23840 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct fatigue cracking of

the hinge assemblies and the 12 o’clock beam

structure of the thrust reverser C-duct, which

could cause failure of the thrust reverser

hinge, resulting in separation of the thrust

reverser from the airplane, accomplish the

following:

Initial and Repetitive Inspections

(a) Perform a general visual inspection of

the hinge assemblies and the 12 o’clock beam

structure of the right and left thrust reversers

for cracks, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A330–78–3006, Revision 05, dated

March 6, 2001, according to the criteria in

Table 1 of this AD, below:

TABLE 1—INITIAL INSPECTION

If— Then inspect—

Neither Airbus Modification 46879 nor

47358 has been

embodied on the

airplane.

Before the accumulation of 1,200 total

flight cycles, or

within 6 months

after the effective

date of this AD,

whichever occurs

first.

Either Airbus Modification 46879 or

47358 have been

embodied on the

airplane.

Before the accumulation of 2,000 total

flight cycles, or 6

months after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs first.

(1) If no crack is found during the general

visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of

this AD, before further flight, perform a

detailed visual inspection of the lugs of

hinges 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the right and left

thrust reversers for cracks in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A330–78–3006,

Revision 05, dated March 6, 2001.

(i) If no crack is found as a result of the

detailed visual inspection mandated by

paragraph (a)(1) of this AD, repeat the general

visual inspection mandated by paragraph (a)

of this AD according to the schedule in Table

2 of this AD.

(ii) If a crack is found as a result of the

detailed visual inspection mandated by

paragraph (a)(1) of this AD:

(A) Before further flight, replace the

affected thrust reverser with a new or

serviceable thrust reverser in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A330–78–3006,

Revision 05, dated March 6, 2001.

(B) Repeat the general visual inspection

mandated in paragraph (a) of this AD

according to the schedule in Table 2 of this

AD.

(2) If a crack is found during the general

visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of

this AD, accomplish the actions required by

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Before further flight, replace the affected

thrust reverser with a new or serviceable

thrust reverser in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A330–78–3006, Revision 05,

dated March 6, 2001.

(ii) Repeat the general visual inspection

mandated in paragraph (a) of this AD

according to the schedule in Table 2 of this

AD, below:

TABLE 2.—REPETITIVE INSPECTIONS

If—

Then repeat the inspection at intervals

not to exceed—

Neither Airbus Modification 46879 nor

47358 has been

embodied on the

airplane.

1,200 flight cycles.

Either Airbus Modification 46879 or

47358 has been

embodied on the

airplane.

2,000 flight cycles.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

general visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘A

visual examination of an interior or exterior

area, installation, or assembly to detect

obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This

level of inspection is made under normally

available lighting conditions such as

daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight, and may require removal or opening of

access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or

platforms may be required to gain proximity

to the area being checked.’’

Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as a

mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used.

Surface cleaning and elaborate access

procedures may be required.’’

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport

Airplane Directorate, FAA. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(d) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A330–78–3006,

Revision 05, dated March 6, 2001. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus

Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 1997–118–

047(B) R2, dated September 20, 2000.

Effective Date

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

May 25, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 30,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11223 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–164–AD; Amendment

39–12225; AD 2001–09–18]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–80 Series

Airplanes and Model MD–88 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–80 series

airplanes and Model MD–88 airplanes,

that currently requires a one-time

inspection to detect cracking of the

main landing gear (MLG) pistons, and

repair or replacement of the pistons

with new or serviceable parts, if

necessary. This amendment requires,

among other actions, repetitive dye

penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons; repair and replacement of

discrepant parts; and installation of a

preventative modification; as

applicable. This amendment also

provides for an optional terminating

action for certain MLG pistons. This

amendment is prompted by additional

reports of failure of the MLG pistons

during towing of the airplanes. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent fatigue cracking of

the MLG pistons, which could result in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23841

failure of the pistons and subsequent

damage to the airplane structure or

injury to airplane occupants.

