AD 2002-07-06

[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16987-16991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 02-8279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000-NM-324-AD; Amendment 39-12700; AD 2002-07-06]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes; and C-9 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, 
and -50 series airplanes; and C-9 airplanes; that requires repetitive 
visual and x-ray inspections to detect cracks of the upper and lower 
corners and upper center of the door cutout of the aft pressure 
bulkhead; corrective actions, if necessary; and follow-on actions. For 
certain airplanes, the amendment also requires modification of the 
ventral aft pressure bulkhead. The actions specified by this AD are 
intended to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the corners and upper 
center of the door cutout of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could 
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane. This action is intended to 
address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective May 14, 2002.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of May 14, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data 
and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may 
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone 
(562) 627-5324; fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness 
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model 
DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; and C-9 airplanes; 
was published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2001 (66 FR 
48384). That action proposed to require repetitive general visual and 
x-ray inspections to detect cracks of the upper and lower corners and 
upper center of the door cutout of the aft pressure bulkhead; 
corrective actions, if necessary; and follow-on actions. For certain 
airplanes, the amendment also requires modification of the ventral aft 
pressure bulkhead.

Comments

    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
the comments received.

Requests To Revise Certain Inspection Requirements

    Three commenters request revision of the inspection requirements in 
paragraph (b) of the proposed rule. The rationales for these requests 
are as follows:
    <bullet> One commenter suggests revising paragraph (b) of the 
proposed rule to specify the same inspections cited in McDonnell 
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision 07, dated February 6, 
2001, which was cited as the appropriate source of service information 
for this AD. The commenter states that paragraph (b) of the proposed 
rule is misleading because it incorrectly implies that a repair will 
always be required or that a preventive modification is required. In 
addition, that paragraph does not allow for continuing visual and x-ray 
inspections as specified in the previously referenced service bulletin.
    <bullet> One commenter requests clarification of the inspection 
procedures specified in the proposed rule. Paragraph (b) of the 
proposed rule specifies visual and eddy current inspections within 
8,000 landings after accomplishment of the visual and x-ray inspections 
required by paragraph (a) of this AD. However, Service Bulletin DC9-53-
137, Revision 07, specifies visual and eddy current inspections after a 
repair or preventive modification is installed. The proposed rule would

[[Page 16988]]

not require a preventive modification if no cracks are found. However, 
the no-crack procedures specified in the service bulletin provide the 
option of either accomplishing the preventive modification and 
thereafter a visual and eddy current inspection, or not accomplishing 
the modification and continuing the visual and x-ray inspections at 
various intervals depending on the condition.
    <bullet> One commenter considers that the proposed rule should 
require visual and eddy current inspections only if no cracks are found 
and interim preventive repairs are performed per Service Bulletin DC9-
53-137, Revision 07. The commenter suggests clarifying that interim 
preventive repairs are to be performed per the service bulletin, and 
that continued visual and x-ray inspections are required for unmodified 
corners. The inspection requirements of paragraph (b) are different 
from those specified in the previously referenced service bulletin. 
Although paragraph (b) of the proposed rule requires inspections at 
intervals of 8,000 landings after accomplishment of the inspections 
required by paragraph (a) of the proposed rule, the service bulletin 
specifies inspections after accomplishment of a repair or preventive 
modification. The service bulletin also provides the option of either 
accomplishing the preventive modification followed by the inspections, 
or not accomplishing the modification and continuing the inspections at 
specific intervals.
    The FAA concurs with the commenter's requests to revise and clarify 
the inspection requirements. In making this decision, we have reviewed 
the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin and the 
inspection requirements of paragraph (b) of the proposed rule. We point 
out that the intent of paragraph (b) of the proposed rule is to require 
the same inspections as those specified by the service bulletin. 
Therefore, we have revised paragraph (b) in the final rule to also 
include paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2). We consider that this change 
provides an acceptable level of safety for the fleet.

