD, Revision B, are acceptable

revisions for modifications accomplished

prior to the effective date of this AD.
24684 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Note 14: The modifications required by

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this AD do not

terminate the inspection requirements of any

other AD unless that AD specifies that any

such modification constitutes terminating

action for those specified inspection

requirements.

(f) For Model DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40, –50,

and C–9 (military) series airplanes: Prior to

the accumulation of 100,000 total landings,

accomplish the modifications specified in

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

53–230, Revision 1, dated January 12, 1993.

Accomplishment of these modifications

constitute terminating action for the

inspections required by AD 88–24–08 R2,

amendment 39–6469.

(g) The McDonnell Douglas service

bulletins that are listed below, are addressed

in the following separate rulemaking actions.

Therefore, the actions specified in these

service bulletins that are referenced in the

following tables of SARD, Revision A or

Revision B, are excluded from the

requirements of this AD.

Table(s) McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin AD No. Amendment

No.

3.1 ............ DC–9 Service Bulletin 54–30 .................................................................................................................... 77–14–19 39–2971

2.1 ............ DC–9 Service Bulletin 27–196 .................................................................................................................. 92–11–10 39–8260

2.1 ............ DC–9 Service Bulletin 27–250 .................................................................................................................. 92–11–10 39–8260

2.1 and 2.2 MD–80 Service Bulletin 53–186 ................................................................................................................ 94–08–04 39–8875

2.2 ............ MD–80 Service Bulletin 53–216 ................................................................................................................ 94–08–04 39–8875

2.1 ............ DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–125 .................................................................................................................. 96–01–05 39–9481

2.3 ............ DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–148 .................................................................................................................. 96–01–05 39–9481

(h) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 15: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(i) Alternative methods of compliance

previously granted for AD 90–18–03,

amendment 39–6701, continue to be

considered as acceptable alternative methods

of compliance for the relevant provisions of

this amendment.

(j) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(k) The inspections and modifications shall

be done in accordance with ‘‘DC–9/MD–80

Aging Aircraft Service Action Requirements

Document,’’ McDonnell Douglas Report No.

MDC K1572, Revision A, dated June 1, 1990;

and in accordance with ‘‘DC–9/MD–80 Aging

Aircraft Service Action Requirements

Document,’’ McDonnell Douglas Report No.

MDC K1572, Revision B, dated January 15,

1993, which contains the following list of

effective pages:

Page No.

Revision

letter

shown on

page

Date shown on

page

List of Effective

Pages.

B January 15,

1993.

Pages xi and xii.

The incorporation by reference of ‘‘DC–9/

MD–80 Aging Aircraft Service Action

Requirements Document,’’ McDonnell

Douglas Report No. MDC K1572, Revision A,

dated June 1, 1990, was approved previously

by the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51 as of September 24, 1990 (55 FR

34704, August 24, 1990). The incorporation

by reference of ‘‘DC–9/MD–80 Aging Aircraft

Service Action Requirements Document,’’

McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC K1572,

Revision B, dated January 15, 1993, is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California

90846, Attention: Technical Publications

Business Administration, Department C1–

L51 (2–60). Copies may be inspected 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

90712; or at the Office of the Federal Register,

800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(l) This amendment becomes effective on

June 20, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8,

1996.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12020 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–CE–20–AD; Amendment 39–

9619; AD 96–10–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aviat

Aircraft, Inc. Models S–1S, S–1T, S–2,

S–2A, S–2S, and S–2B Airplanes

(Formerly Known as Pitts Models S–

1S, S–1T, S–2, S–2A, S–2S, and S–2B

Airplanes)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to Aviat Aircraft, Inc. (Aviat)

Models S–1S, S–1T, S–2, S–2A, S–2S,

and S–2B airplanes that are equipped

with a flight control stick with a wall

thickness of .035 inch. This action

requires repetitively inspecting the

flight control stick for cracks, and

replacing any cracked flight control

stick with one with a wall thickness of

.058 inch. An incident on an Aviat

Model S–2A airplane where the flight

control stick fractured in flight

prompted this action. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent the inability to maneuver the

airplane because of a cracked flight

control stick, which, if not detected and

corrected, could result in loss of control

of the airplane.

DATES: Effective June 7, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 7,

1996.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

July 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket 96–CE–20–AD,

Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106.

Service information that applies to

this AD may be obtained from Aviat

Aircraft, Inc., The Airport-Box 1240,

South Washington Street, Afton,

Wyoming 83110. This information may

also be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 96–

CE–20–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or