This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

59146

Vol. 65, No. 193

Wednesday, October 4, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–164–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–80 Series

Airplanes and Model MD–88 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–9–80

series airplanes and Model MD–88

airplanes, that currently requires a onetime inspection to detect cracking of the

main landing gear (MLG) pistons, and

repair or replacement of the pistons

with new or serviceable parts, if

necessary. This action would require,

among other actions, repetitive dye

penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons; repair and replacement of

discrepant parts; and installation of a

preventative modification; as

applicable. This action also would

provide for an optional terminating

action for certain MLG pistons. This

proposal is prompted by additional

reports of failure of the MLG pistons

during towing of the airplanes. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent fatigue cracking

of the MLG pistons, which could result

in failure of the pistons and subsequent

damage to the airplane structure or

injury to airplane occupants.

DATES: Comments must be received by

November 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

164–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. 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. 99–NM–164–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 FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brent Bandley, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5237; 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.

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 99–NM–164–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.

99–NM–164–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On September 5, 1996, the FAA

issued AD 96–19–09, amendment 39–

9756 (61 FR 48617, September 16,

1996), applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–80 series

airplanes and Model MD–88 airplanes,

to require a one-time inspection to

detect cracking of the main landing gear

(MLG) pistons, and repair or

replacement of the pistons with new or

serviceable parts, if necessary. That

action was prompted by reports of

failure of the MLG pistons that occurred

during towing of the airplanes. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent fatigue cracking of the MLG

pistons, which could result in failure of

the pistons and subsequent damage to

the airplane structure or injury to

airplane occupants.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 96–19–09,

the FAA has received additional reports

of cracked MLG pistons on the affected

airplanes. The FAA has determined that

the one-time inspection of the MLG

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59147

pistons required by AD 96–19–09 does

not adequately preclude fatigue cracking

of the MLG pistons. Also, Boeing has

completed its assessment to establish a

life limit for the MLG pistons affected

by this AD.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer issued, and the

FAA reviewed and approved,

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD80–32–277, Revision 04, dated

December 7, 1999. The service bulletin

describes a new life limit (i.e., 30,000 or

60,000 total landings, as applicable) for

the affected MLG pistons. The service

bulletin also describes the following

improved procedures for the affected

airplanes depending on the

configuration:

• Performing repetitive dye penetrant

and magnetic particle inspections to

detect cracks of the MLG pistons. And

• Performing a preventative

modification that involves various

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons; repair and replacement of

discrepant parts, as applicable; wet

grinding the rework area; flap shot

peening the rework area; and

reidentifying the MLG pistons.

Accomplishment of the preventative

modification stops the repetitive dye

penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections. And

• Flap shot peening, replacing the

MLG piston with a new or serviceable

MLG piston, and contacting Boeing for

certain conditions.

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 96–19–09 to require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletin described

previously, except as described below.

Error in Referenced Service Bulletin

For Group 1 airplanes, the referenced

service bulletin incorrectly refers to

paragraph 1.E. for the repetitive

inspection schedule for Condition 3,

Option 1 of the Accomplishment

Instructions. Paragraph 1.E. does not

contain such a repetitive inspection

schedule.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin

The effectivity listing of the

referenced service bulletin lists the

affected airplanes by groups (i.e., Group

1, Group 2, and Group 3). The FAA

finds that Group 1 and 2 airplanes do

not include all of the affected modified

pistons. For Groups 1 and 2, the

referenced service bulletin only refers to

pistons that have been inspected,

replaced, or modified per prior issues of

the service bulletin. However, affected

pistons may have been modified per

other service documents in addition to

previous revisions of the referenced

service bulletin. Also, the FAA finds no

need to specifically reference MLG

pistons that have been inspected or

replaced per prior issues of the service

bulletin, because the only thing that

defines Groups 1 and 2 is whether the

affected piston has been modified. The

FAA also finds that Groups 1 and 2 of

the referenced service bulletin do not

include the specific affected MLG

pistons [i.e., part number (P/N)

5935347–1 through 5935347–509

inclusive]. Therefore, this proposed AD

references the specific affected MLG

pistons and whether that piston has

been modified, rather than the airplanes

specified in the service bulletin.