DATES: Effective June 14, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 14,

2001.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Aircraft

Group, Long Beach Division, 3855

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Data and

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A

(D800–0024). This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

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 (310) 627–

5237; fax (310) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 96–19–09,

amendment 39–9756 (61 FR 48617,

September 16, 1996), which is

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–80 series

airplanes and Model MD–88 airplanes

series airplanes, was published in the

Federal Register on October 4, 2000 (65

FR 59146). The action proposed to

require, among other actions, repetitive

dye penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections to detect cracks of the main

landing gear (MLG) pistons; repair and

replacement of discrepant parts; and

installation of a preventative

modification; as applicable. The action

also proposed an optional terminating

action for certain MLG pistons.

Comments Received

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Request To Revise Note 1 of the

Proposed AD

One commenter request that the

following sentence be added to Note 1

of the proposed AD: ‘‘Modification per

previous revisions of the referenced

service bulletin or dispositions from the

manufacturer that occurred prior to the

effective date of the AD comply with the

AD.’’

The FAA partially agrees. We do not

agree to include the sentence suggested

by the commenter. However, as

discussed below, we have included new

notes in the final rule to give operators

credit for accomplishing the

preventative modification before the

effective date of this AD.

Request To Give Credit for Preventative

Modifications Accomplished Previously

One commenter requests that

operators be given credit for

accomplishing the preventative

modification per the original version, or

Revisions 01 through 03 of McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

or procedures developed and analyzed

by Boeing and approved by the FAA

before the effective date of the AD. The

commenter notes that Revision 04 of

Service Bulletin MD80–32–277

(referenced as the appropriate source of

service information for the requirements

of this AD) contains procedures for wet

grinding and flap shot peening, which

were not recommended in the previous

revisions of the service bulletin.

Two other commenters request that

the applicability of paragraph (e)(2)(i) of

the proposed AD include any MLG

piston modified before the effective date

of the AD per the original version, or

Revisions 01 through 03 of McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

or Service Rework Drawing

SR08320081.

One of the commenters notes that one

of the paragraphs in the Discussion

section of the proposed AD states

‘‘Operators should note that, although

the service bulletin specifies that the

manufacturer may be contacted for

disposition of certain repair conditions,

this proposal would require the repair of

those conditions to be accomplished per

a method approved by the FAA. The

commenter requests that it be revised to

‘‘* * * certain repair conditions, for all

repairs performed after the effective date

of this AD, this proposed AD ***.’’

The FAA partially agrees. We find

that modification of any MLG piston or

replacement with a modified MLG per

the original version, and Revisions 1

through 4 of the referenced service

bulletin, Service Rework Drawing

SR08320081, or any FAA-approved

preventative modification to MLG

pistons, before the effective date of this

AD, is considered acceptable for

compliance with the preventative

modification requirements of

paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(1)(iii), (b)(2), and

(c)(1) of this AD, and with the

replacement requirements of paragraphs

(c)(2) and (d)(1) of this AD. Therefore,

we have included new notes in the final

rule to clarify this point. With the

inclusion of these new notes, we find

that the applicability of paragraph

(e)(2)(i) of the final rule does not need

to be changed. We also find that a

revision to the Discussion section, as

suggested by the commenter, is not

necessary because that section does not

reappear in the final rule.

Request To Include Reidentified Part

Number

Two commenters request that

paragraph (e) of the proposed AD also

reference the part number (P/N) for

MLG pistons that were modified and

reidentified as P/N SR09320081–3

through SR09320081–13 inclusive,

depending on its corresponding original

identity. One of the commenters states

that it tracks the MLG pistons by the

applicable ‘‘SR’’ part number, which are

listed in McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revisions 01

through 04.

The FAA agrees that the affected MLG

piston, P/N 5935347–1 through

5935347–509 inclusive, identified in

paragraph (e) of the AD, have been

modified and reidentified as P/N

SR09320081–3 through SR09320081–13

inclusive. We have revised paragraph (e)

of the final rule to clarify this point.

Request For Clarification of

Applicability of Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of

the Proposed AD

The applicability of paragraph

(e)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD reads ‘‘For

any MLG piston that has been modified

prior to the effective date of this AD.’’

