26004 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules

terminating action for the required

placard.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this long-standing requirement.

There are approximately 710 Learjet

Model 35, 35A, 36, 36A, 55, 55B, and

55C airplanes of the affected design in

the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates

that 177 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

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. The cost of

required parts (local manufacture of a

placard) is negligible. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $10,620, or $60 per

airplane.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

action that would be provided by this

AD action, it would take approximately

14 work hours to accomplish it, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

The cost of required parts would be

approximately $3,050 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the optional terminating

action would be $3,890 per airplane.

The total 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.

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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Learjet: Docket 95–NM–25–AD.

Applicability: Model 35, 35A, 36, 36A, 55,

55B, and 55C airplanes; equipped with

Global Wulfsburg GNS 500, GNS–1000, and

GNS-X Flight Management Systems;

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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (d) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent excessive deviation from the

intended flight path which, if the aircraft is

on an extended overwater operation, may

lead to a potential low-fuel condition or a

traffic conflict operation, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 60 days after the effective date

of this AD, install a placard in a prominent

location on the instrument panel that states:

‘‘VLF/OMEGA MAY BE INOPERATIVE AT

92.5% N2’’

(b) For Model 35 airplanes, serial numbers

35–001 through 35–603 inclusive; and Model

36, serial numbers 36–001 through 36–053

inclusive: Installation of a GNS 500/1000

generator band reject filter in accordance

with Gates Learjet Airplane Accessory Kit

Model AAK 85–1, dated January 14, 1986, as

revised by Airplane Accessory Kit Change

Notice AAK–85–1, Change 1 (undated),

constitutes terminating action for the placard

requirement of paragraph (a) of this AD.

Following installation of the filter, the

placard required by paragraph (a) of this AD

may be removed.

(c) For Model 55 airplanes, serial numbers

55–003 through 55–124 inclusive:

Installation of a GNS 500/1000 generator

band reject filter in accordance with Gates

Learjet Airplane Accessory Kit Model 55

AAK 55–85–2, dated January 14, 1986, as

revised by Airplane Accessory Kit Change

Notice AAK No. AAK55–85–2, Change 1

(undated), constitutes terminating action for

the placard requirement of paragraph (a) of

this AD. Following installation of the filter,

the placard required by paragraph (a) of this

AD may be removed.

(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, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small 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, Wichita ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

(e) 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 May 10,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–11975 Filed 5–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 26005

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–10–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed

Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G

Series 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

Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F,

and 382G series airplanes, that currently

requires visual inspections to detect

loose, missing, or deformed fasteners in

the upper truss mounts of certain

engines, inspections to detect cracking

in the associated tangs, and replacement

of damaged parts with new or

serviceable parts. This action would

require repetitive ultrasonic inspections

to detect cracking of the upper tangs and

replacement of cracked parts with

certain new or serviceable parts. This

action would also provide an optional

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections. Additionally, this action

would revise the applicability of the

existing rule to specify appropriate

groupings of airplanes subject to the

rule. This proposal is prompted by

reports indicating that fatigue cracking

of the tangs of the upper truss mount

has been detected. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

prevent multiple failures of the upper

truss mounts due to problems associated

with fatigue cracking, which could

adversely affect the integrity of the

engine mount structure.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

10–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

Lockheed Aeronautical Systems

Support Company, Field Support

Department, Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251

Lake Park Drive, Smyrna, Georgia

30080. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,

Campus Building, Suite 2–160, 1701

Columbia Avenue, College Park,

Georgia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer,

ACE–116A, Flight Test Branch, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate; Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, Campus

Building, Suite 2–160, 1701 Columbia

Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337–

2748; telephone (404) 305–7367; fax

(404) 305–7348.

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 95–NM–10–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.

95–NM–10–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On January 21, 1994, the FAA issued

AD 94–03–03, amendment 39–8809 (59

FR 5078, February 3, 1994), applicable

to certain Lockheed Model 382, 382B,

382E, 382F,and 382G series airplanes, to

require visual inspections to detect

loose, missing, or deformed fasteners in

the upper truss mounts of certain

engines, inspections to detect cracking

in the associated tangs, and replacement

of damaged parts with new or

serviceable parts. That action was

prompted by a report of fatigue cracking

of the upper tang of the truss mounts.

The requirements of that AD are

intended to prevent multiple failures of

the upper truss mounts due to the

problems associated with fatigue

cracking, which could adversely affect

the integrity of the engine mount

structure.

In the preamble to AD 94–03–03, the

FAA indicated that the actions required

by that AD were considered ‘‘interim

action’’ and that further rulemaking

action was being considered.

