8644 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

lender, agreeable to SBA which will be

responsible for servicing and liquidating

loans in the case of default under the

agreement by the lender. A lender, or

any successor servicer under a pledge or

securitization agreement, will be

considered the lender of the loan

pledged or securitized under SBA rules,

and will be bound by all restrictions

that otherwise apply to lenders making

SBA loans as long as either continues to

act as servicer. SBA will hold the lender

or successor servicer responsible in the

case of a denial of liability or other

adjustment to the amount of any SBA

guaranty.

§ 120.470 [Amended]

3. Section 120.470(b)(3) is amended

by adding the following sentence at the

end thereof:

* * * * *

(b) * * *

If pursuant to Section 420 of these

regulations an SBLC sells the

unguaranteed portion of loans and

retains either an amount of

unguaranteed portions equal to 5% of

the total amount of the loans the

unguaranteed portions of which are

contained in securitization, or a

subordinate tranche of a securitization

equal to 5% of the face value of the

loans the unguaranteed portions of

which are contained in the

securitization, it must increase its

private capital by 8% of either the face

value of the unguaranteed portions of

the loans retained or 8% of the face

value of the subordinate tranche.

Dated: February 12, 1997.

Ginger Ehn Lew,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–4785 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–272–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–10, –15, and –30

Series Airplanes, and C–9 (Military)

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

9–10, –15, and –30 series airplanes, and

C–9 (military) airplanes. This proposal

would require a one-time visual

inspection to determine if all corners of

the upper cargo doorjamb have been

previously modified, various follow-on

repetitive inspections, and modification,

if necessary. This proposal is prompted

by reports of fatigue cracks found in the

fuselage skin and doubler at the corners

of the upper cargo doorjamb. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to detect and correct such

fatigue cracking, which could result in

rapid decompression of the fuselage and

consequent reduced structural integrity

of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

272–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule 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

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

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 (310) 627–

5324; fax (310) 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.

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 96–NM–272–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–NM–272–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports of

fatigue cracks in the fuselage skin and

doubler at the corners of the upper cargo

doorjamb on Model DC–9 series

airplanes. These cracks were discovered

during inspections conducted as part of

the Supplemental Structural Inspection

Document (SSID) program, required by

AD 96–13–03, amendment 39–9671 (61

FR 31009, June 19, 1996). Investigation

revealed that such cracking was caused

by fatigue-related stress. Fatigue

cracking in the fuselage skin or doubler

at the corners of the upper cargo

doorjamb, if not detected and corrected

in a timely manner, could result in

rapid decompression of the fuselage and

consequent reduced structural integrity

of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC9–53–276, dated September 30, 1996.

The service bulletin describes the

following procedures:

1. For airplanes on which the

modification specified in Service

Bulletin DC9–53–276 has not been

accomplished: Performing x-ray

inspections to detect cracks of the

fuselage skin and doubler at all corners

of the upper cargo doorjamb;

2. Conducting repetitive inspections,

or modifying the corner skin of the

upper cargo doorjamb and performing

follow-on action eddy current

inspections, if no cracking is detected;
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8645

3. Performing repetitive eddy current

inspections to detect cracks on the skin

adjacent to any corner that has been

modified; and

4. Modifying any crack that is found

to be 2 inches or less in length at all

corners that have not been modified and

performing follow-on repetitive eddy

current inspections.

Accomplishment of the modification

will minimize the possibility of cracks

in the fuselage skin and doubler.

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

require a one-time visual inspection to

determine if all corners of the upper

cargo doorjamb have been previously

modified, various follow-on repetitive

inspections, and modification, if

necessary. The follow-on repetitive

inspections would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

Differences Between the Proposed Rule

and the Relevant Service Information

The referenced service bulletin

recommends performing an initial x-ray

inspection in the fuselage skin and

doubler at all corners of the upper cargo

doorjamb. However, the FAA is

unaware of the existence of an adequate

x-ray inspection method for inspecting

corners that have been modified.

Therefore, for cases where the corners of

the upper cargo doorjamb have been

modified, the proposed AD would

require an eddy current inspection to

detect cracks on skin adjacent to the

modification. For cases where the

corners of the upper cargo doorjamb

have not been modified, the proposed

AD would require an x-ray inspection,

as described previously. Since these

inspections are dependent on whether

the corners have been modified or not,

the FAA finds that an initial one-time

visual inspection is necessary to make

such a determination.