Request To Clarify the Repetitive Inspection Intervals

    One commenter states that, if no crack is detected, paragraph (b) 
in the proposed rule requires visual and eddy current inspections per 
Revision 07 of Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, within 8,000 landings after 
accomplishing the visual and x-ray inspections required by paragraph 
(a) of the proposed rule. The commenter states that it had previously 
accomplished modifications per Revision 04, or earlier, of McDonnell 
Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-137, and that an alternative method of 
compliance (AMOC) to AD 85-01-02 R1, amendment 39-5241 (51 FR 6101, 
February 20, 1986), permits repetitive inspections at intervals of 
15,000 landings until accomplishment of the terminating action per 
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-166. With this in mind, the 
commenter asks whether the repetitive intervals of previously modified 
airplanes will be reduced from 15,000 landings to 8,000 landings 
regardless of modification/repair status.
    The FAA concurs that clarification of the repetitive inspection 
intervals for previously repaired or modified airplanes (interim 
preventive repairs) is necessary. We point out that McDonnell Douglas 
DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-137, Revision 05, dated August 29, 2000, 
changed the inspection method and the inspection intervals for the aft 
pressure bulkhead corners that previously have been repaired or 
modified per earlier revisions of the service bulletin. In addition, 
the inspection procedures specified in Revision 05 of the service 
bulletin also were approved as an AMOC for the accomplishment of AD 85-
01-02 R1. Although earlier revisions of the service bulletin specify 
``visual and x-ray'' inspections of previously repaired or modified 
corners, Revision 05 and later revisions of the service bulletin 
specify ``visual and eddy current'' inspections for those airplanes. 
After the type of inspection was changed, the manufacturer reconsidered 
the inspection intervals necessary for previously repaired or modified 
corners if no cracks are detected. As a result, for those airplanes, 
the manufacturer recommends inspection intervals of 8,000 landings for 
``visual and eddy current'' inspections instead of 15,000 landings for 
``visual and x-ray'' inspections.
    After reconsidering the manufacturer's recommendation, we have 
determined that the compliance times recommended in Revision 07 of the 
service bulletin are adequate in maintaining the safety of the fleet. 
It is necessary to revise paragraph (b) of the proposed rule to clarify 
our intent regarding the type of inspection and inspection intervals 
that are specified in paragraph 3.B. (``Work Instructions'') of the 
service bulletin (which was cited in the proposed rule as the 
appropriate source of service information). We point out that the 
compliance times specified in Revision 07 of the service bulletin vary 
according to the conditions and groups of airplanes specified in 
paragraph 3.B. (``Work Instructions'') of the service bulletin. As a 
result, we have reformatted paragraph (b) of the final rule to include 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), which require accomplishment of the 
inspections at the times specified in Revision 07 of the service 
bulletin, as applicable. We consider that these changes only clarify 
the required inspections and related compliance times, and do not 
impose an additional burden on any operator or necessitate providing an 
additional opportunity for public comment.

Request To Revise Type of Inspection per the Service Information

    One commenter states that the definition of a ``general visual 
inspection'' in Note 2 of the proposed rule is not the same as that of 
a ``visual inspection'' in Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision 07. 
The commenter states that the service bulletin has specific visual 
inspection requirements that are included in Service Sketch 2934E and 
SN09530002. The commenter considers that the proposed rule should 
reflect the same type of inspection as that cited in the service 
information.
    The FAA concurs and agrees that the final rule should reflect the 
same inspections specified by the service information. In the final 
rule we have deleted Note 2 to remove the definition of a ``general 
visual inspection.'' We also have changed all references throughout the 
final rule, including paragraphs (a) and (b), to specify a ``visual 
inspection'' instead of a ``general visual inspection.''

Request To Give Credit for Previously Accomplished Alternative 
Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    One commenter requests that credit be given to operators who have 
accomplished previously approved AMOCs per AD 85-01-02 R1 or AD 96-10-
11, amendment 39-9618 (61 FR 24675, May 16, 1996). Another commenter 
asks how the requirements of this AD affect previous AMOC approvals for 
inspections, repairs, and modifications per AD 85-01-02 R1 and AD 96-
10-11. In addition, this commenter asks whether AMOCs issued per AD 90-
18-03, amendment 39-6701 (55 FR 34704, August 24, 1990), are still 
considered valid.
    The FAA concurs. In addition, we point out that AD 90-18-03 was 
superseded by AD 96-10-11, which gave credit for AMOCs previously 
issued per AD 90-18-03. However, because AD 90-18-03 was removed from 
the regulations, it is only necessary to give credit for the prior 
accomplishment of AD 85-01-02 R1

[[Page 16989]]

and AD 96-10-11 in paragraph (i)(2) of the final rule. We have revised 
the final rule accordingly.