One commenter interprets this to mean

pistons modified prior to December 7,

1999 (the issuance date of Revision 04

of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD80–32–277). The commenter states

that it is reasonable to assume that some

pistons may have been modified by

Revision 04 of the referenced service

bulletin since its issuance in December

1999.

From this comment, the FAA infers

that the commenter is requesting that

the applicability of paragraph (e)(2)(ii)

of the proposed AD be clarified. We

agree that clarification is necessary. The

commenter is incorrect in its

interpretation that the applicability of

paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of the AD refers to

MLG pistons modified per Revision 04

of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD80–32–277 prior to December 7,

1999. Our intent was that paragraph

(e)(2)(ii) of the AD be applicable to ‘‘For

any MLG piston that has been modified

23842 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

per service information other than

Revision 04 of McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin MD80–32–277 and not

inspected per Revision 04 of the service

bulletin prior to the effective date of this

AD.’’ We have revised paragraph

(e)(2)(ii) of the final rule accordingly to

clarify this point.

Requests To Give Credit for Repetitive

Inspections Since Modification

Several commenters request that the

FAA give credit to operators that are

doing repetitive inspections every 2,500

landings since modification of the MLG

pistons per McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04,

dated December 7, 1999, for the initial

inspections required by paragraph

(e)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD and the

repetitive inspections required by

paragraph (f) of the proposed AD. Two

commenters also state that paragraph

(h)(2) of the proposed AD has a similar

requirement and request that paragraph

(h)(2) of the proposed AD also be

revised.

Another commenter states that, based

on its service history, any MLG piston

that has been inspected every 2,500

landings provides an equivalent level of

safety. The commenter has no objection

to the proposed initial compliance time

of within 1,500 landings or 12 months

after the effective date of this AD for

MLG pistons that have not been

inspected.

The FAA does not consider that a

change, as requested by the

commenters, to the final rule is

necessary. Operators are given credit for

work previously performed by means of

the phrase in the ‘‘Compliance’’ section

of the AD that states, ‘‘Required as

indicated, unless accomplished

previously.’’ Therefore, in the case of

paragraphs (f) and (h)(2) of this AD, if

the required inspection has been

accomplished prior to the effective date

of this AD, this AD does not require that

it be repeated. However, this AD does

require that repetitive inspections be

conducted thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 2,500 landings (if no cracking is

detected, as specified in paragraphs (f)

and (i) of the final rule), and that other

follow-on actions be accomplished

when indicated.

Request To Revise A Certain

Compliance Time in Paragraph (f) of the

Proposed AD

Several commenters request that the

compliance time of ‘‘prior to the

accumulation of 30,000 or more total

landings on the MLG piston’’ specified

in paragraph (f) of the proposed AD be

changed to ‘‘within 30,000 landings

since modification of the MLG.’’ One of

the commenters states that the subject

compliance time of paragraph (f) of the

proposed AD conflicts with paragraph

(a)(3) of the proposed AD, which

requires the preventative modification

of certain MLG pistons (non-modified)

that have accumulated 30,000 or more

total landings to be done ‘‘within 2

years or 5,000 landings on the MLG

piston after the effective date of this

AD.’’ In this scenario, the commenter

contends that a non-modified piston has

an extended service allowance and

modified pistons have been penalized.

Another commenter states that the

proposed compliance time conflicts

with the requirements of paragraphs

(b)(1)(iii) and (e)(2) of the proposed AD.

Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of the proposed AD

requires the preventative modification

‘‘prior to the accumulation of 30,000 or

more total landings on the MLG piston.’’

Paragraph (e)(2) of the proposed AD

requires dye penetrant and magnetic

particle inspections for any MLG piston

that has accumulated less than 30,000

landings since accomplishment of the

modification.

It was the FAA’s intent that the

replacement required by paragraph (f) of

the proposed AD be accomplished

within 30,000 landing since

modification of the MLG. Therefore, we

agree with the commenters to revise the

compliance time of paragraph (f) of the

final rule from ‘‘prior to the

accumulation of 30,000 or more total

landings on the MLG piston’’ to ‘‘within

30,000 landings since modification of

the MLG’’ and have revised the final

rule accordingly.

