Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19423

(b) 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 requests 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.

(c) 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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 96–298–

093(B)R1, dated January 29, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 7,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–9757 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–06–AD]

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: 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–

9–10, –20, –30, –40, and –50 series

airplanes, and C–9 (military) airplanes.

This proposal would require 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 proposal is prompted by

reports of fatigue cracks found in the

fuselage skin and doubler at the corners

and doorstops of the doorjamb of the

forward passenger door. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct such

fatigue cracking, which could result in

rapid decompression of the fuselage and

consequent reduced structural integrity

of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

06–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, 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, 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–06–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–06-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports of

fatigue cracks in the fuselage skin and

doubler at the corners and doorstops of

the doorjamb of the forward passenger

door on Model DC–9 series airplanes.

These cracks were discovered during

inspections conducted as part of the

Supplemental Inspection Document

(SID) program, required by AD 96–13–

03, amendment 39–9671 (61 FR 31009,

June 19, 1996). Investigation revealed

that such cracking was caused by

fatigue-related stress. Fatigue cracking

in the fuselage skin or doublers at the

corners and doorstops of the doorjamb

of the forward passenger door, if not

detected and corrected, could result in

rapid decompression of the fuselage and

consequent reduced structural integrity

of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC9–53–280, dated December 1, 1997.

The service bulletin describes the

following procedures:

1. Performing a one-time visual

inspection to determine if the doorstops

and corners of the forward passenger

door doorjamb have been modified;

2. For certain airplanes: Performing a

low frequency eddy current (LFEC) or xray inspection to detect cracks at all

corners and doorstops of the doorjamb

of the forward passenger door;

3. For certain other airplanes:

Performing a high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspection to detect

cracks on the skin adjacent to the

modification;

4. Conducting repetitive inspections,

or modifying the doorstops and corners

of the doorjamb of the forward

passenger door, and performing followon HFEC inspections, if no cracking is

detected;
19424 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

5. Performing repetitive HFEC

inspections to detect cracks on the skin

adjacent to any doorstop or corner that

has been modified; and

6. Modifying any crack that is found

to be 0.5 inches or less in length at all

doorstops and corners that have not

been modified, and performing followon repetitive HFEC inspections.

Accomplishment of the modification

will minimize the possibility of fatigue

cracks in the fuselage skin and doubler.

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 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. The onetime visual inspection, follow-on

repetitive inspections, and modification

would be required to be accomplished

in accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

Difference Between the Service Bulletin

and This Proposed AD

Operators should note that, although

the service bulletin specifies that the

manufacturer must be contacted for

disposition of certain conditions, this

proposal would require the repair of

those conditions to be accomplished in

accordance with a method approved by

the FAA.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,001

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

656 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, and that

it would take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

proposed visual inspection, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the visual inspection proposed by

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $39,360 or $60 per airplane.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the proposed LFEC or x-ray

inspection, it would 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

impact of any necessary LFEC or x-ray

inspection proposed 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 proposed HFEC

inspection, it would 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

impact of any necessary HFEC

inspection proposed 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 proposed modification,

it would take approximately 30 work

hours per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately between $490 and $1,775

per airplane, depending on the service

kit purchased. Based on these figures,

the cost impact of the modification

proposed by this AD on U.S. operators

is estimated to be between $2,290 and

$3,575 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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.

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:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 98–NM–06–AD.

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, dated

December 1, 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 (f) 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.

Note 4: This AD is related to AD 96–13–

03, amendment 39–9671, (61 FR 31009, June

19, 1996), and will affect Principal Structural

Element (PSE) 53.09.031 of the DC–9

Supplemental Inspection Document (SID).

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

landings, or within 3,575 landings after the

effective date of this AD, 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.

(b) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–280, dated December 1, 1997: If the visual

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD reveals that the doorstops and corners of

the forward passenger door doorjamb have
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19425

not been modified, prior to further flight,

perform a low frequency eddy current (LFEC)

or x-ray 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.

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

detected during any LFEC 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 LFEC 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

a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)

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

HFEC inspection required by paragraph

(b)(1)(ii) of this AD, repeat the HFEC

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

HFEC 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,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

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

found during any LFEC 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 a HFEC 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

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (b)(2)

of this AD, repeat the HFEC 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

HFEC 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 LFEC 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.

(c) Group 2, Condition 1. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC–9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997: 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 DC–9–53–280,

dated December 1, 1997.

(1) Option 1. Prior to the accumulation of

28,000 landings after accomplishment of the

modification, or within 3,000 landings after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform a HFEC 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

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (c)(1)

of this AD, repeat the HFEC 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

HFEC 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 HFEC 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

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (c)(2)

of this AD, repeat the HFEC 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

HFEC 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.

(d) Group 2, Condition 2. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997: 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, or

within 3,000 landings after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform

a HFEC 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

(1) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during any

HFEC inspection required by paragraph (d) of

this AD, repeat the HFEC 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

HFEC 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.

(e) Group 2, Condition 3. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–280, dated

December 1, 1997: 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.

(f) 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 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(g) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10277 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–74–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300, A310, and A300–600 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 Airbus Model A300 series

airplanes and all Model A310 and

A300–600 series airplanes. This

proposal would require repetitive