
[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 8465-8467]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-2]                         

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

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

[[Page 8466]]

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 work-hour 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 work-hours 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

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  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

[[Page 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