Request To Revise Phrase ‘‘Since Date of

Manufacture’’

One commenter requests that the

phrase ‘‘since date of manufacture’’ be

revised to ‘‘since date of installation’’ in

paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of

the proposed AD. The commenter states

that industry’s standard for tracking

safe-life landing gear components is

total landings accumulated from the

date of installation, not the date of

manufacture.

The FAA does not agree. Because

MLG pistons can be taken off airplanes

and sold to other operators, there

potentially could be multiple

installations. Operators may

misinterpret ‘‘date of installation’’ to

mean that every time a MLG piston is

installed, the number of landings

returns to zero. Therefore, we find ‘‘date

of manufacture’’ (i.e., since new) to be

the correct phrase.

Request To Reference Correct Service

Bulletin for Optional Terminating

Action

Several commenters request that

paragraph (l) of the proposed AD be

revised to reference McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin MD80–32–309, which

was issued by Boeing on January 31,

2000, instead of McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

Revision 04, dated December 7, 1999.

One commenter states that Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277 does not

reference any configuration beyond part

number (P/N) 5935347–511 for

replacement of prior configurations. The

commenter also states that Service

Bulletin MD80–32–309 specifies that

MLG piston, P/N 5935347–517, is an

approved configuration for closing

action, and that it is an FAA-approved

alternative method of compliance for

both AD’s 96–19–09 and 99–13–07.

The FAA agrees. We have reviewed

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD80–32–277, Revision 04, dated

December 7, 1999, and acknowledge

that it does not describe procedures for

replacement of any MLG piston with a

MLG piston, P/N 5935347–517. The

correct service information for

accomplishing the replacement

specified in paragraph (l) of this AD is

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD80–32–309, dated January 31, 2000.

We have revised paragraph (l) of the

final rule accordingly.

Operators should note that Service

Bulletin MD80–32–309 also describes

procedures for replacement of the MLG

piston due to cracking near the radius

of the jackball fitting. However, this

proposed AD does not address the

actions associated with the jackball

fitting. We may consider issuing a

separate rulemaking action to supersede

AD 99–13–07.

Request To Include Inspection of

Jackball Fitting

One commenter requests that the

proposed AD require an inspection/

rework of the aft torque link lug and

inspection of the jackball fitting. The

commenter provided no explanation for

its request. The FAA does not agree. As

discussed above, the FAA may issue a

separate rulemaking action to address

any identified unsafe condition

associated with the jackball fitting.

Question About How To Determine the

Inspection Interval and Imposed Life

Limit

One commenter asks how to

determine the inspection interval and

the imposed life limit for MLG pistons

that were previously modified per

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23843

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD80–32–277, when it cannot

determine the times and cycles

accumulated at the time of modification.

The FAA finds that, if the cycle count

of the MLG piston cannot be determined

at the time of modification, operators

should work with an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI),

the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), and the

airplane manufacturer to resolve the

issue.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,200 Model

DC–9–80 series airplanes and Model

MD–88 airplanes of the affected design

in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 700 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD.

Should an operator be required to do

the dye penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections, it will take approximately 2

work hours per MLG piston to

accomplish the inspections, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of these inspections required by this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$120 per MLG piston.

Should an operator be required to do

the preventative modification, it will

take approximately 6 work hours per

MLG piston to accomplish the

inspections, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of these

inspections required by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $360 per

MLG piston.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted. The cost impact

figures discussed in AD rulemaking

actions represent only the time

necessary to perform the specific actions

actually required by the AD. These

figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

action that is provided by this AD

action, it would take approximately 31

work hours per MLG piston to

accomplish it, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. The cost of required

parts would be approximately $107,070

per MLG piston. Based on these figures,

the cost impact of the optional

terminating action would be $108,930

per MLG piston.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have a substantial direct effect 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, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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 39–9756 (61 FR

48617, September 16, 1996), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), amendment 39–12225, to read as

follows:

2001–09–18 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–12225. Docket 99–NM–

164–AD. Supersedes AD 96–19–09,

Amendment 39–9756.