Operators also should note that,

although the referenced service bulletin

specifies that the manufacturer may be

contacted for disposition of certain

repair conditions, this proposed AD

would require the repair of those

conditions to be accomplished in

accordance with a method approved by

the FAA.

The referenced service bulletin also

specifies that landing gear pistons,

modified per one of the following

conditions, are acceptable as having

complied with the intent of the service

bulletin:

1. As a result of procedure

verification;

2. As a repair per operator’s inquiry

and Boeing disposition; or

3. As a preventative modification

accomplished by operators who

participated in the procedure

verification prior to the issuance of this

service bulletin revision. However, this

proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions in

accordance with the procedures

specified in the referenced service

bulletin. Any other procedure may be

used only if approved as an alternative

method of compliance in accordance

with paragraph (m) of this AD.

The referenced service bulletin

recommends performing repetitive

visual inspections to detect cracks in the

topcoat paint of the MLG piston,

performing a non-destructive testing

(NDT) inspection, and contacting

Boeing, if necessary. The FAA has

determined that the repetitive

inspections of the MLG pistons and

eventual preventative modification

required by this proposed AD

adequately addresses the identified

unsafe condition for the interim.

Therefore, the repetitive visual

inspections of the topcoat paint and

NDT inspection are not required by the

proposed AD.

For any piston having P/N 5935347–

511 that has accumulated 30,000 or

more total landings, the referenced

service bulletin recommends either

replacing the MLG piston with a new or

serviceable MLG piston or contacting

Boeing. The FAA has consulted with

Boeing and determined that any piston

having P/N 5935347–511 that has

accumulated 30,000 or more total

landings must be replaced. Therefore,

the proposed AD only requires

replacement of those pistons.

Operators also should note that,

unlike the referenced service bulletin,

the proposed AD provides for an

optional terminating action for the

requirements of the AD. The optional

terminating action involves replacing all

MLG pistons with MLG pistons having

P/N 5935347–517, which are redesigned

pistons that will adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

Interim Action

This is considered to be interim

action. The manufacturer has advised

that it currently is developing a

replacement schedule to eventually

remove all affected MLG pistons from

the fleet and replace them with

redesigned MLG pistons. Once this

replacement schedule is developed,

approved, and available, the FAA may

consider additional rulemaking.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,200 Model

DC–9–80 series airplanes and Model

MD–88 airplanes of the affected design

in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 700 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

Should an operator be required to do

the dye pernetrant and magnetic particle

inspections, it would take

approximately 2 work hours per MLG

piston to accomplish the inspections, at

an average lavor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on thes figures, the cost

impact of these inspections proposed by

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $120 per MLG piston.

Should an operator be required to do

the preventative modidfication, it would

take approximately 6 work hours per

MLG piston to accomplish the

inspections, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of these

inspections proposed by this AD on U.S.

59148 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

operators is estimated to be $36 per

MLG piston.

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. 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.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

action that would be provided by this

AD action, it would take approximately

31 work hours per MLG piston to

accomplish it, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. The cost of required

parts would be approximately $107,070

per MLG piston. Based on these figures,

the cost impact of the optional

terminating action would be $108,930

per MLG piston.

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 39–9756 (61 FR

48617, September 16, 1996), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 99–NM–164–

AD. Supersedes AD 96–19–09,

Amendment 39–9756.

Applicability: Model DC–9–81 (MD–81),

DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and

DC–9–87 (MD–87) series airplanes; and

Model MD–88 airplanes; as listed in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–

32–277, Revision 04, dated December 7,

1999; 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 (m)(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 prevent fatigue cracking of the main

landing gear (MLG) pistons, which could

result in failure of the pistons and

subsequent damage to the airplane structure

or injury to airplane occupants, accomplish

the following:

For Airplanes on Which Certain Pistons

Have Not Been Modified: Inspections

(a) For airplanes on which any MLG

piston, part number (P/N) 5935347–1 through

5935347–509 inclusive, has NOT been

modified: Do the actions specified in

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD,

as applicable, per the Accomplishment

Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04, dated

December 7, 1999.

(1) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated less than 5,000 total landings

since date of manufacture: Prior to the

accumulation of 5,000 total landings on the

MLG piston, or within 12 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, do dye penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons.

