70650 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

detected on the aft attachment lugs: Prior to

further flight, accomplish the terminating

action specified in paragraph (c) of this AD.

Visual Inspection for Modification Status

(b) Within 800 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, perform a one-time

visual inspection of the aft attachment lugs

(flap assemblies) of the flap fittings at wing

station (WS) 123.38 to determine the flap

assembly modification status, in accordance

with Saab Service Bulletin 340–57–037,

dated January 18, 2000.

(1) If the modification status is such that

all flap assemblies installed have thicker

lugs, as specified by Figure 1 of the service

bulletin, no further action is required by this

paragraph.

(2) If the modification status is such that

any flap assembly installed has a thinner lug,

as specified by Figure 1 of the service

bulletin, prior to further flight, accomplish

the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) and, at

the time specified, accomplish the

requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this

AD.

Visual Inspection and NDT Inspection

(i) Perform a general visual inspection of

the aft attachment lugs of the flap fittings at

WS 123.38 to detect cracking or damage, in

accordance with the service bulletin. If no

cracking or damage is detected during the

visual inspection, repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 flight

hours, until the requirements of paragraph

(b)(2)(ii) of this AD are accomplished. If any

cracking or damage is detected during any

general visual inspection required by this

paragraph, prior to further flight, accomplish

the terminating action specified by paragraph

(c) of this AD.

(ii) Within 6,000 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD, perform an NDT

inspection of the aft attachment lug of the

flap fittings at WS 123.38 to detect cracking,

in accordance with the service bulletin.

Accomplishment of the NDT inspection

terminates the repetitive visual inspections

required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this AD. If

no cracking is detected, repeat the NDT

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 6,000 flight cycles, until the actions

specified by paragraph (c) are accomplished.

If any cracking is detected during any NDT

inspection required by this paragraph, prior

to further flight, accomplish the terminating

action specified by paragraph (c) of this AD.

Terminating Action

(c) Replacement of all flap fittings at WS

123.38 with new, improved flap fittings in

accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 340–

57–038, dated January 18, 2000, terminates

all inspections required by this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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,

International Branch, ANM–116, 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, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(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.

Incorporation by Reference

(f) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Saab Service Bulletin 340–57–035,

dated January 18, 2000; Saab Service Bulletin

340–57–037, dated January 18, 2000; and

Saab Service Bulletin 340–57–038, dated

January 18, 2000; as applicable. 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 Saab

Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft Product Support,

S–581.88, Linko ̈ping, Sweden. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Swedish airworthiness directives No. 1–

152 and No. 1–153, each dated January 19,

2000.

Effective Date

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

January 2, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 9, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–29375 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–333–AD; Amendment

39–11995; AD 2000–23–22]

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: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40,

and –50 series airplanes and C–9

(military) airplanes, that currently

requires a one-time visual inspection to

determine if the doorstops and corners

of the doorjamb of the forward

passenger door have been modified,

various follow-on repetitive inspections,

and modification, if necessary. This

amendment requires a reduction in the

inspection threshold and repetitive

intervals for a certain doubler

configuration and an increase in the

grace period for a certain other doubler

configuration. This amendment is

prompted by a determination that

certain inspection compliance times

were incorrect. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to detect and

correct fatigue cracking, which could

result in rapid decompression of the

fuselage and consequent reduced

structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: Effective January 2, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC9–53–280, Revision 02, dated July 26,

1999, as listed in the regulations, is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of January 2, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

certain other publications, as listed in

the regulations, was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of January 22, 1999 (63 FR

70005, December 18, 1998).

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Aircraft

Group, Long Beach Division, 3855

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: 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, 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:

Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5324; fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 98–26–09,

amendment 39–10949 (63 FR 70005,

December 18, 1998), which is applicable

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70651

to certain McDonnell Douglas Model

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

airplanes and C–9 (military) airplanes,

was published in the Federal Register

on April 5, 2000 (65 FR 17818). The

action proposed to require a reduction

in the inspection threshold and

repetitive intervals for a certain doubler

configuration and an increase in the

repetitive inspection interval for a

certain other doubler configuration.