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 Service Bulletin MD80–

32–277, Revision 04, dated December 7,

1999; 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 (m)(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 fatigue cracking of the main

landing gear (MLG) pistons, which could

result in failure of the pistons and

subsequent damage to the airplane structure

or injury to airplane occupants, accomplish

the following:

For Airplanes on Which Certain Pistons

Have Not Been Modified: Inspections

(a) For airplanes on which any MLG

piston, part number (P/N) 5935347–1 through

5935347–509 inclusive, has NOT been

modified: Do the actions specified in

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

as applicable, per the Accomplishment

Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04, dated

December 7, 1999.

(1) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated less than 5,000 total landings

since date of manufacture: Prior to the

accumulation of 5,000 total landings on the

MLG piston, or within 12 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, do dye penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons.

(2) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated 5,000 or more total landings

since date of manufacture, but less than

30,000 total landings since date of

manufacture: Within 1,500 landings on the

MLG piston or 12 months after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do

dye penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons.

(3) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated 30,000 or more total landings

since date of manufacture: Within 2 years or

5,000 landings on the MLG piston after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

first, do the preventative modification

(including inspections; corrective actions, if

necessary; wet grind rework area; flap shot

peen rework area; and reidentify the MLG

23844 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

pistons); except as required by paragraph (k)

of this AD. Following accomplishment of the

preventative modification, do the actions

specified in paragraph (e) at the time

indicated in that paragraph.

Note 2: Modification of the MLG piston per

the original version, and Revisions 01

through 04 of McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277, Service Rework

Drawing SR08320081, or any FAA-approved

preventative modification to MLG pistons

before the effective date of this AD, is

considered acceptable for compliance with

the preventative modification requirements

of paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(1)(iii), (b)(2), and

(c)(1) of this AD.

For Airplanes on Which Certain Pistons

Have Not Been Modified: Condition 1 (No

Crack)

(b) If no crack is found during any

inspection required by either paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD, do the actions specified

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

(1) Condition 1, Option 1. Do the actions

specified in either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or

(b)(1)(ii) of this AD, and in paragraph

(b)(1)(iii) of this AD.

(i) Repeat the inspections required by

either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500

landings until the permanent modification

required by paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this AD

has been done.

(ii) Before further flight, do the flap shot

peening per McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04, dated

December 7, 1999. Repeat the inspections

required by either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of

this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed

2,500 landings until the permanent

modification required by paragraph (b)(1)(iii)

of this AD has been done.

(iii) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 or

more total landings on the MLG piston, do

the preventative modification (including

inspections; corrective actions, if necessary;

wet grind rework area; flap shot peen rework

area; and reidentify the MLG pistons), per the

Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

Revision 04, dated December 7, 1999; except

as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

Accomplishment of the permanent

modification stops the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and

(b)(1)(ii) of this AD. Following

accomplishment of the preventative

modification, do the actions specified in

paragraph (e) at the time indicated in that

paragraph.

(2) Condition 1, Option 2. Before further

flight, do the preventative modification

(including inspections; corrective actions, if

necessary; wet grind rework area; flap shot

peen rework area; and reidentify the MLG

pistons) per Condition 1, Option 2, of the

Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

Revision 04, dated December 7, 1999; except

as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

Following accomplishment of the

preventative modification, do the actions

specified in paragraph (e) at the time

indicated in that paragraph.

For Airplanes on Which Certain Pistons

Have Not Been Modified: Condition 2 (Any

Crack Within Limits)

(c) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by either paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD, and that crack is within

the limits specified in McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04,

dated December 7, 1999, before further flight,

do the action(s) specified in either paragraph

(c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD.

(1) Do the preventative modification

(including inspections; corrective actions, if

necessary; wet grind rework area; flap shot

peen rework area; and reidentify the MLG

pistons) per the Accomplishment

Instructions of the service bulletin; except as

required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

Following accomplishment of the

preventative modification, do the actions

specified in paragraph (e) or (h) of this AD,

as applicable, at the time indicated in that

paragraph.