(2) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated 5,000 or more total landings

since date of manufacture, but less than

30,000 total landings since date of

manufacture: Within 1,500 landings on the

MLG piston or 12 months after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do

dye penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons.

(3) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated 30,000 or more total landings

since date of manufacture: Within 2 years or

5,000 landings on the MLG piston after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

first, do the preventative modification

(including inspections; corrective actions, if

necessary; wet grind rework area; flap shot

peen rework area; and reidentify the MLG

pistons); except as required by paragraph (k)

of this AD. Following accomplishment of the

preventative modification, do the actions

specified in paragraph (e) at the time

indicated in that paragraph.

For Airplanes on Which Certain Pistons

Have Not Been Modified: Condition 1 (No

Crack)

(b) If no crack is found during any

inspection required by either paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD, do the actions specified

in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD.

(1) Condition 1, Option 1. Do the actions

specified in either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or

(b)(1)(ii) of this AD, and in paragraph

(b)(1)(iii) of this AD.

(i) Repeat the inspections required by

either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500

landings until the permanent modification

required by paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this AD

has been done.

(ii) Before further flight, do the flap shot

peening per McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04, dated

December 7, 1999. Repeat the inspections

required by either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of

this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed

2,500 landings until the permanent

modification required by paragraph (b)(1)(iii)

of this AD has been done.

(iii) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 or

more total landings on the MLG piston, do

the preventative modification (including

inspections; corrective actions, if necessary;

wet grind rework area; flap shot peen rework

area; and reidentify the MLG pistons), per the

Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

Revision 04, dated December 7, 1999; except

as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

Accomplishment of the permanent

modification stops the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and

(b)(1)(ii) of this AD. Following

accomplishment of the preventative

modification, do the actions specified in

paragraph (e) at the time indicated in that

paragraph.

(2) Condition 1, Option 2. Before further

flight, do the preventative modification

(including inspections; corrective actions, if

necessary; wet grind rework area; flap shot

peen rework area; and reidentify the MLG

pistons) per Condition 1, Option 2, of the

Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59149

Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

Revision 04, dated December 7, 1999; except

as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

Following accomplishment of the

preventative modification, do the actions

specified in paragraph (e) at the time

indicated in that paragraph.

For Airplanes on Which Certain Pistons

Have Not Been Modified: Condition 2 (Any

Crack Within Limits)

(c) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by either paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD, and that crack is within

the limits specified in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04,

dated December 7, 1999, before further flight,

do the action(s) specified in either paragraph

(c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD.

(1) Do the preventative modification

(including inspections; corrective actions, if

necessary; wet grind rework area; flap shot

peen rework area; and reidentify the MLG

pistons) per the Accomplishment

Instructions of the service bulletin; except as

required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

Following accomplishment of the

preventative modification, do the actions

specified in paragraph (e) or (h) of this AD,

as applicable, at the time indicated in that

paragraph.

(2) Replace the MLG piston with a new or

serviceable MLG piston per the service

bulletin. Following accomplishment of the

replacement, do the actions specified in

paragraph (a), (e), or (h) of this AD, as

applicable, at the time indicated in that

paragraph.

For Airplanes on Which Certain Pistons

Have Not Been Modified: Condition 3 (Any

Crack Outside Limits)

(d) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by either paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD that is outside the limits

specified in McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04, dated

December 7, 1999, before further flight, do

the action(s) specified in paragraph (d)(1) or

(d)(2) of this AD.

(1) Condition 3, Option 1. Replace the MLG

piston with a new or serviceable MLG piston

per the service bulletin. Following

accomplishment of the replacement, do the

actions specified in paragraph (a), (e), or (h)

of this AD, as applicable, at the time

indicated in that paragraph.

(2) Condition 3, Option 2. Repair per a

method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA.

For Airplanes on Which Certain Pistons

Have Been Modified: Replacement or

Inspections and Corrective Actions, If

Necessary

(e) For airplanes on which any MLG

piston, part number (P/N) 5935347–1 through

5935347–509 inclusive, has been modified:

(1) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated 30,000 or more landings since

accomplishment of the modification: Within

6 months after the effective date of this AD,

replace the MLG piston with a new or

serviceable MLG piston per the service

bulletin. Following accomplishment of the

replacement, do the actions specified in

paragraph (a), (e), or (h) of this AD, as

applicable, at the time indicated in that

paragraph.