Request To Clarify Previously Issued ADs and Effect on Compliance 
Times in Follow-on ADs

    One commenter requests clarification of the difference between a 
standalone AD that supersedes an earlier AD, and a separate AD with a 
later action to rescind that AD. The commenter also asks the following 
questions:
    <bullet> If the FAA rescinds AD 85-01-02 R1, what happens to AD 80-
10-03, amendment 39-3769 (45 FR 31052, May 15, 1980), that was 
superseded by AD 85-01-02, amendment 39-4978 (50 FR 2043, January 15, 
1985), and how are the concurrent service bulletin requirements 
affected by this decision?
    <bullet> AD 85-01-02 R1 requires that the procedures specified by 
the service bulletins be accomplished within landing or time limits 
that have already passed for most applicable airplanes. How does 
rescinding AD 85-01-02 R1 affect this compliance?
    The FAA concurs and agrees that it is necessary to clarify the 
difference between the two types of ADs. In response, we point out that 
in the preamble of the proposed AD, in ``Other Relevant Rulemaking,'' 
we stated that the FAA normally would issue a proposed AD to supersede 
AD 85-01-02 R1. However, because of the complexity of the requirements 
in AD 85-01-02 R1, we issued a standalone AD, which includes 
terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of AD 85-
01-02 R1. Once a final rule has been issued and becomes effective, we 
plan to rescind AD 85-01-02 R1. After considering the commenter's two 
questions, we infer that the commenter wants us to clarify how 
previously issued ADs affect the compliance times in follow-on ADs. In 
response, we point out that AD 80-10-03 was superseded by AD 85-01-02, 
which removed AD 80-10-03 from the regulations. As a result, the 
concurrent service bulletin procedures required by AD 80-10-03 are no 
longer in effect. Likewise, after AD 85-01-02 R1 is rescinded, the 
compliance times required by that AD per the service bulletins are no 
longer a factor. No change to the final rule is necessary in this 
regard.

Request To Include Additional Corrective Actions

    The commenter states that the proposed rule needs to address what 
happens if an operator finds ``something on a corner of an airplane'' 
that they are unable to inspect per Revision 07 of Service Bulletin 
DC9-53-137. The commenter adds that guidance is needed when the 
proposed rule cannot be complied with, and operators need to know what 
to do. After contacting the manufacturer for clarification of what was 
meant by ``something on a corner of an airplane,'' the commenter stated 
that the phrase refers to any previous repair on the aft pressure 
bulkhead that any operator may not be able to inspect per the service 
bulletin.
    The FAA does not concur. We point out that the proposed rule does 
not need to include additional corrective actions because paragraph 
(i)(1) of this AD includes a provision for operators to request an AMOC 
for such an inspection requirement. No change to the final rule is 
necessary in this regard.

Request To Cite an Additional Service Bulletin

    The commenter asks why some of the Boeing service bulletins listed 
in AD 85-01-02 R1 are included in the proposed rule and others are not. 
For example, McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin A53-144 is cited 
in AD 85-01-02 R1, but is not cited in this proposed rule. The 
commenter considers that, if certain other service bulletins specified 
in that AD are included in this proposed rule, we also need to include 
DC-9 Service Bulletin A53-144. This is necessary in case any airplane 
that has not been modified per the AD is brought into the United 
States, and to prevent any operator from performing a repair in the 
area and not also accomplishing the modification.
    The FAA does not concur. We point out that it is unnecessary to 
include a reference to a service bulletin unless the specified 
procedures are required by the proposed rule. Because the procedures 
specified in DC-9 Service Bulletin A53-144 are not required by the 
final rule, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Explanation of Changes Made to the Proposal

    The FAA has determined that it is necessary to revise the final 
rule and has made the following changes:
    <bullet> In the ``Cost Impact'' section, we have clarified that 5 
work hours per airplane is required for accomplishment of the required 
``inspections'' instead of the required ``actions.''
    <bullet> Paragraph (a) specifies that the requirements of that 
paragraph also apply to airplanes on which the modification has not 
been accomplished per paragraph (g) of this AD, which specifies 
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this AD. This change clarifies that if the 
specified modification has not been done, visual and x-ray inspections 
must be done within the compliance time specified in paragraph (a) of 
this AD.
    <bullet> Paragraph (d)(2) specifies that accomplishment of the 
modification specified by paragraph (d)(2) constitutes terminating 
action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraphs (b) and 
(c)(2) of this AD.
    <bullet> Paragraph (i) includes two new subparagraphs. Paragraph 
(i)(2) is added to give credit for AMOCs previously accomplished in 
accordance with AD 85-01-02 R1 or AD 96-10-11. Paragraph (i)(3) is 
added to specify that, if an inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead 
cannot be accomplished per the service bulletin, operators also may 
accomplish the inspection per data meeting the type certification basis 
of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering 
Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such 
findings.

