19188 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Proposed Rules

maintenance inspection program that is

required by this AD should include a damage

tolerance assessment for that PSE repair.

(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, 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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angles ACO.

Note 3: Alternative methods of compliance

previously granted for amendment 39–8680,

AD 93–17–09, continue to be considered as

acceptable alternative methods of compliance

with this amendment.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10,

1995.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9350 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–36–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

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Model DC–9 series airplanes and

C–9 (military) airplanes. This proposal

would require an inspection of the

driver links of the thrust reverser door

to determine whether the driver links

are chamfered, an inspection to detect

damage of the overcenter links, and

follow-on corrective actions, if

necessary; and replacement or rework of

the driver links. This proposal is

prompted by reports of a thrust reverser

door that failed to operate properly due

to improperly manufactured (missing

chamfers on the) driver links. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent damage to the

overcenter links due to missing

chamfers on the driver links, which may

result in uncommanded opening of the

thrust reverser door, and subsequently,

adversely affecting controllability of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

36–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, P.O.

Box 1771, Long Beach, California

90801–1771, Attention: Business Unit

Manager, Technical Administrative

Support, Dept. L51, M.C. 2–98. 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:

Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5245; 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–36–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–36–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

Recently, an operator of McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 series airplanes

reported that the thrust reverser door

would not close after an airplane

landed. Subsequently, this same

operator reported that the thrust

reverser door, on the same airplane,

opened partially after takeoff.

Investigation revealed that driver links

of the thrust reverser on this airplane

were bent or broken, apparently due to

a manufacturing defect. These driver

links were missing chamfers, which

caused damage to the adjoining

overcenter links, and eventually led to

the failure of the overcenter link

assembly. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in

uncommanded opening of the thrust

reverser door, which may adversely

affect controllability of the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Alert Service

Bulletin A78–67, dated February 27,

1995, which describes procedures for a

one-time visual inspection of the driver

links of the thrust reverser door to

determine whether the driver links are

chamfered. For driver links that are not

chamfered, this alert service bulletin

describes procedures for removal of the

driver link and an inspection to

determine serviceability of the driver

link. This alert service bulletin also

describes procedures for a one-time

visual inspection to detect damage of

the overcenter links, and an inspection

to detect damage of the drive

mechanism, if necessary. Additionally,

this alert service bulletin describes

procedures for replacement or rework of

the driver links.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require a one-time visual inspection of

the driver links of the thrust reverser

door to determine whether the driver

links are chamfered, and a one-time
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19189

visual inspection to detect damage of

the overcenter links, and follow-on

corrective actions, if necessary; and

replacement or rework of the driver

links. The actions would be required to

be accomplished in accordance with the

alert service bulletin described

previously.

The proposed AD would also require

that operators submit a report of the

findings of the inspection required by

this proposal. The information obtained

from these reports will enable the FAA

to determine how widespread the

problem is in the fleet and if additional

action is warranted.

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 892

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

557 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

inspections and approximately 10 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed replacement/rework, and that

the average labor rate is $60 per work

hour. Required replacement/rework

parts would cost approximately $4,100

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the proposed AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$2,651,320, or $4,760 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:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95–NM–36–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9–10, –20, –30,

–40, and –50 series airplanes, and C–9

(military) airplanes, as listed in McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Alert Service Bulletin A78–67,

dated February 27, 1995, certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (e) 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 uncommanded opening of the

thrust reverser door, which may adversely

affect controllability of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 3 months after the effective date

of this AD, perform a visual inspection of the

actuating mechanisms of the upper and lower

doors of the thrust reverser on the left and

right engines to determine whether the driver

links are chamfered, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Alert Service

Bulletin A78–67, dated February 27, 1995.

(1) If all the driver links are chamfered,

prior to further flight, perform a visual

inspection to detect damage of the overcenter

links (including the bearings, races, and

attaching hardware), in accordance with the

alert service bulletin.

(i) If no damage to the overcenter links is

detected, no further action is required by this

paragraph.

(ii) If any damage to the overcenter links

is detected, prior to further flight, replace the

damaged overcenter links with new or

serviceable overcenter links.