(2) Replace the MLG piston with a new or

serviceable MLG piston per the service

bulletin. Following accomplishment of the

replacement, do the actions specified in

paragraph (a), (e), or (h) of this AD, as

applicable, at the time indicated in that

paragraph.

Note 3: Replacement of the MLG piston

with a modified MLG per the original

version, and Revisions 01 through 04 of

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–

32–277, Service Rework Drawing

SR08320081, or any FAA-approved

preventative modification to MLG pistons

before the effective date of this AD, is

considered acceptable for compliance with

the replacement requirements of paragraphs

(c)(2) and (d)(1) of this AD.

For Airplanes on Which Certain Pistons

Have Not Been Modified: Condition 3 (Any

Crack Outside Limits)

(d) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by either paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD that is outside the limits

specified in McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04, dated

December 7, 1999, before further flight, do

the action(s) specified in paragraph (d)(1) or

(d)(2) of this AD.

(1) Condition 3, Option 1. Replace the MLG

piston with a new or serviceable MLG piston

per the service bulletin. Following

accomplishment of the replacement, do the

actions specified in paragraph (a), (e), or (h)

of this AD, as applicable, at the time

indicated in that paragraph.

(2) Condition 3, Option 2. Repair per a

method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA.

For Airplanes on Which Certain Pistons

Have Been Modified: Replacement or

Inspections and Corrective Actions, If

Necessary

(e) For airplanes on which any MLG

piston, part number (P/N) 5935347–1 through

5935347–509 inclusive, has been modified

and reidentified as P/N SR09320081–3

through SR09320081–13 inclusive:

(1) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated 30,000 or more landings since

accomplishment of the modification: Within

6 months after the effective date of this AD,

replace the MLG piston with a new or

serviceable MLG piston per the service

bulletin. Following accomplishment of the

replacement, do the actions specified in

paragraph (a), (e), or (h) of this AD, as

applicable, at the time indicated in that

paragraph.

(2) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated less than 30,000 landings since

accomplishment of the modification: Do dye

penetrant and magnetic particle inspections

to detect cracks of the MLG pistons, per the

Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

Revision 04, dated December 7, 1999; at the

applicable time(s) specified in paragraph

(e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) For any MLG piston that has been

modified per paragraph (a)(3), (b)(1)(iii),

(b)(2), or (c)(1) of this AD, or that has been

replaced with a modified MLG piston per

paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(1) of this AD: Inspect

within 2,500 landings following

accomplishment of the modification or

replacement with a modified MLG piston.

(ii) For any MLG piston that has been

modified per service information other than

Revision 04 of McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD80–32–277 and not inspected per

Revision 04 of the service bulletin prior to

the effective date of this AD: Inspect within

1,500 landings or 12 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later.

(f) If no crack is found during any

inspection required by paragraph (e)(2) of

this AD, repeat the dye penetrant and

magnetic particle inspections required by

paragraph (e)(2) of this AD thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 2,500 landings.

Within 30,000 landings since modification of

the MLG piston, replace the MLG piston with

a new or serviceable MLG piston per the

Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

Revision 04, dated December 7, 1999.

Following accomplishment of the

replacement, do the actions specified in

paragraph (a), (e), or (h) of this AD, as

applicable, at the time indicated in that

paragraph.

(g) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by paragraph (e)(2) of

this AD, before further flight, do the action(s)

specified in either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2)

of this AD.

For Airplanes on Which A Certain Piston

Has Been Installed:

(h) For airplanes on which any MLG

piston, P/N 5935347–511, has been installed:

Do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1),

(h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, per

the Accomplishment Instructions of

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–

32–277, Revision 04, dated December 7,

1999.

(1) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated less than 5,000 total landings

since date of manufacture: Prior to the

accumulation of 5,000 total landings on the

MLG piston, or within 12 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, do dye penetrant and magnetic particle

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23845

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons.

