55662 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Vertu Road West, Dorval, Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, 

Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514– 

855–7401; email thd.crj@

aero.bombardier.com; Internet http://

www.bombardier.com. You may review 

copies of the referenced service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

30, 2013. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22145 Filed 9–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0706; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–067–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

the Boeing Company Model DC–9–10, 

DC–9–30, and DC–9–40 series airplanes. 

This proposed AD was prompted by an 

evaluation by the design approval 

holder (DAH) indicating that the aft 

pressure bulkhead web area is subject to 

widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This 

proposed AD would require modifying 

the aft pressure bulkhead. The 

modification includes inspecting for 

cracks around the rivet holes, and repair 

of any cracking. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the aft 

pressure bulkhead, which could result 

in reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 28, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, 3855 Lakewood 

Boulevard, MC D800–0019, Long Beach, 

CA 90846–0001; telephone 206–544– 

5000, extension 2; fax 206–766–5683; 

Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

CA 90712–4137; phone: (562) 627–5348; 

fax: (562) 627–5210; email: 

eric.schrieber@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0706; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NM–067–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

Structural fatigue damage is 

progressive. It begins as minute cracks, 

and those cracks grow under the action 

of repeated stresses. This can happen 

because of normal operational 

conditions and design attributes, or 

because of isolated situations or 

incidents such as material defects, poor 

fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, 

dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can 

occur locally, in small areas or 

structural design details, or globally. 

Global fatigue damage is general 

degradation of large areas of structure 

with similar structural details and stress 

levels. Multiple-site damage is global 

damage that occurs in a large structural 

element such as a single rivet line of a 

lap splice joining two large skin panels. 

Global damage can also occur in 

multiple elements such as adjacent 

frames or stringers. Multiple-sitedamage and multiple-element-damage 

cracks are typically too small initially to 

be reliably detected with normal 

inspection methods. Without 

intervention, these cracks will grow, 

and eventually compromise the 

structural integrity of the airplane, in a 

condition known as widespread fatigue 

damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, 

WFD will likely occur, and will 

certainly occur if the airplane is 

operated long enough without any 

intervention. 

The FAA’s WFD final rule (75 FR 

69746, November 15, 2010) became 

effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD 

rule requires certain actions to prevent 

structural failure due to WFD 

throughout the operational life of 

certain existing transport category 

airplanes and all of these airplanes that 

will be certificated in the future. For 

existing and future airplanes subject to 

the WFD rule, the rule requires that 

DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) 

of the engineering data that support the 

structural maintenance program. 

Operators affected by the WFD rule may 

not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, 

unless an extended LOV is approved. 

The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, 

November 15, 2010) does not require 

identifying and developing maintenance 

actions if the DAHs can show that such 

actions are not necessary to prevent 

WFD before the airplane reaches the 

LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend 

on accomplishment of future 

maintenance actions. As stated in the 

WFD rule, any maintenance actions 

necessary to reach the LOV will be 

mandated by airworthiness directives 

through separate rulemaking actions. 

In the context of WFD, this action is 

necessary to enable DAHs to propose 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55663 

LOVs that allow operators the longest 

operational lives for their airplanes, and 

still ensure that WFD will not occur. 

This approach allows for an 

implementation strategy that provides 

flexibility to DAHs in determining the 

timing of service information 

development (with FAA approval), 

while providing operators with certainty 

regarding the LOV applicable to their 

airplanes. 

Explanation of Applicability 

For The Boeing Company Model 

DC–9 series airplanes, AD 85–01–02 R1, 

Amendment 39–5241 (51 FR 6101, 

dated February 20, 1988), was issued to 

supersede an AD that required visual, 

eddy current, and x-ray inspections of 

the aft pressure bulkhead for cracking. 

AD 85–01–02 R1 required 

accomplishing the modification 

specified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin DC9–A53–144, Revision 2, 

dated February 23, 1984, within 18 

months after March 31, 1986 (the 

effective date of AD 85–01–02 R1). 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9–A53– 

144, Revision 2, dated February 23, 

1984, specifies that the modification 

must be done for Groups I and II 

airplanes with more than 40,000 total 

flight cycles. 