(iii) If any damage to the bearings, races,

or attaching hardware of the overcenter links

is detected, prior to further flight, perform a

visual inspection to detect damage of the

drive mechanism of the thrust reverser, in

accordance with the alert service bulletin. If

any damage to the drive mechanism is

detected, prior to further flight, repair or

replace the damaged parts with new or

serviceable parts, in accordance with the

Chapter 78 of the DC–9 Overhaul Manual.

(2) If any driver link is not chamfered,

prior to further flight, remove the driver link

and perform dimensional and flourescent

penetrant inspections to determine

serviceability of the driver link, in

accordance with the alert service bulletin.

(i) If the driver link is serviceable, prior to

further flight, machine chamfer the driver

link, or replace the driver link with a new or

serviceable part, in accordance with the alert

service bulletin.

(ii) If the driver link is not serviceable,

prior to further flight, replace it with a new

or serviceable driver link, in accordance with

the alert service bulletin.

(b) Within 3 months after the effective date

of this AD, perform a visual inspection to

detect damage of the overcenter links

(including the bearings, races, and attaching

hardware, in accordance with the McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Alert Service Bulletin A78–67,

dted February 27, 1995.

(1) If no damage to the overcenter links is

detected, no further action is required by this

paragraph.

(2) If any damage to the overcenter links is

detected, prior to further flight, replace the

damaged overcenter links with new or

serviceable overcenter links.

(3) If any damage to the bearings, races, or

attaching hardware of the overcenter links is

detected, prior to further flight, perform a
19190 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Proposed Rules

visual inspection to detect damage of the

drive mechanism of the thrust reverser, in

accordance with the alert service bulletin. If

any damage to the drive mechanism is

detected, prior to further flight, repair or

replace the damaged parts with new or

serviceable parts, in accordance with the

Chapter 78 of the DC–9 Overhaul Manual.

(c) Within 10 days after accomplishing the

visual inspection of the driver links of the

thrust reverser door to determine whether the

driver links are chamfered, as required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, submit a report of

the inspection results (both positive and

negative findings) to the Manager, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California

90712; telephone (310) 627–5245; fax (310)

627–5210; Attention: Robert Baitoo.

Information collection requirements

contained in this regulation have been

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2120–0056.

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

person shall install, on any airplane, a driver

link or overcenter link assembly of a thrust

reverser that has not been previously

inspected, and replaced or reworked, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC–9

Alert Service Bulletin A78–67, dated

February 27, 1995.

(e) 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, 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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10,

1995.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9351 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 94–AWP–28]

Proposed Establishment of VOR

Federal Airway V–514; CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

establish Federal Airway V–514 from

the Mission Bay, CA, Very High

Frequency Omnidirectional Range/

Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) to

the Boulder City, NV, VORTAC. Pilots

are presently issued several airway

segments between the Mission Bay, CA,

VORTAC and the Boulder City, NV,

VORTAC. The establishment of this

airway would provide pilots with one

airway segment between these two

points. This action would improve

traffic flow and reduce pilot/controller

workload.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Air

Traffic Division, AWP–500, Docket No.

94–AWP–28, Federal Aviation

Administration, P.O. Box 92007,

Worldway Postal Center, Los Angeles,

CA 90009.

The official docket may be examined

in the Rules Docket, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Room 916, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC,

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

at the office of the Regional Air Traffic

Division.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman W. Thomas, Airspace and

Obstruction Evaluation Branch (ATP–

240), Airspace—Rules and Aeronautical

Information Division, Air Traffic Rules

and Procedures Service, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202)

267–9230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 94–

AWP–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 Rules Docket both

before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of

Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry

Center, APA–220, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or

by calling (202) 267–3485.

Communications must identify the

notice number of this NPRM. Persons

interested in being placed on a mailing

list for future NPRM’s should also

request a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A, which describes the application

procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to

establish Federal Airway V–514 from

the Mission Bay, CA, VORTAC to the

Boulder City, NV, VORTAC. The

establishment of this airway would

improve the efficiency of the system

because pilots are routinely issued

several airway segments along this

route. To reduce communications and

eliminate potential confusion between

pilots and controllers, only one airway

segment would be issued between the

Mission Bay, CA, VORTAC and the

Boulder City, NV, VORTAC. This action

would improve traffic flow and reduce

pilot/controller workload. Domestic

VOR Federal airways are published in

paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order

7400.9B dated July 18, 1994, and

effective September 16, 1994, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The airway listed in this document

would be published subsequently in the

Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,