Subsequently, the FAA has determined

that additional actions are necessary to

adequately address the identified unsafe

condition.

Based on the latest data available, the

FAA finds that, due to the effects of

engine torque, cracking can originate on

the outboard truss mount for the No. 1

engine and the inboard truss mount for

the No. 4 engine. The ultrasonic

inspection procedure described in

Hercules Service Bulletin 382–71–20,

dated March 18, 1994, (described below)

will detect cracking in the critical truss

mount before cracking begins in the

other truss mount, and will detect

cracking prior to the time that the

fasteners in the truss mounts could be

loaded to the degree that they could fail.

The FAA has determined that, if this

ultrasonic inspection is conducted

repetitively in the subject area, then the

currently-required visual inspection for

loose, missing, or deformed fasteners is

no longer necessary.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Hercules Service Bulletin 382–71–20,

dated March 18, 1994, which describes

procedures for performing repetitive

ultrasonic inspections to detect fatigue

cracking of the upper tangs of the No.

1 engine outboard and No. 4 engine

inboard truss mounts, and replacement

of any cracked assembly with a new or

serviceable unit. The service bulletin

specifies that replacement of the truss

mount assembly with an assembly

having part number (P/N) 360013–31

and subsequent (for the No. 1 outboard

engine assembly) or P/N 360017–31 and

subsequent (for the No. 4 inboard engine

assembly) eliminates the need for the

repetitive ultrasonic inspections.

Additionally, the FAA has identified

certain revisions that must be made to

the applicability of the existing AD:

1. Model 382G series airplanes should

have been listed in the applicability of

the with the group of airplanes on

which the outer wings have been
26006 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules

replaced in accordance with

Manufacturing End Product (MEP) 12R/

13R or MEP 9T/10T.

2. Model 382E series airplanes should

have been included in the group of

airplanes having serial numbers 4561

through 5225 inclusive.

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 94–03–03 to continue to

require inspection to detect loose,

missing, or deformed fasteners in the

upper truss mounts of certain engines,

inspections to detect cracking in the

associated tangs, and replacement of

damaged parts with new or serviceable

parts. This AD would also require

repetitive ultrasonic inspections to

detect cracking of the upper tangs on the

No. 1 engine outboard truss mount and

the No. 4 engine inboard truss mount,

and replacement of the truss mount

with a new part, if necessary.

Replacement of the truss mount

assembly with an assembly having P/N

360013–31 (or subsequent) or P/N

360017–31 (or subsequent) would

constitute terminating action for the

inspection requirements of the AD. The

inspections would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

The replacement would be required to

be accomplished in accordance with the

Hercules Structural Repair Manual.

This proposed action would also

revise the applicability of the existing

AD to include the Model 382E and

Model 382G in the appropriate

groupings of airplanes that are subject to

the rule.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this long-standing requirement.

There are approximately 112

Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F,

and 382G series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 18 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

Accomplishment of the visual

inspections currently required by AD

94–03–03, which would be retained in

this proposed AD, take approximately

10 work hours per airplane, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the currently-required

inspections on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $10,800, or $600 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

Accomplishment of the ultrasonic

inspections that would be added by this

AD would take approximately 6 work

hours per airplane, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed inspections on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $6,480, or $360 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The total 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. However, it is reasonable to

assume that operators currently subject

to the requirements of AD 94–03–03

have already implemented the repetitive

visual inspections required by that AD.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

action that would be provided by this

AD action, it would take approximately

60 work hours per airplane to

accomplish it, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. The cost of required

parts would be approximately $17,000

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the optional

terminating action would be $20,600 per

airplane.

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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–8809 (59 FR

5078, February 3, 1994), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company:

Docket 95–NM–10–AD. Supersedes AD

94–03–03, Amendment 39–8809.

Applicability: Model 382, 382B, 382E,

382F, and 382G series airplanes having serial

numbers 3946 through 4512 inclusive, on

which the outer wings have been replaced in

accordance with Manufacturing End Product

(MEP) 12R/13R or MEP 9T/10T; and Model

382E and Model 382G series airplanes having

serial numbers 4561 through 5225 inclusive;

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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (f) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously. To prevent

multiple failures of the upper truss mounts,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 26007

which could adversely affect the integrity of

the engine mount structure, accomplish the

following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total

hours time-in-service since wing replacement

(for Model 382, 382B, 382E, and 382F series

airplanes on which the outer wings have

been replaced in accordance with MEP 12R/

13R or MEP 9T/10T); or prior to the

accumulation of 15,000 total hours time in

service (for Model 382G series airplanes); or

within 30 days after February 18, 1994 (the

effective date of AD 94–03–03, amendment

39–8809), whichever occurs later:

Accomplish the requirements of paragraphs

(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD. Repeat the

specified inspections thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 300 hours time-in-service or

100 landings, whichever occurs later, until

the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD

are accomplished.