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.

Compliance Times

One commenter requests that the

compliance time specified in paragraphs

(c)(1) and (d) of the proposed AD be

revised to include ‘‘or prior to the

accumulation of 48,000 total landings.’’

The commenter states that some of its

airplanes have accumulated less than

44,425 total landings. The initial

compliance thresholds in paragraphs

(c)(1) and (d) of the proposed AD do not

take into consideration those airplanes

on which: (1) The initial inspection

required by paragraph (a) of the

proposed AD is going to be

accomplished at 48,000 total landings,

which is the later of the two thresholds

in paragraph (a) of this proposed AD;

and (2) the landings since

accomplishment of the previously

modified doorstops and corners of the

forward passenger door doorjamb is

unknown. In this situation, those

airplanes would exceed the compliance

times specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and

(d) of the proposed AD.

A second commenter requests that the

FAA clarify the compliance times

specified in paragraph (c)(1) of the

proposed AD for the doorjambs with

steel repairs installed. The commenter

states that, since paragraph (c)(1)

appears to ‘‘allow up to [5],999 flight

cycles for existing repairs to be

inspected initially,’’ a repetitive

inspection interval of 3,000 flight cycles

specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the

proposed AD should be increased to

3,575 flight cycles. The commenter

states that such an interval would

maintain at least an equivalent level of

safety.

The FAA partially concurs. For the

reasons provided by the first

commenter, the FAA concurs that

paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) of the final rule

should include a compliance time of

‘‘prior to the accumulation of 48,000

total landings’’ and has revised the final

rule accordingly.

The FAA does not concur with the

second commenter that the repetitive

inspection interval of 3,000 landings

specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the AD

should be increased. The FAA

determined that the cracking of the

forward passenger door doorjamb is

fatigue related (as discussed in the

preamble of the NPRM). The 3,000-

landing compliance time was calculated

based on fatigue and damage tolerance

analyses. Therefore, the FAA finds that

the 3,000-landing repetitive inspection

interval of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the AD

is warranted, based on the effectiveness

of the inspection procedure to detect

cracks, and the rate of crack growth in

the forward passenger door doorjamb.

However, the FAA inadvertently

included an initial repetitive inspection

interval of ‘‘within 2,000 landings after

the effective date of this AD or within

3,000 landings from the last inspection

in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of

this AD, whichever occurs later’’ in

paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the proposed AD.

The FAA’s intent was that, if no crack

is detected on the skin adjacent to the

modification during any eddy current

inspection required by paragraph (c)(1)

of this AD, the eddy current inspection

be accomplished thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 3,000 landings, as

indicated in the referenced service

bulletin. Therefore, the FAA has revised

paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the final rule

accordingly.

Designated Engineer Representative

(DER) Authority

One commenter requests that the

proposed AD be revised to allow

approval of certain repairs (i.e., cracking

conditions beyond the allowable repair

limits specified in the proposed AD, and

for existing repairs that are not done per

the DC–9 Structural Repair Manual or

Service Rework Drawing) based on

static strength analysis by a Boeing DER

or airline DER, instead of the Manager

of the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO). Then, the repair should be

submitted to Boeing for a damage

tolerance analysis, and subsequently,

submitted to the Manager of the Los

Angeles ACO. The commenter states

that this provision would result in a

more efficient and expeditious repair

approval process.

The FAA does not concur. While

DER’s are authorized to determine

whether a design or repair method

complies with a specific requirement,

they are not currently authorized to

make the discretionary determination as

to what the applicable requirement is.

However, the FAA has issued a notice

(N 8110.72, dated March 30, 1998),

which provides guidance for delegating

authority to certain type certificate

holder structural DER’s to approve

alternative methods of compliance for

AD-required repairs and modifications

of individual airplanes. The FAA is

currently working with Boeing, Douglas

Products Division (DPD), to develop the

implementation process for delegation

of approval of alternative methods of

compliance in accordance with that

notice. Once this process is

implemented, approval authority for

alternative methods of compliance can

be delegated without revising the AD.