(2) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated 5,000 or more total landings

since date of manufacture, but less than

30,000 total landings since date of

manufacture: Within 1,500 landings on the

MLG piston or 12 months after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do

dye penetrant and magnetic particle

inspections to detect cracks of the MLG

pistons.

(3) For any MLG piston that has

accumulated 30,000 or more total landings

since date of manufacture: Within 6 months

after the effective date of this AD, replace the

MLG piston with a new or serviceable MLG

piston per the service bulletin. Following

accomplishment of the replacement, do the

actions specified in paragraph (a), (e), or (h)

of this AD, as applicable, at the time

indicated in that paragraph.

(i) If no crack is found during any

inspection required by either paragraph (h)(1)

or (h)(2) of this AD, repeat the dye penetrant

and magnetic particle inspections required

by either paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500

landings. Prior to the accumulation of 30,000

or more total landings on the MLG piston, do

the actions specified in paragraph (d)(1) of

this AD.

(j) If any crack is found during any

inspection required by either paragraph (h)(1)

or (h)(2) of this AD, before further flight, do

the action(s) specified in either paragraph

(d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD.

Exception to Actions Referenced in Service

Bulletin

(k) If any discrepancy is found during any

inspection while accomplishing the

preventative modification required by this

AD, prior to further flight, do applicable

corrective action(s) per McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin MD80–32–277, Revision 04,

dated December 7, 1999. If the service

bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer

for appropriate action: Prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. For a

repair method to be approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO, as required by

this paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter

must specifically reference this AD.

Optional Terminating Action

(l) Replacement of any MLG piston with a

new MLG piston, P/N 5935347–517, per

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–

32–309, dated January 31, 2000, constitutes

terminating action for the requirements of

this AD for that MLG piston.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(m)(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 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 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

96–19–09, amendment 39–9756, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Special Flight Permits

(n) 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.

Incorporation by Reference

(o) Except as provided by paragraphs

(d)(2), (k), and (l) of this AD, the actions shall

be done in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–32–277,

Revision 04, dated December 7, 1999. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing

Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach

Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long

Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–

0024). Copies may be inspected 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; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

Effective Date

(p) This amendment becomes effective on

June 14, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3,

2001.

Lirio Liu Nelson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11674 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 630

[FHWA Docket No. 2000–7426]

RIN 2125–AE77

Federal-Aid Project Agreement

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending its

regulation on project agreements.

Section 1305 of the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–

21) amended 23 U.S.C. 106(a) and

combined authorization of work and

execution of the project agreement for a

Federal-aid project into a single action.

Changes to the agreement provisions

reflect these adjustments. Additionally,

section 1304 of the TEA–21 amended 23

U.S.C. 102(b) to include a provision to

allow the granting of time extensions for

engineering cost reimbursement.

Changes to the agreement procedures

are added to provide this new

flexibility.

DATES: This final rule is effective June

11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jack Wasley, Office of Program

Administration (HIPA), 202–366–4658,

or Harold Aikens, Office of the Chief

Counsel, 202–366–0791, Federal

Highway Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–

0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to

4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday

except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

amendments in this final rule are based

primarily on the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) published on

August 31, 2000, at 65 FR 52962 (FHWA

Docket No. 2000–7426). All comments

received in response to this NPRM have

been considered in adopting these

amendments.

Electronic Access

Internet users may access all

comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401 by using the

universal resource locator (URL): http:/

/dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours

each day, 365 days each year. Electronic

submission and retrieval help and

guidelines are available under the help

section of the web site.

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded by using a

computer, modem and suitable

communications software from the

Government Printing Office’s Electronic

Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512–

1661. Internet users may reach the

Office of the Federal Register’s home

page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and

the Government Printing Office’s

database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov.

Background

Under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 106,

a formal agreement between the State

transportation department (STD) and

the FHWA is required for Federal-aid

highway projects. This agreement,

referred to as the ‘‘project agreement,’’ is

in essence a written contract between

the State and the Federal Government

defining the extent of the work to be

undertaken, the State and the Federal

shares of a project’s cost, and

commitments concerning maintenance

of the project.