3852 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 17 /Tuesday, January 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

membership association if the person

was required to pay on a regular basis

a specific amount of annual dues that

are predetermined by the association.

Accordingly, the Commission is

publishing this technical correction to

the NPRM.

§ 114.1 [Corrected]

On page 66838 of the December 22,

1997 Federal Register, at the bottom of

the first column, following proposed

Alternative B for paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)–

(iv), insert the following:

Alternative C for paragraph (e)(2)(ii).

(2) Are required to pay on a regular

basis a specific amount of annual dues

that are predetermined by the

association.

Dated: January 22, 1998.

Joan D. Aikens,

Chairman, Federal Election Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–1890 Filed 1–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–99–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–31 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–

9–31 series airplanes.

This proposal would require a onetime visual inspection to determine if

all corners of the forward service door

doorjamb have been modified

previously, 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

of the forward service door doorjamb.

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

March 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

99–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

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Department 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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; 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 97–NM–99–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

97–NM–99–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 of the forward

service door doorjamb on Model DC–9–

31 series airplanes. 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 revealed that

such cracking was caused by fatiguerelated stress. Fatigue cracking in the

fuselage skin or doubler at the corners

of the forward service door doorjamb, if

not detected and corrected in a timely

manner, 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

DC9–53–288, dated February 10, 1997.

The service bulletin describes the

following procedures:

1. Performing a one-time visual

inspection to determine if the corners of

the forward service door doorjamb have

been modified;

2. For airplanes on which the

modification specified in Service

Bulletin DC9–53–288 has not been

accomplished: Performing a low

frequency eddy current (LFEC) or x-ray

inspection to detect cracks of the

fuselage skin and doubler at all corners

of the forward service door doorjamb;

3. Conducting repetitive inspections,

or modifying the corner skin of the

doorjamb of the forward service door

and performing follow-on action high

frequency eddy current (HFEC)

inspections, if no cracking is detected;

4. Performing repetitive HFEC

inspections to detect cracks on the skin

adjacent to any corner that has been

modified; and

5. Modifying any crack that is found

to be 2 inches or less in length at all

corners that have not been modified and

performing follow-on repetitive HFEC

inspections.

Accomplishment of the modification

will minimize the possibility of cracks

in the fuselage skin and doubler.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 17 /Tuesday, January 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules 3853

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 all corners of the forward

service door doorjamb have been

modified previously, various follow-on

repetitive inspections, and modification,

if necessary. The one-time visual

inspection, follow-on repetitive

inspections, and modification would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

Differences Between the Proposed Rule

and the Relevant Service Information

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 64

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–31

series airplanes of the affected design in

the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates

that 51 airplanes of U.S. registry would

be affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 1 work hour

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

one-time visual inspection, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the one-time visual inspection of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $3,060, or $60 per

airplane.

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 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 is estimated to be $60 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the 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 is

estimated to be $60 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

Should an operator be required to

accomplish the 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 $4,800 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of any necessary modification is

estimated to be $6,600 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:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 97–NM–99–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9–31 series

airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–288, dated February

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 (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 fuselage skin or doubler at the corners of

the forward service door doorjamb, 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 will affect Principal

Structural Element (PSE) 53.09.033 of the

DC–9 Supplemental Inspection Document

(SID).

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 50,000 total

landings, or within 3,225 landings after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform a one-time visual inspection to

determine if the corners of the forward

service door doorjamb have been modified.

Perform the inspection in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–288, dated February 10, 1997.

(b) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–288, dated February 10, 1997: If the visual

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD reveals that the corners of the forward

service door doorjamb have not been

modified, prior to further flight, perform a

low frequency eddy currrent (LFEC) or x-ray

inspection to detect cracks of the fuselage

skin and doubler at all corners of the forward

service door doorjamb, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

53–288, dated February 10, 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 3,225 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 corner skin of the forward service door
3854 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 17 /Tuesday, January 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 the HFEC

required by this paragraph, 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 this paragraph,

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 2 inches or less in length: Prior to

further flight, modify/repair the corners of

the doorjamb of the forward service door 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 during the HFEC

inspection required by this paragraph, repeat

the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 20,000 landings.

(ii) If any crack is detected during any

HFEC inspection required by this paragraph,

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 2 inches 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 DC9–53–288, dated February

10, 1997: If the visual inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD reveals that the

corners of the forward service door doorjamb

have been modified previously in accordance

with the McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Structural

Repair Manual, using a steel doubler,

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

this AD in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–53–288, dated

February 10, 1997.

(1) Option 1. Prior to the accumulation of

6,000 landings after accomplishment of that

modification, or within 3,225 landings after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform an HFEC inspection to

detect cracks on the skin adjacent to the

modification, in accordance with the service

bulletin.

(i) If no crack is detected during the HFEC

inspection required by paragraph (c)(1) of

this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000

landings.

(ii) If any crack is detected 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 corner skin of the forward service door

doorjamb in accordance with the service

bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 28,000

landings after accomplishment of the

modification, perform an 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 the HFEC

required by this paragraph, 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 this paragraph,

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.

(d) Group 2, Condition 2. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–288, dated February

10, 1997: If the visual inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD reveals that the

corners of the forward service door doorjamb

have been modified previously in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Structural

Repair Manual, using an aluminum doubler,

prior to the accumulation of 28,000 landings

after accomplishment of that modification, or

within 3,225 landings after the effective date

of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform

an HFEC inspection to detect cracks on the

skin adjacent to the modification, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–53–288, dated February 10,

1997.

(1) If no crack is detected on the skin

adjacent to the modification during the HFEC

required by this paragraph, 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 this paragraph,

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.

(e) Group 2, Condition 3. For airplanes

identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC9–53–288, dated February

10, 1997: If the visual inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD reveals that the

corners of the forward service door doorjamb

have been modified previously, but not in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas

Structural Repair Manual, prior to further

flight, repair the corners 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 January

20, 1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–1858 Filed 1–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97–AEA–45]

Proposed Amendment to Class E

Airspace; Blacksburg, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

amend the Class E airspace area at

Blacksburg, VA. The development of a

new Standard Instrument Approach

Procedure (SIAP) based on the Global

Positioning System (GPS) at Virginia

Tech Airport has made this proposal

necessary. Additional controlled

airspace extending upward from 700

feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is

needed to accommodate the SIAP and

for instrument Flight Rules (IFR)

operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Manager,

Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Docket No.

97–AEA–45, F.A.A. Eastern Region,

Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy

Int’l Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Regional Counsel,

AEA–7, F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal

Building #111, John F. Kennedy

International Airport, Jamaica, New

York 11430.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

in the Airspace Branch, AEA–520,

F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building

#111, John F. Kennedy International

Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Francis T. Jordan, Jr., Airspace

Specialist, Airspace Branch, AEA–520,

F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building

#111, John F. Kennedy International