Explanation of Changes to Final Rule

The FAA finds that, as the proposed

AD is currently worded, operators may

misinterpret what type of eddy current

inspection (i.e., low frequency or high

frequency) must be accomplished. The

FAA’s intent was to follow the

particular type of eddy current

inspection indicated in the referenced

service bulletin. However, because the

service bulletin interchanges the use of

low frequency eddy current inspection

and high frequency eddy current

inspection, the FAA has revised the

final rule to only reference ‘‘eddy

current inspection,’’ rather than a

particular type of eddy current

inspection.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 809

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

572 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD.

The visual inspection that is currently

required by AD 98–26–09, and retained

in this AD, takes approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

required visual inspection, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

currently required visual inspection

required by this AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $34,320 or $60 per

airplane.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the eddy current or x-ray

inspection, it will 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

70652 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

impact of any necessary eddy current or

x-ray inspection required by this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $120

per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the HFEC inspection, it will

take approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of any

necessary HFEC inspection required by

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $60 per airplane, per inspection

cycle.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the modification, it will take

approximately 8 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost between $898

and $1,037 per airplane, depending on

the service kit purchased. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

modification required by this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

between $1,378 and $1,517 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted. The cost impact

figures discussed in AD rulemaking

actions represent only the time

necessary to perform the specific actions

actually required by the AD. These

figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have a substantial direct effect on

the States, on the relationship between

the national Government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–10949 (63 FR

70005, December 18, 1998), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), amendment 39–11995, to read as

follows:

2000–23–22 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–11995. Docket 99–NM–

333–AD. Supersedes AD 98–26–09,

Amendment 39–10949.

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

–40, and –50 series airplanes, and C–9

(military) airplanes, as listed in McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–53–280,

Revision 02, dated July 26, 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 (g)(1) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct fatigue cracking in

the doorstops and corners of the doorjamb of

the forward passenger door, which could

result in rapid decompression of the fuselage

and consequent reduced structural integrity

of the airplane, accomplish the following:

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.

Visual Inspection

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 48,000 total

landings, or within 3,575 landings after

January 22, 1999 (the effective date of AD 98–

26–09, amendment 39–10949), whichever

occurs later, perform a one-time visual

inspection to determine if the doorstops and

corners of the forward passenger door

doorjamb have been modified. Perform the

inspection in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997, Revision 01, dated July 30,

1998, or Revision 02, dated July 26, 1999.

Group 1, Eddy Current or X-Ray Inspection

(b) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–280, Revision 01, dated July 30, 1998: If

the visual inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD reveals that the doorstops and

corners of the forward passenger door

doorjamb have not been modified, prior to

further flight, perform an eddy current or xray inspection to detect cracks at all corners

and doorstops of the forward passenger door

doorjamb, in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997, Revision 01, dated July 30,

1998, or Revision 02, dated July 26, 1999.

(1) Group 1, Condition 1. If no crack is

detected during any eddy current or x-ray

inspection required by paragraph (b) of this

AD, accomplish the requirements of either

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

accordance with the service bulletin.

(i) Option 1. Repeat the eddy current

inspection required by this paragraph

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,575

landings, or the x-ray inspection required by

this paragraph thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 3,075 landings; or

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

the doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door 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 any eddy

current inspection required by paragraph

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

(b)(1)(ii) of this AD, prior to further flight,

repair it in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

(2) Group 1, Condition 2. If any crack is

found during any eddy current or x-ray

inspection required by paragraph (b) of this

AD, and the crack is 0.50 inch or less in

length: Prior to further flight, modify the

doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70653

(i) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any eddy

current inspection required by paragraph

(b)(2) of this AD, repeat the eddy current

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 20,000 landings.

