Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27449

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–16–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and C–9 (Military)

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9 and C–

9 (military) series airplanes. This

proposal would require replacement,

inspection, and modification of the

attach fittings of the main landing gear

(MLG). This proposal is prompted by

reports of severe structural damage and

rupture of the integral fuel tank due to

overload of the MLG caused by adverse

landing conditions. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to minimize the possibility of

primary structural damage and rupture

of the integral fuel tank due to overload

of the MLG; these conditions could lead

to fuel spillage and a resultant fire.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

16–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:

David Y. J. Hsu, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5323; fax (310) 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 95–NM–16–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–16–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

Since October 28, 1971, the FAA has

received 11 reports of severe structural

damage and rupture of the wing integral

fuel tank on McDonnell Douglas Model

DC–9 series airplanes. These

occurrences resulted from unpredictable

overload of the main landing gear (MLG)

caused by adverse landing conditions.

Model DC–9 series airplanes having

certain MLG fittings attached to the

airframe in a particular manner can

sustain damage of the primary structure

and rupture of the integral fuel tank

during certain abnormal landing

conditions. Such conditions include

overrunning the runway, going off the

runway, skidding off the runway,

taxiing into holes on a runway under

repair, landing off the runway, or a hard

landing. Structural damage of this type

could compromise the integrity of the

integral fuel tank. Should the integral

fuel tank subsequently rupture, it could

result in fuel spillage and a resultant

fire.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 57–207, dated May 24, 1994,

which references two other McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 service bulletins that

contain procedures which, when

accomplished, will improve the

capability of the MLG to break away

during abnormal landing operations.

These service bulletins contain

procedures for replacement, inspection,

and modification of the attachments of

the MLG attach fittings, as follows:

1. McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 57–125, Revision 5, dated

November 5, 1990, describes procedures

for replacement of MLG attach fittings

fabricated from 7079–T6 with fittings

fabricated from 7075–T73 aluminum

alloy forgings. These procedures are

specified in the service bulletin as

Option 1.

2. McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 57–148, Revision 5, dated

November 23, 1992. This service

bulletin describes procedures for the

following:

—Enlarging the counterbores in the

MLG attach fitting at the inboard and

outboard lower attachment holes, and

performing a high frequency eddy

current inspection of the counterbore

areas to detect cracks;

—Shotpeening selected areas of the

MLG attach fitting;

—Replacing the lower attachment bolts

of the inboard and outboard MLG

attach fittings with bolts having a

different part number; and

—Replacing the fasteners through the

lower flange of the MLG attach fitting

with interference fit fasteners.

These procedures are identified in the

service bulletin as Phase 2.

Accomplishment of the actions

described above will minimize the

possibility of primary structural

damage, fuel tank rupture, and possible

fuel spillage due to unpredictable

overload of the MLG caused by

abnormal landing operations.

Accomplishment of the procedures

described in Revision 4 of McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–125

is required currently by AD 90–18–03,

amendment 39–6701 (55 FR 34704,

August 24, 1990) to address an unsafe

condition identified as cracking due to

stress corrosion and subsequent

degradation of the structural capability

of the affected airplanes. Revisions 3, 4,

and 5 of that service bulletin also

specify procedures which, when

accomplished, will improve the
27450 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

capability of the MLG to break away

during abnormal landing operations.

Therefore, the FAA has determined that

the unsafe condition related to

structural damage of the integral fuel

tank, as addressed by this proposed AD,

also has been addressed adequately for

those airplanes on which Option 1 of

Revision 3, 4, or 5 of the service bulletin

has been accomplished. However, the

original version through Revision 2 of

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 57–125 do not contain

procedures that will improve the

breakaway capability of the MLG. The

FAA has previously approved

accomplishment of Option 1 in

accordance with the original version

through Revision 2 of the service

bulletin, in lieu of Revision 4, as an

acceptable alternative method of

compliance with AD 90–18–03.

Therefore, for airplanes on which the

procedures described in the original

version, Revision 1, or Revision 2 of

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 57–125 have been

accomplished, the FAA finds that Phase

2, as specified in McDonnell Douglas

DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–148, also

must be accomplished to ensure that the

unsafe condition specified in this

proposed AD is corrected.

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 one of the actions specified

below, as applicable. The actions would

be required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletins

described previously.

1. Replacement of the attach fittings of

both the right and left MLG’s would be

required for airplanes on which Option

1 (or production equivalent) of

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 57–125 (original version

through Revision 5) has not been

accomplished.

2. Inspection and modification of the

attach fittings of both the right and left

MLG’s would be required for airplanes

on which Option 1 of McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–125

(original version through Revision 2)

has been accomplished, but on which

Phase 2 of McDonnell Douglas DC–9

Service Bulletin 57–148 (original

version through Revision 5) has not

been accomplished.

