40666 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Agenda for August 21, 1998

9:00 a.m.–9:30 a.m.—Introductory

Remarks

9:30 a.m.–10:00 a.m.—Discussion of

Contemplated Amendments by NRC

Staff

10:00 a.m.–12:00 noon—Public

Comments and Statements

12:00 noon–1:00 p.m.—Lunch Break

1:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m.—Public Comments

and Statements (Continued)

3:00 p.m.–3:15 p.m. Concluding

Remarks

Note that public comments and

statements may be completed earlier

than indicated and, if so, the meeting

will be concluded earlier.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 24th day of

July, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Charles E. Rossi,

Director, Safety Programs Division, Office for

Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data.

[FR Doc. 98–30358 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–292–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–80 Series

Airplanes and Model MD–88 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–80

series airplanes and Model MD–88

airplanes, that currently requires

inspection(s) to detect fatigue cracking

of the shock strut cylinder of the main

landing gear (MLG), and replacement of

any cracked shock strut cylinder with a

serviceable part. That AD also provides

for installation of brake line hydraulic

restrictors on the MLG brake systems,

which, if accomplished, terminates the

repetitive inspections. This action

would require that the subject

inspection be accomplished repetitively

following installation of brake line

hydraulic restrictors. This proposal is

prompted by an additional report of

fatigue cracking and subsequent

fracturing of the shock strut cylinder of

the MLG. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

collapse of the MLG due to fracturing of

the shock strut cylinder.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 14, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97-NM–

292-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, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brent Bandley, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (562) 627–

5237; 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–292–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.

97–NM–292–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On October 16, 1995, the FAA issued

AD 95–22–06, amendment 39–9413 (60

FR 54417, October 24, 1995), applicable

to certain McDonnell Douglas Model

DC–9–80 series airplanes and Model

MD–88 airplanes, to require

inspection(s) to detect fatigue cracking

of the shock strut cylinder of the main

landing gear (MLG), and replacement of

any cracked shock strut cylinder with a

serviceable part. That AD also provides

for installation of brake line hydraulic

restrictors on the MLG brake systems,

which, if accomplished, terminates the

repetitive inspection requirement. That

action was prompted by a report

indicating that fatigue cracking and

subsequent fracturing of the shock strut

cylinder of the MLG occurred due to

high stress loads on the cylinder as a

result of braking induced vibration. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent such fracturing, which could

result in collapse of the MLG and

consequent reduced controllability of

the airplane during landing.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has received an additional report

of fatigue cracking and subsequent

fracturing of the shock strut cylinder of

the MLG, which collapsed during

landing roll of an affected in-service

airplane. Brake line hydraulic restrictors

had been previously installed on this

airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Subsequent to this incident, the

manufacturer issued, and the FAA

reviewed and approved, McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80–

32A286, Revision 03, dated May 28,

1998. The inspection procedures

described in this revision are identical

to those described in the original

version of the alert service bulletin

(which was referenced in AD 95–22–06

as the appropriate source of service

information). In addition, Revision 03
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40667

recommends that these inspections be

accomplished on a repetitive basis

following installation of the brake line

hydraulic restrictors.

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

supersede AD 95–22–06 to require

repetitive dye penetrant and magnetic

particle inspections to detect cracking of

the shock strut cylinder of the MLG

following installation of brake line

hydraulic restrictors. The proposed AD

also would require replacement of any

cracked shock strut cylinder with either

a serviceable part or new shock strut

cylinder. Accomplishment of the

replacement with a new shock strut

cylinder constitutes terminating action

for the repetitive inspection

requirements. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the alert service

bulletin described previously.

Differences Between the AD and the

Relevant Service Information

Operators should note that, although

the referenced alert service bulletin

describes procedures for installation of

brake line hydraulic restrictors, this

proposed AD does not require such an

installation. The FAA has previously

issued AD 96–01–09, amendment 39–

9485 (61 FR 2407, January 26, 1996) that

concerns the subject area on McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–90 series airplanes

and Model MD–88 airplanes. That AD

requires installation of hydraulic line

restrictors in the MLG. This proposed

AD would not affect the current

requirements of AD 96–01–09.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,011

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–80

series airplanes and Model MD–88

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

625 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The dye penetrant and magnetic

particle inspections that are proposed in

this AD action would take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

dye penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections proposed by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $150,000, or

$240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or 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

removing amendment 39–9413 (60 FR

54417, October 24, 1995), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 97–NM–292–

AD. Supersedes AD 95–22–06,

Amendment 39–9413.