(ii) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any eddy

current inspection required by paragraph

(b)(2) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair

it in accordance with a method approved by

the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(3) Group 1, Condition 3. If any crack is

found during any eddy current or x-ray

inspection required by paragraph (b) of this

AD, and the crack is greater than 0.5 inch in

length: Prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Group 2, Inspection of Modified Doorstops

and Corners With Steel Doublers

(c) Group 2, Condition 1. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, Revision 01,

dated July 30, 1998: If the visual inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD reveals

that the doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door doorjamb have been modified

previously in accordance with the

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Structural Repair

Manual (SRM), using a steel doubler,

accomplish either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of

this AD in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997, Revision 01, dated July 30,

1998, or Revision 02, dated July 26, 1999.

(1) Option 1. Prior to the accumulation of

6,000 landings after accomplishment of the

modification, prior to the accumulation of

48,000 total landings, within 3,575 landings

after January 22, 1999, or within 2,000

landings after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs latest: 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 on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any eddy

current inspection required by paragraph

(c)(1) of this AD, repeat the eddy current

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 3,000 landings.

(ii) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any eddy

current inspection required by paragraph

(c)(1) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair

it in accordance with a method approved by

the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

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

the doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door doorjamb in accordance with

the service bulletin. Prior to the

accumulation of 28,000 landings after the

accomplishment of the modification, perform

a 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 on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any eddy

current inspection required by paragraph

(c)(2) of this AD, repeat the eddy current

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 20,000 landings.

(ii) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any eddy

current inspection required by paragraph

(c)(2) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair

it in accordance with a method approved by

the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Group 2, Inspection of Modified Doorstops

and Corners With Aluminum Doublers

(d) Group 2, Condition 2. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, Revision 01,

dated July 30, 1998: If the visual inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD reveals

that the doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door doorjamb have been modified

previously in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 SRM or Service Rework

Drawing, using an aluminum doubler, prior

to the accumulation of 28,000 landings after

the accomplishment of the modification,

prior to the accumulation of 48,000 total

landings, or within 3,575 landings after

January 22, 1999, whichever occurs latest,

perform an eddy current inspection to detect

cracks on the skin adjacent to the

modification, in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997, Revision 01, dated July 30,

1998, or Revision 02, dated July 26, 1999.

(1) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any eddy

current inspection required by paragraph (d)

of this AD, repeat the eddy current

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 20,000 landings.

(2) If any crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any eddy

current inspection required by paragraph (d)

of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Group 2, Inspection of Modified Doorstops

and Corners Not Per SRM or Service Rework

Drawing

(e) Group 2, Condition 3. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, Revision 02,

dated July 26, 1999: If the visual inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD reveals

that the doorstops and corners of the forward

passenger door doorjamb have been modified

previously, but not in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC9 SRM or the Service

Rework Drawing, prior to further flight,

repair it in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Terminating Action for Supplemental

Inspection Document, AD 96–13–03

(f) Accomplishment of the actions required

by this AD constitutes terminating action for

inspections of Principal Structural Element

(PSE) 53.09.031 (reference McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 Supplemental

Inspection Document) required by AD 96–

13–03, amendment 39–9671.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(g)(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.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

98–26–09, amendment 39–10949, or AD 96–

13–03, amendment 39–9671, are approved as

alternative methods of compliance with this

AD.

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.

Incorporation by Reference

(i) Except as provided by paragraphs

(b)(1)(ii)(B), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(3), (c)(1)(ii),

(c)(2)(ii), (d)(2), and (e) of this AD, the actions

shall be done in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997; McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, Revision 01,

dated July 30, 1998; or McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, Revision 02,

dated July 26, 1999.

(1) The incorporation by reference of

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–280, Revision 02, dated July 26, 1999, is

approved by the Director of the Federal

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

and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) The incorporation by reference of the

remaining publications was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of January 22, 1999 (63 FR 70005,

December 18, 1998).

(3) Copies 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). Copies may be inspected at

the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Effective Date

(j) This amendment becomes effective on

January 2, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 13, 2000.

Dorenda D. Baker,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–29497 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U