Operators should note that, although

the service bulletin specifies that the

manufacturer must be contacted for

disposition of certain conditions, this

proposal would require the repair of

those conditions to be accomplished in

accordance with a method approved by

the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 93

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–10,

–15, and –30 series airplanes, and C–9

(military) airplanes, of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 80 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed one-time

visual inspection, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

one-time visual inspection proposed by

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $4,800, or $60 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the necessary x-ray

inspection, it would take approximately

1 work hour per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of any necessary x-ray

inspection action is estimated to be $60

per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the necessary eddy current

inspection, it would take approximately

1 work hour per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of any necessary eddy current

inspection action is estimated to be $60

per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the necessary modification,

it would take approximately 14 work

hours per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

The cost of required parts could range

from $714 per airplane to as much as

$1,526 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of any necessary

modification action is estimated to be

between $1,554 and $2,366 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would 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

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 96–NM–272–

AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9–10, –15, and

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

airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–276, dated

September 30, 1996; certificated in any

category.

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 (d) 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 cracking in

the fuselage skin or doubler at the corners of

the upper cargo doorjamb, which could result

in rapid decompression of the fuselage and

consequent reduced structural integrity of the

airplane, accomplish the following:
8646 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Note 2: Where there are differences

between the service bulletin and the AD, the

AD prevails.

Note 3: The words ‘‘repair’’ and ‘‘modify/

modification’’ in this AD and the referenced

service bulletin are used interchangeably.

Note 4: This AD will affect Principal

Structural Element (PSE) 53.09.023 of the

DC–9 Supplemental Inspection Document

(SID).

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 41,000 total

landings, or within 3,000 landings after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform a one-time visual inspection to

determine if the corners of the upper cargo

doorjamb have been modified prior to the

effective date of this AD.

(b) If the visual inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD reveals that the

corners of the upper cargo doorjamb have not

been modified, prior to further flight, perform

an x-ray inspection to detect cracks of the

fuselage skin and doubler at all corners of the

upper cargo doorjamb, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–276, dated September 30, 1996.

(1) If no crack is detected during the x-ray

inspection required by this paragraph,

accomplish the requirements of either

paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this AD, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–53–276, dated September 30,

1996.

(i) Option 1. Repeat the x-ray inspection

required by paragraph (b) of this AD

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000

landings; or

(ii) Option 2. Prior to further flight, modify

the corner skin of the upper cargo doorjamb,

in accordance with the service bulletin. Prior

to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after

accomplishment of the modification, perform

an eddy current inspection to detect cracks

on the skin adjacent to the modification, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(A) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during the eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, repeat the eddy current inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000

landings.

(B) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate.

(2) If any crack is found during any x-ray

inspection required by this paragraph and the

crack is 2 inches or less in length: Prior to

further flight, modify/repair it in accordance

with the service bulletin. Prior to the

accumulation of 28,000 landings after

accomplishment of the modification, perform

an eddy current inspection to detect cracks

on the skin adjacent to the modification, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(i) If no crack is detected during the eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, repeat the eddy current inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000

landings.

(ii) If any crack is detected during any eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(3) If any crack is found during any x-ray

inspection required by this paragraph and the

crack is greater than 2 inches in length: Prior

to further flight, modification it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(c) If the visual inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD reveals that the

corners of the upper cargo doorjamb have

been modified previously: Prior to the

accumulation of 28,000 landings after

accomplishment of that modification, or

within 3,000 landings after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform

an eddy current inspection to detect cracks

on the skin adjacent to the modification, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–53–276, dated September 30,

1996.

(1) If no crack is detected during the eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, repeat the eddy current inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000

landings.

(2) If any crack is detected during any eddy

current inspection required by this

paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(d) 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 ACO. 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 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(e) 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 February

20, 1997.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4714 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–196–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Model DH 125–1A and –3A Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Raytheon Model DH 125–1A and

–3A series airplanes. This proposal

would require repetitive eddy current

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

the main entry door/frame pressing, and

repair, if necessary. This proposal is

prompted by reports of fatigue cracking

of the main entry door/frame pressing

due to cyclic loading of the door frame.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to detect and correct

such fatigue cracking, which could lead

to the loss of structural integrity of the

main entry door, and, consequently,

result in decompression of the cabin.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

196–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Raytheon Aircraft Company,

Commercial Service Department, P.O.

Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or the FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

Small Airplane Directorate, 1801

Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Engler, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

Small Airplane Directorate, 1801

Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone (316) 946–4122; fax (316)

946–4407.

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