48284 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in German airworthiness directive 97–066,

dated March 13, 1997.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

October 8, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August

27, 1999.

Vi L. Lipski,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 99–22923 Filed 9–2–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–69–AD; Amendment

39–11289; AD 99–18–23]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–90–30 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all McDonnell Douglas

MD–90–30 series airplanes, that

requires revising the Airworthiness

Limitations Section of the Instructions

for Continued Airworthiness [MD–90–

30 Airworthiness Limitations

Instructions (ALI)] to incorporate certain

replacement times for safe-life limited

parts. This amendment is prompted by

analysis of data that identified reduced

replacement times for certain safe-life

limited parts. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent fatigue

cracking of various safe-life limited

parts; such fatigue cracking could

adversely affect the structural integrity

of these airplanes.

DATES: Effective October 8, 1999.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of October 8,

1999.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from The Boeing Company, Douglas

Products 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 Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brent Bandley, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5237; 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 all McDonnell

Douglas MD–90–30 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

March 2, 1999 (64 FR 10113). That

action proposed to require revising the

Airworthiness Limitations Section of

the Instructions for Continued

Airworthiness [MD–90–30

Airworthiness Limitations Instructions

(ALI)] to incorporate certain

replacement times for safe-life limited

parts.

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.

Support for the Proposal

One commenter supports the

proposed rule.

Request To Withdraw Proposed AD

One commenter states that timely

incorporation of revisions to the ALI

may be secured by processes other than

the issuance of an AD. The commenter

contends that the proposed AD places

an unnecessary burden on engineering

and maintenance personnel and defeats

the regulatory mandates that are

currently in place by standing Federal

Aviation Regulations (FAR). The ALI is

currently monitored and revised as new

revisions are issued and made available

by the manufacturer. This practice is

duplicated with other similar

maintenance and operational

documents, including, but not limited

to, aircraft maintenance manuals, flight

manuals, pilot’s operating handbooks,

and aircraft service bulletins. The

commenter also states that Model MD–

90 series airplanes are operated in

accordance with the Type Certificate

(TC) of the aircraft. In order to adhere

to operation of the aircraft in accordance

with the TC, the commenter asserts that

it is clear to operators that the ALI and

its subsequent revisions must be

considered and accomplished

concurrent with any other requirement

specified within the parameters of the

TC.

From this comment, the FAA infers

that the commenter is requesting that

the proposed AD be withdrawn. The

FAA does not concur. In accordance

with the airworthiness standards

requiring ‘‘damage tolerance

assessments’’ (current Section 1529 of

14 CFR parts 23, 25, 27, and 29; Section

4 of 14 CFR parts 33 and 35; Section 82

of 14 CFR part 31; and the Appendices

referenced in those sections), all

products certificated to comply with

those sections must have Instructions

for Continued Airworthiness (or, for

some products, maintenance manuals),

that include an Airworthiness

Limitations Section (ALS).

Based on in-service data or post

certification testing and evaluation, the

manufacturer may revise the ALS to

include new or more restrictive life

limits and inspections, or it may become

necessary for the FAA to impose new or

more restrictive life limits and structural

inspections, in order to ensure

continued structural integrity and

continued compliance with damage

tolerance requirements. However, in

order to require compliance with these

new inspection requirements and life

limits for previously certificated

airplanes, the FAA must engage in

rulemaking. Because loss of structural

integrity would constitute an unsafe

condition, it is appropriate to impose

these requirements through the AD

process. Although prudent operators

may already have incorporated the latest

revisions of the ALI, issuance of this AD

ensures that all operators take

appropriate action to correct the

identified unsafe condition. It should be

noted that, simultaneously with the

issuance of the AD, the responsible

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) will

revise the TC data sheet for the product

to indicate the change in the

airworthiness limitations.

The practice of mandating ALS

revisions has been used for several years

and is not a novel or unique procedure.

The FAA finds that requiring ALS

revisions has the advantage of keeping

all airworthiness limitations, whether

imposed by original certification or by

AD, in one place within the operator’s

maintenance program, thereby reducing

the risk of non-compliance because of

oversight or confusion. In some cases

where there is a large fleet of airplanes

with several small operators, it is

possible that operators may not receive
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 48285

revisions to the ALS documents. The

AD process ensures that these operators

are aware of the revisions to the ALS.

Request To Delete Paragraph (b) of the

Proposed AD

One commenter states that the

restriction imposed by paragraph (b) of

the proposed AD does not take into

consideration: (1) Any individual part

with safe-life limits imposed by special

analysis and approved by the

manufacturer on an individual basis; or

(2) future revision of the safe-life limits

section of the ALI. The commenter also

states that the proposed AD would

ultimately requires that each part be

analyzed by the manufacturer (and

subsequently approved with a safe-life

limit deviation from the ALI) and

submitted to the FAA for approval as an

alternative method of compliance

(AMOC).

From this comment, the FAA infers

that the commenter is requesting that

paragraph (b) of the proposed AD be

deleted. The FAA does not concur.

Paragraph (b) is necessary because

section 91.403 of the FAR would

otherwise permit operation in

accordance with alternative inspection

intervals set forth in approved

operations specifications or inspection

programs, which might conflict with the

intervals referenced in this AD.

However, under the provisions of

paragraph (c) of the final rule, the FAA

may approve requests for AMOC’s or

adjustments to the compliance time if

data are submitted to substantiate that

such a method or adjustment would

provide an acceptable level of safety.

In addition, the FAA agrees with the

commenter that any reduction or

expansion to the safe-life limits has to

be coordinated between the operator,

manufacturer, and the FAA. However,

the FAA finds that this will not impose

a significant burden because such

changes must already be FAA-approved.