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. We also have 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 700 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 
series airplanes; and C-9 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 397 airplanes of U.S. registry 
will be affected by this AD.
    It will take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish 
the required inspections, and that the average labor rate is $60 per 
work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. 
operators is estimated to be $119,100, or $300 per airplane.
    For certain airplanes, it will take approximately between 21 and 26 
work hours per airplane depending on the airplane configuration to 
accomplish the modification specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service 
Bulletin 53-165, Revision 3, dated May 3, 1989, at an average labor 
rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately 
between $3,470 and $11,831 per airplane, depending on the airplane 
configuration. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this 
modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $4,730, or 
$13,391 per airplane.
    For certain airplanes, it will take approximately 9 work hours per

[[Page 16990]]

airplane to accomplish the modification specified in McDonnell Douglas 
DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-157, Revision 1, dated January 7, 1985, at an 
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the 
cost impact of this modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be 
$540 per airplane.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions 
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this 
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the 
future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed 
in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform 
the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures 
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to 
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other 
administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    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 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

2002-07-06  McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-12700. Docket 2000-NM-
324-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series 
airplanes, and C-9 airplanes; certificated in any category; equipped 
with a floor level hinged (ventral) door of the aft pressure 
bulkhead; as listed in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-
137, Revision 07, dated February 6, 2001; except for those airplanes 
on which the modification required by paragraph (d) or (e) of AD 96-
10-11, amendment 39-9618, or paragraph K. of AD 85-01-02 R1, 
amendment 39-5241, has been done.

    Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the 
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 
otherwise 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 (i)(1) 
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.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To detect and correct fatigue cracks in the corners and upper 
center of the door cutout of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could 
result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:

Visual and X-Ray Inspection

    (a) For airplanes on which the modification has NOT been 
accomplished per paragraph (g) of this AD: Except as provided by 
paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total 
landings, or within 4,000 landings after the effective date of this 
AD, whichever occurs later, do a visual inspection and an x-ray 
inspection to detect cracks of the upper and lower corners and upper 
center of the door cutout of the aft pressure bulkhead, per 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision 07, dated 
February 6, 2001.

No Crack Detected: Repetitive Inspections

    (b) If no crack is detected during any inspection required by 
paragraph (a) of this AD, do the action specified in either 
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD per paragraph 3.B. ``Work 
Instructions'' of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, 
Revision 07, dated February 6, 2001, as applicable:
    (1) If interim preventive repairs have been performed per the 
service bulletin; AD 85-01-02 R1 or AD 96-10-11: Do a visual 
inspection and an eddy current inspection at the times specified in 
the service bulletin. Repeat the applicable repetitive inspections 
at intervals not to exceed the times specified in the service 
bulletin, until accomplishment of the action required by paragraph 
(d) or (g) of this AD; or
    (2) If interim preventive repairs have NOT been performed per 
the service bulletin, do either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of 
this AD:
    (i) Before further flight, install an interim preventive repair 
identified in Conditions I through XLIII inclusive, excluding 
Conditions XXI, XXXVII, and XXXVIII (not used at this time), per the 
service bulletin. At the times specified in the service bulletin, do 
a visual inspection and an eddy current inspection. At intervals not 
to exceed the times specified in the service bulletin, repeat the 
visual and eddy current inspections until accomplishment of the 
action specified in paragraph (d) or (g) of this AD; or
    (ii) At intervals not to exceed the times specified in the 
service bulletin, repeat the visual inspection and x-ray inspection 
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, until accomplishment of the 
action specified in paragraph (d) or (g) of this AD.

