20548 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 120 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 8 work hours per

airplane (including access and close) to

accomplish the proposed inspection, at

an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the inspection proposed by

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $57,600, or $480 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

action that would be provided by this

proposed AD action, it would take

approximately 140 work hours to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. The cost of required

parts would be approximately $10,103

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of that optional terminating

action would be $18,503 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘significant regulatory action’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘significant rule’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 98–NM–77–AD.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes,

as listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–

1090, Revision 01, dated June 10, 1997;

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 (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct cracking in the

pressurized floor pick-up angles at the rear

spar of the wing, which could result in

reduced structural integrity of the airframe,

accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total

flight cycles, or within 60 days after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Perform an eddy current inspection to

detect cracking in the pressurized floor pickup angles on the rear spar of the wing, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–57–1090, Revision 01, dated June 10,

1997.

(1) If no cracking is found, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 10,000 flight cycles.

(2) If any cracking is found during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, replace each cracked pick-up

angle and its associated diaphragms with

improved parts, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–57–1025, Revision 05,

dated June 26, 1997. For all pick-up angles

not replaced with improved angles, repeat

the inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 10,000 flight cycles.

(b) Replacement of a pick-up angle and its

associated diaphragms with improved parts,

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–57–1025, Revision 05, dated June 26,

1997, constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements for that

pick-up angle.

(c) If any crack is detected during any

inspection required by this AD, and the

applicable service bulletin specifies to

contact Airbus for appropriate action: Prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by either the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate; or the

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile (or its

delegated agent).

(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. Operators

shall submit their request through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive CN 97–

084–097 (B), dated March 12, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11090 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–110–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and C–9 (Military)

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

9 and C–9 (military) series airplanes.

This proposal would require repetitive

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

the fuselage frames and longerons 16R
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20549

and 17R above the forward lower cargo

door; repair, if necessary; and

modification of the fuselage frames and

longerons, if necessary, and follow-on

repetitive inspections to detect fatigue

cracking of the skin adjacent to the

modification. This proposal is prompted

by numerous instances of fatigue

cracking of the fuselage frames and

longerons. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

fatigue cracking of the fuselage frames

and longerons 16R and 17R, which

could result in reduced structural

integrity of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

110–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

The Boeing Company, Douglas Products

Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,

Long Beach, California 90846,

Attention: Technical Publications

Business Administration, ept. 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, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5324; fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 98–NM–110–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.

98–NM–110–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

Operators have reported to the FAA

numerous instances of fatigue cracks on

in-service McDonnell Douglas Model

DC–9 series airplanes in the fuselage

frames and longerons 16R and 17R

above the forward lower cargo door.

These cracks were discovered during

inspections conducted as part of the

Supplemental Structural Inspection

Document (SSID) program, required by

AD 96–13–03, amendment 39–9671 (61

FR 31009, June 19, 1996). Investigation

has revealed that such cracking was

caused by fatigue-related stress. Such

fatigue cracking, if not corrected, could

result in reduced structural integrity of

the airplane.

The subject area on certain Model C–

9 (military) series airplanes is identical

to that on the affected Model DC–9

series airplanes; therefore, both models

may be subject to the same unsafe

condition.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC9–53–267, dated October 20, 1997,

which describes procedures for

repetitive visual inspections to detect

fatigue cracking of the fuselage frames

and longerons 16R and 17R above the

forward lower cargo door, and repair of

any cracking of the fuselage frames and

longerons 16R and 17R. The service

bulletin also describes procedures for

modification of the fuselage frames and

longerons 16R and 17R, if necessary,

and follow-on repetitive visual

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

the skin adjacent to the modification.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin

described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 887

airplanes of the affected designs in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

582 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD. It would

take approximately 1 work hour per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspection, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on this figure,

the cost impact of the proposed

inspection on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $34,920, or $60 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the proposed modification,

it would take approximately 4 work

hours per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $860 or $713 per

airplane, depending on the service kit

purchased. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed

modification is estimated to be as high

as $1,100 and as low as $953 per

airplane.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the proposed follow-on

inspection of the fuselage skin, it would

take approximately 1 work hour per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspection, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on this figure,

the cost impact of the proposed

inspection on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $60 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship
20550 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 98–NM–110–

AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9 and C–9

(military) series airplanes, as listed in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–267, dated October 20, 1997; 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 (e) 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 fuselage

frames and longerons 16R and 17R, which

could result in reduced structural integrity of

the airplane, accomplish the following:

Note 2: This AD will affect Principal

Structural Element (PSE) 53.09.055A of the

DC–9 Supplemental Inspection Document

(SID).

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total

landings, or within 3,000 landings after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform a visual inspection to detect

fatigue cracking of the fuselage frames and

longerons 16R and 17R above the forward

lower cargo door, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–267, dated October 20, 1997.

(b) Condition 1. If no cracking is detected

during the inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD, accomplish the requirements

of either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD,

in accordance with McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–267, dated October

20, 1997.

(1) Option 1. Repeat the visual inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 19,000

landings. Or

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

the fuselage frames and longerons 16R and

17R. Prior to the accumulation of 19,000

landings after accomplishment of the

modification, perform a visual inspection to

detect fatigue cracking of the skin adjacent to

the modification.

(i) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 19,000 landings.

(ii) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

(c) Condition 2. If any cracking is detected

during the inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair

the cracked area and modify the fuselage

frames and longerons 16R and 17R; in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–53–267, dated October 20,

1997. Prior to the accumulation of 19,000

landings after accomplishment of the

modification, perform a visual inspection to

detect fatigue cracking of the skin adjacent to

the modification; in accordance with the

service bulletin.

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 19,000 landings.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO.

(d) Accomplishment of the actions

required by this AD constitutes terminating

action for the requirements of AD 96–13–03,

amendment 39–9671, for PSE 53.09.055A

only of the DC–9 SID.

(e) 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11089 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–304–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER) Model EMB–120 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

EMBRAER Model EMB–120 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

revising the Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to modify the limitation that

prohibits positioning the power levers

below the flight idle stop during flight,

and to provide a statement of the

consequences of positioning the power

levers below the flight idle stop during

flight. This proposal is prompted by

incidents and accidents involving

airplanes equipped with turboprop

engines in which the ground propeller

beta range was used improperly during

flight. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

loss of airplane controllability, or engine

overspeed and consequent loss of

engine power caused by the power

levers being positioned below the flight

idle stop while the airplane is in flight.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 27, 1998.