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 as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 150

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

100 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the required actions, 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 $6,000, or $60 per

airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is 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.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

99–18–23 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment

39–11289. Docket 98–NM–69–AD.

Applicability: All Model MD–90–30

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) 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 fatigue cracking of various safelife limited parts, which could adversely

affect the structural integrity of these

airplanes, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 180 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Airworthiness

Limitations Section of the Instructions for

Continued Airworthiness [Airworthiness

Limitations Instructions (ALI), McDonnell

Douglas Report No. MDC–94K9000, dated

November 1994] to incorporate the Part

Number, Item, and Mandatory Replacement

Time of certain safe-life limited parts by

inserting a copy of Revision 3, dated

November 1997, into the ALI.

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

this AD: After the actions specified in

paragraph (a) of this AD have been

accomplished, no alternative replacement

times may be approved for the safe-life

limited parts specified in McDonnell Douglas

ALI Report No. MDC–94K9000, Revision 3,

dated November 1997.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) 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, the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office. 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 2: 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

(d) 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.

Incorporation by Reference

(e) The ALI revision shall be done in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas

Airworthiness Limitations Instructions

Report No. MDC–94K9000, Revision 3, dated

November 1997, which contains the

following list of effective pages:
48286 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

Page No. Revision level shown on page Date shown on

page

List of Effective Pages ............................................................... Not Shown ................................................................................ November 1997.

(Note: The revision level is indicated only on

the Title page; no other page contains this

information.) This incorporation by reference

was approved by the Director of the Federal

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

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from The Boeing Company, Douglas Products

Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long

Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration, Dept.

C1–L51 (2–60). Copies may be inspected at

the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

October 8, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August

27, 1999.

Vi L. Lipski,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 99–22922 Filed 9–2–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–ANE–54–AD; Amendment

39–11286; AD 99–18–20]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General

Electric Company CF6–50, –80A1/A3,

and –80C2A Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to General Electric Company

(GE) CF6–50, –80A1/A3, and –80C2A

series turbofan engines installed on

Airbus A300 and A310 series airplanes,

that requires initial and repetitive thrust

reverser inspections and checks, and

allows extended repetitive inspection

intervals if an optional double p-seal

configuration is installed. This

amendment is prompted by the report of

a higher than anticipated center drive

unit (CDU) cone brake failure rate which

reduces the overall thrust reverser

system protection against inadvertent

deployment. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent

inadvertent in-flight thrust reverser

deployment, which can result in loss of

control of the airplane.

DATES: Effective November 2, 1999.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of November

2, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Middle River Aircraft Systems,

Mail Point 46, 103 Chesapeake Park

Plaza, Baltimore, MD, 21220–4295, attn:

Warranty Support, telephone: (410)

682–0094, fax: (410) 682–0100. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

New England Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William S. Ricci, Aerospace Engineer,

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine

and Propeller Directorate, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299; telephone (781) 238–7742,

fax (781) 238–7199.

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 General Electric

Company (GE) CF6–50, –80A1/A3, and

–80C2A series turbofan engines

installed on Airbus A300 and A310

series airplanes was published in the

Federal Register on February 23, 1999

(64 FR 8762). That action proposed to

require initial and repetitive thrust

reverser inspections and checks, and

allow extended repetitive inspection

intervals if an optional double p-seal

configuration is installed.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

One commenter requests an initial

inspection interval of at least 860 hours

time-in-service (TIS). The commenter

states that it performs B-checks at

intervals of 430 hours TIS and opens the

fan reverser at every other B-check (at

intervals of 860 hours TIS) for engine

accessibility. The FAA does not concur.

The thrust reverser system safety

analysis indicates that extending the

initial compliance interval would

increase the probability of an

inadvertent deployment of the thrust

reverser in-flight and provide an

unacceptable level of safety. The FAA

determined the need to establish system

integrity in the fleet, and the 600 hour

TIS initial compliance interval for CF6–

80C2A series engines provides that level

of safety. The desire to conform

inspections to an operator’s scheduled

maintenance, by itself, is not sufficient

to change the initial inspection interval.

One commenter requests inspections

performed in accordance with Revision

1 of Middle River Aircraft Systems CF6–

80A1/A3 Service Bulletin (SB) No. 78–

1002 be accepted for compliance with

the proposed rule. The FAA does not

concur. Revision 3 of SB No. 78–1002

includes inspections of electrical cables,

the aft frame, and the ball screw housing

that are not included in earlier

revisions.

One commenter states that airplanes

that have not had components removed,

replaced, or modified which could alter

the actuation system rigging, or that

have undergone previous health check

inspections, should not be required to

have the fan reverser operational check

portion of the initial inspection

performed. The FAA does not concur.

The purpose of a fan reverser

operational check is to ensure that the

system has been restored to operational

status after inspections have been

completed.

One commenter requests that the

reporting requirement, contained in the

Accomplishment Instructions of the SB,

should be omitted from the proposed

rule. The FAA does not concur. The

instruction to report inspection results

is to the manufacturer, not the FAA. The

FAA did not impose a specific reporting

requirement in the proposed rule.

However, the FAA recommends

reporting inspection results to the

manufacturer in accordance with the

SB, as reporting inspection results is

important to ensure that the failure rate

data used in the risk analysis to

establish inspection requirements and

intervals remain valid.

One commenter believes it is not

necessary to start the engine to perform

the operational check. The FAA

concurs. Connection of an external

pneumatic power source to the airplane

ground connection, or auxiliary power

unit (APU), in accordance with the