(2) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated less than 30,000 landings since

accomplishment of the modification: Do dye

penetrant and magnetic particle inspections

to detect cracks of the MLG pistons, per the

Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

Revision 04, dated December 7, 1999; at the

applicable time(s) specified in paragraph

(e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) For any MLG piston that has been

modified per paragraph (a)(3), (b)(1)(iii),

(b)(2), or (c)(1) of this AD, or that has been

replaced with a modified MLG piston per

paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(1) of this AD: Inspect

within 2,500 landings following

accomplishment of the modification or

replacement with a modified MLG piston.

(ii) For any MLG piston that has been

modified prior to the effective date of this

AD: Inspect within 1,500 landings or 12

months after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later.

(f) If no crack is found during any

inspection required by paragraph (e)(2) of

this AD, repeat the dye penetrant and

magnetic particle inspections required by

paragraph (e)(2) of this AD thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 2,500 landings. Prior

to the accumulation of 30,000 or more total

landings on the MLG piston, replace the MLG

piston with a new or serviceable MLG piston

per the Accomplishment Instructions of

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–

32–277, Revision 04, dated December 7,

1999. Following accomplishment of the

replacement, do the actions specified in

paragraph (a), (e), or (h) of this AD, as

applicable, at the time indicated in that

paragraph.

(g) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by paragraph (e)(2) of

this AD, before further flight, do the action(s)

specified in either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2)

of this AD.

For Airplanes on Which a Certain Piston

Has Been Installed

(h) For airplanes on which any MLG

piston, P/N 5935347–511, has been installed:

Do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1),

(h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, per

the Accomplishment Instructions of

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–

32–277, Revision 04, dated December 7,

1999.

(1) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated less than 5,000 total landings

since date of manufacture: Prior to the

accumulation of 5,000 total landings on the

MLG piston, or within 12 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, do dye penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons.

(2) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated 5,000 or more total landings

since date of manufacture, but less than

30,000 total landings since date of

manufacture: Within 1,500 landings on the

MLG piston or 12 months after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do

dye penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons.

(3) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated 30,000 or more total landings

since date of manufacture: Within 6 months

after the effective date of this AD, replace the

MLG piston with a new or serviceable MLG

piston per the service bulletin. Following

accomplishment of the replacement, do the

actions specified in paragraph (a), (e), or (h)

of this AD, as applicable, at the time

indicated in that paragraph.

(i) If no crack is found during any

inspection required by either paragraph (h)(1)

or (h)(2) of this AD, repeat the dye penetrant

and magnetic particle inspections required

by either paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500

landings. Prior to the accumulation of 30,000

or more total landings on the MLG piston, do

the actions specified in paragraph (d)(1) of

this AD.

(j) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by either paragraph (h)(1)

or (h)(2) of this AD, before further flight, do

the action(s) specified in either paragraph

(d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD.

Exception to Actions Referenced in Service

Bulletin

(k) If any discrepancy is found during any

inspection while accomplishing the

preventative modification required by this

AD, prior to further flight, do applicable

corrective action(s) per McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04,

dated December 7, 1999. If the service

bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer

for appropriate action: Prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. For a

repair method to be approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO, as required by

this paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter

must specifically reference this AD.

Optional Terminating Action

(l) Replacement of any MLG piston with a

MLG piston, P/N 5935347–517, per

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–

32–277, Revision 04, dated December 7,

1999; constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD for that MLG piston.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(m)(1) 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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

96–19–09, amendment 39–9756, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Special Flight Permits

(n) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

59150 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

September 28, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–25434 Filed 10–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 920

[MD–046–FOR]

Maryland Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: OSM is reopening the public

comment period on a proposed

amendment to the Maryland permanent

regulatory program.(Maryland program)

under the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

proposed amendment consists of

revisions to the Maryland regulations

regarding a definition of previously

mined area, termination of jurisdiction,

permitting requirements, bond release

requirements and performance

standards for inspections. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Maryland program to be no less effective

than the corresponding Federal

regulations.