(1) Perform a general visual inspection to

detect loose, missing, or deformed fasteners

on the inboard and outboard upper truss

mounts of the No. 1 and No. 4 (left and right

outboard) engines, in accordance with

Lockheed Alert Service Bulletin A382–71 19/

A82–687, dated December 23, 1993. If any

loose, missing, or deformed fastener is found,

prior to further flight, replace it with a new

or serviceable fastener in accordance with

Hercules Structural Repair Manual (SRM),

Document Number SMP 583.

(2) Perform a general visual inspection to

detect cracking of the truss mount upper

tangs of the No. 1 and No. 4 engine truss

mounts in accordance with Lockheed Alert

Service Bulletin A382–71–19/A82–687,

dated December 23, 1993. If cracking is

detected in any truss mount upper tang, prior

to further flight, replace it with a new or

serviceable tang in accordance with Hercules

SRM, Document Number SMP 583, or in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO), FAA, Small Airplane Directorate.

(b) Perform an ultrasonic inspection to

detect cracking of the upper tangs of the No.

1 outboard and the No. 4 inboard engine

truss mounts, in accordance with Hercules

Service Bulletin 382–71–20, dated March 18,

1994, at the time specified in paragraph (b)(1)

or (b)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

Accomplishment of this inspection

terminates the inspections required by

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(1) For Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and

382G series airplanes on which the outer

wings have been replaced in accordance with

MEP 12R/13R or MEP 9T/10T: Accomplish

the inspection at the earlier of the times

specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii)

of this AD.

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total

hours time-in-service since replacement of

the outer wings, or within 90 days after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later. Or

(ii) Within 300 hours time-in-service or 100

landings, whichever occurs later, following

the immediately preceding visual inspection

accomplished in accordance with paragraph

(a) of this AD.

(2) For Model 382E and 382G series

airplanes having serial number 4561 through

5225 inclusive, other than those identified in

paragraph (b)(1) of this AD: Accomplish the

inspection at the earlier of the times specified

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this

AD.

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total

hours time-in-service, or within 90 days after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later. Or

(ii) Within 300 hours time-in-service or 100

landings, whichever occurs later, following

the immediately preceding visual inspection

accomplished in accordance with paragraph

(a) of this AD.

(c) If no cracking is detected during the

inspection required by paragraph (b) of this

AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 5,200 hours time-inservice.

(d) If any cracking is detected during the

inspection required by paragraph (b) of this

AD: Prior to further flight, accomplish the

requirements of either paragraph (d)(1) or

(d)(2) of this AD.

(1) Replace the truss mount assembly with

a new or serviceable assembly having part

number 360013–15, –19, or –23 (for the

outboard truss mounts of the No. 1 engine),

or part number 360017–15, –19, or –23 (for

the inboard truss mounts of the No. 4

engine), as applicable, in accordance with

SRM 515C. Prior to the accumulation of

15,000 hours time-in-service after installation

of the engine truss mount assembly, perform

an ultrasonic inspection as specified in

paragraph (b) of this AD. Repeat that

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 5,200 hours time-in-service. Or

(2) Replace the truss mount assembly with

part number 360013–31 or subsequent (for

the truss mounts in the No. 1 outboard

engine), or part number 360017–31 or

subsequent (for the truss mounts of the No.

4 inboard engine), as applicable, in

accordance with SRM 515C. Such

replacement constitutes terminating action

for the requirements of this AD.

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

person shall install a No. 1 outboard engine

truss mount (part number 360013–15, –19, or

–23), or a No. 4 inboard engine truss mount

(part number 360017–15, –19, or –23), on any

airplane unless the truss mount has been

inspected in accordance with SRM 151C.

(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, Atlanta

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Atlanta ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta 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 May 10,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–11972 Filed 5–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–195–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 Series Airplanes

and C–9 (Military) 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 McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 series airplanes

and C–9 (military) airplanes, that

currently requires the implementation

of a program of structural inspections to

detect and correct fatigue cracking in

order to ensure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes as they

approach the manufacturer’s original

fatigue design life goal. This action

would require, among other things,

revision of the existing program to

require additional visual inspections of

additional structure. This proposal is

prompted by new data submitted by the

manufacturer indicating that certain

revisions to the program are necessary

in order to increase the confidence level

of the statistical program to ensure

timely detection of cracks in various

airplane structures. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent fatigue cracking that

could compromise the structural

integrity of these airplanes.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

195–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 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