Any Crack Detected: Corrective Actions and Repetitive Inspections

    (c) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, do the actions specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD per McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision 07, dated February 6, 2001.
    (1) Before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions 
(i.e., modification of the bulkhead; trim forward facing flange; 
stop drill ends of cracks; install repair kit; replacement of 
cracked part with new parts; and install additional doublers) 
identified in Conditions I through XLIII inclusive, excluding 
Conditions XXI, XXXVII, and XXXVIII (not used at this time), of the 
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin; and
    (2) At the times specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of 
the service bulletin, do the applicable repetitive inspections, 
until accomplishment of the action specified in paragraph (d) or (g) 
of this AD.

Concurrent Requirements

    (d) Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, modify the 
ventral aft pressure bulkhead structure by accomplishing all actions 
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas 
DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-165, Revision 3, dated May 3, 1989, per the 
service bulletin; at the applicable time specified in paragraph 
(d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) of this AD.

    Note 2: Modification before the effective date of this AD per 
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-165, dated January 31, 
1983; Revision 1, dated February 20, 1984; or Revision 2, dated 
August 29, 1986; is

[[Page 16991]]

considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of 
paragraph (d) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes on which the bulkhead modification specified 
in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-139, dated September 
26, 1980, or Revision 1, dated April 30, 1981, has been done, except 
as provided by paragraph (d)(3) of this AD: Modify within 15,000 
landings after accomplishment of the bulkhead modification, or 
within 4,000 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever 
occurs later. Accomplishment of this modification constitutes 
terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of 
paragraphs (b) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes on which the production equivalent of the 
modification specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this AD has been done 
before delivery, except as provided by paragraph (d)(3) of this AD: 
Modify before the accumulation of 15,000 total landings, or within 
4,000 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 
later. Accomplishment of this modification constitutes terminating 
action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraphs (b) 
and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (3) For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service 
Bulletin 53-165, Revision 3, dated May 3, 1989, that are specified 
in paragraph (e) of this AD: Modify in conjunction with the 
requirements of paragraph (e) of this AD, or within 18 months after 
accomplishment of the requirements of paragraph (e) of this AD.

Modification: Ventral Aft Pressure Bulkhead

    (e) For Model DC-9-30 and ``50 series airplanes, and C-9 
airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-
157, Revision 1, dated January 7, 1985: Except as provided by 
paragraph (h) of this AD, within 18 months after the effective date 
of this AD, modify the ventral aft pressure bulkhead per the service 
bulletin.

    Note 3: Modification before the effective date of this AD per 
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-157, dated August 11, 
1981, is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements 
of paragraph (e) of this AD.

Compliance with AD 85-01-02 R1

    (f) Accomplishment of the visual and x-ray inspections required 
by paragraph (a) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the 
repetitive inspection requirements of AD 85-01-02 R1.

Terminating Modification

    (g) Accomplishment of the modification (reference McDonnell 
Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-166) required by paragraph (d) or 
(e) of AD 96-10-11 (which references ``DC-9/MD-80 Aging Aircraft 
Service Action Requirements Document'' (SARD), McDonnell Douglas 
Report No. MDC K1572, Revision A, dated June 1, 1990; or Revision B, 
dated January 15, 1993; as the appropriate source of service 
information for accomplishing the modification) terminates the 
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
AD.

Exception to Inspections and Modifications

    (h) As of the effective date of this AD, the inspections and 
modifications required by this AD do NOT need to be done during any 
period that the airplane is operated without cabin pressurization 
and a placard is installed in the cockpit in full view of the pilot 
that states the following: ``OPERATION WITH CABIN PRESSURIZATION IS 
PROHIBITED.''

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (i)(1) An AMOC 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. 
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.
    (2) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 85-01-02 R1, 
amendment 39-4978; or AD 96-10-11, amendment 39-9618; are approved 
as AMOCs for paragraph (a) or (c) of this AD, as appropriate.
    (3) An AMOC for any inspection required by paragraph (a) or (c) 
of this AD that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used 
per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane 
approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative 
who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make 
such findings.

    Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved AMOCs 
with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permit

    (j) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 
Secs. 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.

Incorporation by Reference

    (k) The actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell 
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-137, Revision 07, dated February 6, 
2001; McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-165, Revision 3, 
dated May 3, 1989; and McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-
157, Revision 1, dated January 7, 1985; as applicable. This 
incorporation by reference was approved previously 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 Boeing Commercial Aircraft 
Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 
California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-
L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport 
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 
at the FAA, 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.

Effective Date

    (l) This amendment becomes effective on May 14, 2002.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 28, 2002.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-8279 Filed 4-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P