DATES: If you submit written comments,

they must be received by 4 p.m., E.D.T.,

October 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-deliver your

written comments to Mr. George Rieger,

Manager, Oversight and Inspection

Office, at the address listed below. You

may review copies of the Maryland

program, the proposed amendment, a

listing of any scheduled public hearings,

and all written comments received in

response to this document at the

addresses listed below during normal

business hours, Monday through Friday,

excluding holidays. You may receive

one free copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting OSM’s

Appalachian Regional Coordinating

Center.

George Rieger, Manager, Oversight and

Inspection Office, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center, Office

of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, 3 Parkway Center,

Pittsburgh PA 15220, Telephone:

(412) 937–2153, E-mail:

grieger@osmre.gov.

Maryland Bureau of Mines, 160 South

Water Street, Frostburg, Maryland

21532, Telephone: (301) 689–4136.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Rieger, Manager, Oversight and

Inspection Office, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center, Telephone: (412)

937–2153.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Maryland

Program

On February 18, 1982, the Secretary of

the Interior approved the Maryland

program. You can find background

information on the Maryland program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval in the February

18, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 7214).

You can find subsequent actions

concerning the conditions of approval

and program amendments at 30 CFR

920.15 and 920.16.

II. Description of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated September 14, 1999

(Administrative Record No. 577–04),

Maryland provided an informal

amendment to OSM regarding a

definition of previously mined area,

termination of jurisdiction, permitting

requirements, bond release

requirements and performance

standards for inspections. Maryland

submitted the informal amendment in

response to requests made by OSM as

required under 30 CFR 732.17(d) in

letters dated July 8, 1997, and August

11, 1999 (Administrative Record Nos.

577–01 and 577–03, respectively). OSM

completed its review of the informal

amendment and submitted comments to

Maryland in a letter dated March 20,

2000 (Administrative Record No. 577–

05). By letter dated April 11, 2000

(Administrative Record No. MD–577–

06), Maryland submitted its response to

OSM’s comments in the form of a

proposed amendment to the Code of

Maryland Regulations (COMAR). The

proposed amendments were announced

in the April 28, 2000, Federal Register

(65 FR 24897). However, OSM’s review

determined that the proposed revisions

to COMAR 26.20.31.02H regarding the

inspection frequency on reclaimed bond

forfeiture sites were inconsistent with

30 CFR 840.11 and 700.11(d). As a

result, a letter requesting clarification

was sent to Maryland dated August 17,

2000 (Administrative Record No. MD–

577–12). Maryland responded in its

letter dated August 31, 2000

(Administrative Record No. MD 577–13)

with a new revision to COMAR

26.20.31.02H regarding the inspection

frequency on reclaimed bond forfeiture

sites. Therefore, OSM is reopening the

public comment period regarding the

following proposed amendments to

Maryland’s regulatory program:

1. COMAR 26.20.31.02 Inspections.

Maryland proposes to delete the

existing paragraph H. in its entirety and

substitute the following new paragraph

H:

H. An abandoned site means a surface

coal mining and reclamation operation

for which the Bureau has found in

writing that:

(1) All surface and underground coal

mining and reclamation activities at the

site have ceased;

(2) At least one notice of violation has

been issued and the notice could not be

served in accordance with Regulation

.08 of this chapter or the notice was

served and has progressed to a failureto-abate cessation order;

(3) Action is being taken to ensure

that the permittee and the operator, and

owners and controllers of the permittee

and the operator, will be precluded from

receiving future permits while the

violations continue at the site;

(4) Action is being taken in

accordance with the requirements of the

Regulatory Program to ensure that

abatement occurs or that there will not

be a recurrence of the failure-to-abate,

except where after evaluating the

circumstances it is concluded that

further enforcement offers little or no

likelihood of successfully compelling

abatement or recovering any

reclamation costs; and

(5) Where the site is or was permitted

and bonded and the permit has either

expired or been revoked, the forfeiture

of any available performance bond is

being diligently pursued or has been

forfeited.

Maryland also proposes to add new

paragraph I .as follows:

I. Instead of the inspection frequency

required in § A and B of this regulation,

the Bureau shall inspect each

abandoned site on a set frequency

commensurate with the public health

and safety and environmental

considerations present at each specific

site. However, in no case shall the

inspection frequency be set at less than

one complete inspection per calendar

year.

Maryland also proposes to add new

paragraph J. as follows:

J. The Bureau shall conduct a

complete inspection of the abandoned