There are approximately 906 Model

DC–9 and C–9 (military) series airplanes

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 549

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The FAA estimates that the

replacement specified as Option 1 in

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 57–125 has been accomplished

on all 549 airplanes of U.S. registry that

would be affected by this proposed AD.

(As discussed previously,

accomplishment of Option 1 was

required by AD 90–18–03.) Accordingly,

the FAA finds that the proposed

replacement required by this AD would

impose no additional economic burden

on any U.S. operator.

However, should an affected airplane

be imported and placed on the U.S.

Register in the future, it would require

approximately 425 work hours to

accomplish Option 1, at an average

labor charge of $60 per work hour. The

cost of required parts would be $58,853

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact for accomplishing

Option 1 would be $84,353 per airplane.

The FAA estimates that all 549

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

required to accomplish the inspection

and modification specified as Phase 2 in

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 57–148. It would take

approximately 36 work hours per

airplane to accomplish Phase 2, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $4,338 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact on U.S. operators for

accomplishing Phase 2 is estimated to

be $3,567,402, or $6,498 per airplane.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished this

proposed requirement (Phase 2) of this

AD action, and that no operator would

accomplish that action in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

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.

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:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95–NM–16–AD.

Applicability: All Model DC–9 and C–9

(military) series airplanes, 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 (c) 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27451

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 minimize the possibility of primary

structural damage and rupture of the integral

fuel tank due to overload of the main landing

gear (MLG) caused by adverse landing

conditions, and subsequent fuel spillage and

a resultant fire, accomplish the following:

(a) For airplanes on which Option 1 (or

production equivalent) has not been

accomplished as specified in McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–125

(original issue through Revision 5): Within 12

months after the effective date of this AD,

replace the attach fittings of both the right

and left MLG’s in accordance with Option 1

of the Accomplishment Instructions of

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletins

57–125, Revision 5, dated November 5, 1990.

Note 2: Airplanes on which Option 1 has

been accomplished as specified in any of the

following revisions of McDonnell Douglas

DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–125, are

considered to be in compliance with this AD

and no further action is required by this AD:

Service

bulletin

No.

Revision level Date

57–125 Revision 3 .... October 28, 1982;

or

Revision 4 .... June 21, 1983; or

Revision 5 .... November 5, 1990.

(b) For airplanes on which Option 1 has

been accomplished as specified in

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

57–125 (original version through Revision 2);

but on which Phase 2 has not been

accomplished as specified in McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–148

(original version through Revision 5): Within

12 months after the effective date of this AD,

inspect and modify the attach fittings of both

the right and left MLG’s in accordance with

Phase 2 of McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 57–148, Revision 5, dated November

23, 1992.

Note 3: Airplanes on which both Option 1

(or a production equivalent) has been

accomplished as specified in any of the

following revisions of McDonnell Douglas

DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–125; and Phase 2

(or a production equivalent) has been

accomplished as specified in any of the

following revisions of McDonnell Douglas

DC–9 Service Bulletin 57–148; are

considered to be in compliance with this AD

and no further action is required by this AD:

Service

bulletin

No.

Revision level Date

57–125 (original) ....... January 26, 1979;

or

Revision 1 .... February 16, 1979;

or

Revision 2 .... August 24, 1979;

Service

bulletin

No.

Revision level Date

and

57–148 (original) ....... October 1, 1982; or

Revision 1 .... June 8, 1983; or

Revision 2 .... August 9, 1989; or

Revision 3 .... September 11,

1990; or

Revision 4 .... February 25, 1991;

or

Revision 5 .... November 23,

1992.

(c) 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 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(d) 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 18,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12712 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–ANE–28]

Proposed Alternation Class D and

Class E Airspace; Hartford, CT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

modify the Class D and Class E airspace

areas established in the vicinity of the

Hartford-Brainard Airport, Hartford, CT.

Those airspace areas also define

controlled airspace to contain aircraft

operating to and from the Rentschler

Airport, a privately operated airport in

East Hartford, CT. The owner of

Rentschler Airport has recently closed

the control tower. Therefore, this action

is necessary to revise the Class D and

Class E airspace in the vicinity of the

Rentschler and Hartford-Brainard

airports.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Manager,

System Management Branch, ANE–530,

Federal Aviation Administration, 12

New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299; telephone

(617) 238–7530; fax (617) 238–7596.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel for the New England Region,

ANE–7, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299;

telephone (617) 238–7050; fax (617)

238–7055.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

in the Office of the Manager, System

Management Branch, Air Traffic

Division, ANE–530, at the first address

shown above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joanne Botos, System Management

Branch, ANE–530, Federal Aviation

Administration, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803–

5299; telephone (617) 238–7533; fax

(617) 238–7596.

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 regularly 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. Commentators 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: ‘‘Comment

to Airspace Docket No 95–ANE–28.’’

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 System

Management Branch, Air Traffic

Division, at 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA 02108–5299, both

before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each