Applicability: Model DC–9–81 (MD–81),

DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and

DC–9–87 (MD–87) series airplanes, and

Model MD–88 airplanes; as listed in

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

MD80–32A286, dated September 11, 1995;

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)(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 prevent collapse of the main landing

gear (MLG) due to fracturing of the shock

strut cylinder, accomplish the following:

Note 2: Where there are differences

between the referenced alert service bulletin

and the AD, the AD prevails.

(a) Perform dye penetrant and magnetic

particle inspections to detect cracking of the

shock strut cylinder of the MLG, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert

Service Bulletin MD80–32A286, Revision 03,

dated May 28, 1998; at the time specified in

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD,

as applicable.

Note 3: Inspections accomplished prior to

the effective date of this AD in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin MD80–32A286, Revision 02, dated

October 2, 1997, are considered acceptable

for compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD.

(1) For airplanes that, as of the effective

date of this AD, have accumulated less than

1,200 landings since accomplishment of the

brake line hydraulic restrictor installation:

Inspect within 1,200 landings after the

effective date of this AD. Repeat the

inspections thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 1,200 landings for a total of 4

inspections.

(2) For airplanes that, as of the effective

date of this AD, have accumulated greater

than or equal to 1,200 landings and less than

2,400 landings since accomplishment of the

brake line hydraulic restrictor installation:

Inspect within 1,200 landings after the

effective date of this AD. Repeat the

inspections thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 1,200 landings for a total of 3

inspections.

(3) For airplanes that, as of the effective

date of this AD, have accumulated greater

than or equal to 2,400 landings since

accomplishment of the brake line hydraulic

restrictor installation: Inspect within 1,200

landings after the effective date of this AD.

Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 1,200 landings for a total of 2

inspections.

(b) If any cracking is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, accomplish either

paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert

Service Bulletin MD80–32A286, Revision 03,

dated May 28, 1998.
40668 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(1) Replace the shock strut cylinder with a

crack-free serviceable part and, thereafter,

repeat the inspections required by paragraph

(a) of this AD, at the time specified in

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD,

as applicable. Or

(2) Replace the shock strut cylinder with a

new shock strut cylinder. Accomplishment of

the replacement constitutes terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

Note 4: Replacements accomplished prior

to the effective date of this AD in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin MD80–32A286, Revision 02, dated

October 2, 1997, are considered acceptable

for compliance with paragraph (b) of this AD.

(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install on any airplane an MLG

shock strut cylinder or MLG assembly unless

that part has been inspected and found to be

crack free, in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service MD80–32A286,

Revision 02, dated October 2, 1997, or

Revision 03, dated May 28, 1998.

(d)(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 Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

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, 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.

(d)(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

95–22–06, amendment 39–9413, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 24,

1998.

S. R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20339 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97–AWA–4]

RIN 2120–AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class C

Airspace, and Revocation of Class D

Airspace, Austin-Bergstrom

International Airport, TX; and

Revocation of Robert Mueller

Municipal Airport Class C Airspace; TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

establish a Class C airspace area and

revoke the existing Class D airspace area

at the Austin-Bergstrom International

Airport, Austin, TX. In addition, this

notice proposes to revoke the existing

Class C airspace area at the Robert

Mueller Municipal Airport, Austin, TX.

The FAA is proposing this action in

support of the planned closure of the

Robert Mueller Municipal Airport, and

the transfer of airport operations from

the Robert Mueller Municipal Airport to

the Austin-Bergstrom International

Airport. The Austin-Bergstrom

International Airport is a public-use

facility that will be serviced by a Level

IV control tower and a Radar Approach

Control. The establishment of this Class

C airspace area would require pilots to

maintain two-way radio

communications with air traffic control

(ATC) while in Class C airspace.

Implementation of the Class C airspace

area would promote the efficient use of

airspace, and reduce the risk of midair

collision in the terminal area.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket,

AGC–200, Airspace Docket No. 97-

AWA–4, 800 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20591. The

official docket may be examined in the

Rules Docket, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Room 916, weekdays, except

Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and

5:00 p.m.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

at the office of the Regional Air Traffic

Division, Federal Aviation

Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,

Fort Worth, TX 76193–0500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Sheri Edgett Baron, Airspace and Rules

Division, ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic

Airspace Management, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone: (202) 267–8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 97–

AWA–4.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Rules Docket both

before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRM’s

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded from the FAA

regulations section of the Fedworld

electronic bulletin board service

(telephone: 703–321–3339) or the

Federal Register’s electronic bulletin

board service (telephone: 202–512–

1661), using a modem and suitable

communications software.

Internet users may reach the FAA’s

web page at http://www.faa.gov or the

Federal Register’s web page at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs for

access to recently published rulemaking

documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration, Office