We are proposing this AD to address 

Group I or Group II airplanes that have 

not accomplished the modification 

specified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin DC9–A53–144, Revision 2, 

dated February 23, 1984. This proposed 

AD is not a supersedure because the 

required actions apply only to those 

airplanes. AD 85–01–02 R1, 

Amendment 39–5241 (51 FR 6101, 

dated February 20, 1988), also contained 

additional actions that are not included 

in this proposed AD. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin DC9–A53–144, Revision 2, 

dated February 23, 1984. For 

information on the procedures and 

compliance times, see this service 

information at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0706. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information identified 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information.’’ 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9– 

A53–144, Revision 2, dated February 23, 

1984, specifies that the original ventral 

bulkhead was tested by McDonnell 

Douglas for up to 76,550 flight cycles, 

and cracking was detected at 72,000 

flight cycles. It was determined that the 

initial inspection threshold of 40,000 

flight cycles, as specified in the service 

information, was based on half the test 

life, which was adjusted for the current 

fleet distribution at that time. Testing 

also showed an onset of cracking at 

72,000 flight cycles was not widespread 

fatigue type cracking. Therefore, we 

have determined that a compliance time 

of ‘‘before the accumulation of 72,000 

flight cycles or with 18 months after the 

effective date of the AD, whichever is 

later’’ adequately addresses the unsafe 

condition identified in this proposed 

AD. 

Sheet 1 of Service Sketch 3109, and 

Sheet 7 of Service Sketch 3110B of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9–A53– 

144, Revision 2, dated February 23, 

1984; specify reporting the details of 

any cracks found; however, this 

proposed AD does not require reporting. 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9– 

A53–144, Revision 2, dated February 23, 

1984, specifies to contact the 

manufacturer for instructions on how to 

repair certain conditions, but this 

proposed AD would require repairing 

those conditions in one of the following 

ways: 

• In accordance with a method that 

we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) whom 

we have authorized to make those 

findings. 

These differences have been 

coordinated with the manufacturer. 

Explanation of Compliance Time 

The compliance time for the 

modification specified in this proposed 

AD for addressing WFD was established 

to ensure that discrepant structure is 

modified before WFD develops in 

airplanes. Standard inspection 

techniques cannot be relied on to detect 

WFD before it becomes a hazard to 

flight. We will not grant any extensions 

of the compliance time to complete any 

AD-mandated service bulletin related to 

WFD without extensive new data that 

would substantiate and clearly warrant 

such an extension. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 6 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Modification (includes inspection).542 work-hours × $85 per hour = $46,070 .................... $4,680 $50,750 $304,500 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55664 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify 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), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) 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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0706; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NM–067–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by October 28, 

2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model DC–9–10, DC–9–30, and DC–9–40 

series airplanes, certificated in any category, 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

DC9–A53–144, Revision 2, dated February 

23, 1984. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 5312, Fuselage Main Bulkhead. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder (DAH) indicating 

that the fuselage bulkhead web area is subject 

to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are 

issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of 

the bulkhead, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Modification 

For airplanes on which the modification 

(AD4 rivets replaced with AD5 rivets) 

required by AD 85–01–02 R1, Amendment 

39–5241 (51 FR 6101, dated February 20, 

1988) has not been done: Before the 

accumulation of 72,000 total flight cycles, or 

within 18 months after the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs later, modify the 

aft pressure bulkhead by removing all 

affected AD4 rivets and doing either a 

fluorescent penetrant or eddy current 

inspection around the rivet holes for cracks, 

repairing any cracking, and installing fiveleaf doublers with AD5 rivets, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9–A53–144, 

Revision 2, dated February 23, 1984; except 

as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. 

Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: 

Information on additional procedures for the 

modification can be found in Notes 4, 5, and 

6, as applicable, of paragraph 1.D., 

‘Compliance’ of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

DC9–A53–144, Revision 2, dated February 

23, 1984. 

(h) Exception to Service Information 

If any crack is found during any inspection 

required by this AD, and Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin DC9–A53–144, Revision 2, 

dated February 23, 1984, specifies to contact 

Boeing for appropriate action: Before further 

flight, repair using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(i) No Reporting Required 

Sheet 1 of Service Sketch 3109, and Sheet 

7 of Service Sketch 3110B of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin DC9–A53–144, Revision 2, 

dated February 23, 1984; specify reporting 

the details of any cracks found; however, this 

AD does not require reporting. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the Los Angeles ACO, send 

it to the attention of the person identified in 

the Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by 

Structures Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation 

Option Authorization Organization who has 

been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and 14 

CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712– 

4137; phone: (562) 627–5348; fax: (562) 627– 

5210; email: eric.schrieber@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC 

D800–0019, Long Beach, CA 90846–0001; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 

206–766–5683; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review 

copies of the referenced service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

30, 2013. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22147 Filed 9–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Parts 730, 740, 744, 756, 758, 

and 762 

[Docket No. 120524116–2116–01] 

RIN 0694–AF70 

Revisions to the Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR): Unverified List 

(UVL) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS) proposes to amend the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) by: requiring exporters to file an 

Automated Export System (AES) record 

for all exports subject to the EAR 

involving a party or parties to the 

transaction who are listed on the 

Unverified List (the ‘‘Unverified List’’ or 

UVL); suspending the availability of 

license exceptions for exports, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS