Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41385

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–04–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40,

and –50 Series Airplanes and C–9

(Military) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–10,

–20, –30, –40, and –50 series airplanes,

that currently requires repetitive

radiographic and ultrasonic or eddy

current inspections, and modification of

the upper cap of the front spar of the left

and right engine pylons, if necessary.

This action would require new,

improved x-ray and eddy current

inspections to detect cracks of the upper

cap of the front spar of the left and right

engine pylons, and repetitive

inspections or corrective actions, if

necessary. This action also would

require modification of the subject area,

which would constitute terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirements. This proposal is

prompted by additional reports of

fatigue cracking in the subject area of

these airplanes. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent failure of the upper cap of the

front spar of the engine pylons due to

fatigue cracking, and consequent

reduced structural integrity of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

04–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be submitted via fax to

(425) 227–1232. Comments may also be

sent via the Internet using the following

address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov.

Comments sent via fax or the Internet

must contain ‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–

04–AD’’ in the subject line and need not

be submitted in triplicate. Comments

sent via the Internet as attached

electronic files must be formatted in

Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or

ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group,

Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood

Boulevard, Long Beach, California

90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Dept. C1–L51 (2–60). This information

may be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5324; fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–04–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

2000–NM–04–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

In 1977, the FAA issued AD 77–44–

19, amendment 39–2971, applicable to

certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

9–10, –20, –30, –40, and –50 series

airplanes, to require repetitive

radiographic and ultrasonic or eddy

current inspections, and modification of

the upper cap of the front spar of the left

and right engine pylons, if necessary.

The requirements of that AD are

intended to detect fatigue cracks and/or

failure of the upper cap of the front spar

of the left and right engine pylons.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 77–14–19,

the FAA has received additional reports

of fatigue cracking in the subject area of

the upper cap of the front spar of the left

and right engine pylons. The airplanes

on which the cracking occurred had

accumulated between 10,162 and 23,850

total flight hours. Investigation revealed

that the repetitive ultrasonic and eddy

current inspections, as required by AD

77–14–19, do not adequately detect

fatigue cracking in the subject area.

Such fatigue cracking, if not detected

and corrected, could result in failure of

the upper cap of the front spar of the left

and right engine pylons, and consequent

reduced structural integrity of the

airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC9–54–030, Revision 06, dated

November 11, 1999. The service bulletin

describes procedures for x-ray and eddy

current inspections to detect cracks of

the upper cap of the front spar of the left

and right engine pylons, and repetitive

inspections or corrective actions (i.e.,

the modification described below), if

necessary. The service bulletin also

describes procedures for an optional

modification of the upper cap of the

front spar of the left and right engine

pylons, which would eliminate the need

for the repetitive inspections.

41386 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 77–14–19 to continue to

require radiographic and ultrasonic or

eddy current inspections. The proposed

AD also would require accomplishment

of the actions specified in the service

bulletin described previously, except as

discussed below.

Differences Between the Proposed AD

and Relevant Service Information

Operators should note that this AD

proposes to mandate, prior to the

accumulation of 100,000 total landings,

or within 6 months after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later,

the modification of the upper cap of the

front spar of the left and right engine

pylons described in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–54–030, Revision

06, as terminating action for the

repetitive inspections. (Incorporation of

the terminating action is specified in

this service bulletin as optional).

The FAA has determined that longterm continued operational safety will

be better assured by design changes to

remove the source of the problem, rather

than by repetitive inspections. Longterm inspections may not be providing

the degree of safety assurance necessary

for the transport airplane fleet. This,

coupled with a better understanding of

the human factors associated with

numerous continual inspections, has led

the FAA to consider placing less

emphasis on inspections and more

emphasis on design improvements. The

proposed modification requirement is

consistent with these conditions.

Explanation of Change of Applicability

The applicability of AD 77–14–19

includes affected airplanes having

fuselage numbers 1 through 837.

However, the applicability of this

proposed AD removes several of those

fuselage numbers because those

airplanes are out of service.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 809 Model

DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40, and –50 series

airplanes and C–9 (military) airplanes of

the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 572

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 77–14–19, and retained

in this proposed AD, take approximately

12 work hours per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the currently

required actions on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $411,840, or $720 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new inspection that is proposed

in this AD action would take

approximately 12 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of this

inspection proposed by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $411,840, or

$720 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new modification that is

proposed in this AD action would take

approximately 110 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $30,496 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the modification proposed by this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$21,218,912, or $37,096 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or proposed requirements of

this AD action, and that no operator

would accomplish those actions in the

future if this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship

between the national Government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

promulgated, 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 copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–2971, and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2000–NM–04–

AD. Supersedes AD 77–14–19,

Amendment 39–2971.

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

–40, and –50 series airplanes and C–9

(military) airplanes; as listed in McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–54–030,

Revision 06, dated November 11, 1999;

certificated in any category; except for those

airplanes on which Special Change

Notification 1269A, dated August 11, 1965,

or Service Rework Drawing SR09540004,

Change ‘‘E,’’ dated September 21, 1992,

Change ‘‘F,’’ dated April 19, 1995, Change

‘‘G,’’ dated May 6, 1997, or Change ‘‘H,’’

dated July 12, 1997, has been accomplished.

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 (g) 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 prevent failure of the front spar

attachment and upper cap of the engine

pylons due to fatigue cracking, and

consequent reduced structural integrity of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

Repetitive Inspections

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 9,800 total

flight hours, or within the next 1,800 flight

hours after August 23, 1977 (the effective

date of AD 77–14–19, amendment 39–2971),

whichever occurs later, unless accomplished

previously within the last 1,800 flight hours,

accomplish the radiographic and ultrasonic

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41387

or eddy current inspections in accordance

with the instructions in Douglas Service

Bulletin 54–30, dated January 19, 1977.

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 3,600 flight hours. For those

operators who have conducted only the

radiographic inspections in accordance with

Douglas All Operators Letter AOL 9–835,

dated October 30, 1974, perform the

ultrasonic or eddy current inspections, and

thereafter, the radiographic and ultrasonic or

eddy current inspection in accordance with

the requirements of this AD, as applicable.

Note 2: Inspections accomplished prior to

the effective date of this AD in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

54–30, Revision 1, dated June 29, 1977,

Revision 2, dated October 27, 1978, Revision

3, dated April 30, 1986, or Revision 4, dated

March 25, 1991; or McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–54–030, Revision 05,

dated August 26, 1999, or Revision 06, dated

November 11, 1999; are considered

acceptable for compliance with the

inspections required by paragraph (a) of this

AD.

Initial Inspections and Follow-On/Corrective

Action

(b) For airplanes on which the

modification specified in paragraph (e) of

this AD has not been accomplished: Prior to

the accumulation of 8,000 total flight hours

or within 3,600 flight hours after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later,

perform x-ray and eddy current inspections

to detect cracks of the upper cap of the front

spar of the left and right engine pylons, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–54–030, Revision 06, dated

November 11, 1999. Accomplishment of

these inspections constitutes terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

No Crack Detected: Repetitive Inspections

(c) If no crack is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) or (b) of

this AD, repeat the inspections thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours

until the modification required by paragraph

(e) of this AD is accomplished.

Any Crack Detected: Modification

(d) If any crack is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) or (b) of

this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish

the modification specified in paragraph (e) of

this AD.

Terminating Modification

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

this AD, prior to the accumulation of 100,000

total landings, or within 6 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, modify the upper cap of the front spar

of the left and right engine pylons in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–54–030, Revision 06, dated

November 11, 1999. Accomplishment of this

modification constitutes terminating action

for the requirements of this AD.

Note 3: Accomplishment of the

modification of the upper cap of the front

spar of the left and right engine pylons prior

to the effective date of this AD in accordance

with Douglas Service Bulletin 54–30,

Revision 4, dated March 25, 1991, or

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

54–030, Revision 5, dated August 26, 1999;

is considered acceptable for compliance with

the modification specified in paragraph (e) of

this AD.

(f) Accomplishment of the terminating

modification required by paragraph (e) of this

AD constitutes compliance with the actions

specified in McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin 54–30, Revision 4, dated March 25,

1991, as required by AD 96–10–11,

amendment 39–9618 (61 FR 24675, May 16,

1996) [which references ‘‘DC–9/MD–80

Aging Aircraft Service Action Requirements

Document’’ (SARD), McDonnell Douglas

Report MDC K1572, Revision B, dated

January 15, 1993].

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(g) 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 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(h) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 27,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–16927 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00–AAL–6]

Proposed Revision of Class E

Airspace; Wainwright, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action revises Class E

airspace at Wainwright, AK. The

revision of instrument approaches to

runway (RWY) 4 and RWY 22 at

Wainwright Airport, Wainwright, AK,

have made this action necessary.

Adoption of this proposal would result

in the provision of adequate controlled

airspace for Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR) operations at Wainwright, AK.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before August 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Manager,

Operations Branch, AAL–530, Docket

No. 00–AAL–6, Federal Aviation

Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue,

Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Regional Counsel for

the Alaskan Region at the same address.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

in the Office of the Manager, Operations

Branch, Air Traffic Division, at the

address shown above and on the

Internet at Alaskan Region’s homepage

at http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at or at

address http://162.58.28.41/at.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob

Durand, Operations Branch, Federal

Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th

Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–

7587; telephone number (907) 271–

5898; fax: (907) 271–2850; email:

Bob.Durand@faa.gov. Internet address:

http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at or at

address http://162.58.28.41/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00–

AAL–6.’’ The postcard will be date/time

stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Operations Branch,