Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19185

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 reduced structural integrity of

the wing leading edge skin and wing anti-ice

fluid distribution panel (TKS panel) interface

joint, which could adversely affect the flight

characteristics of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

(a) Accomplish the actions specified in

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of

this AD within the time schedule indicated

in each paragraph, and in accordance with

Corporate Jets Limited Service Bulletin S.B.

57–77, dated May 20, 1993, or Raytheon

Corporate Jets Service Bulletin S.B. 57–77,

Revision 1, dated October 28, 1993:

(1) Within 24 months since airplane

manufacture, or within 12 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect corrosion of the polished surface of the

top and bottom leading edge skins on each

wing, in accordance with either service

bulletin.

(i) If any corrosion is detected and the

corrosion is within the limits specified in

either service bulletin, prior to further flight,

remove the corrosion in accordance with

either service bulletin.

(ii) If any corrosion is detected and that

corrosion exceeds the limits specified in

either service bulletin, prior to further flight,

repair the wing leading edge skins in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

(2) Prior to further flight after

accomplishing the actions required by

paragraph (a)(1) of this AD, conduct a

detailed visual inspection to detect corrosion

of the wing anti-ice fluid distribution panel

(TKS panel) rebate and radius, on the top and

bottom leading edge skin section on each

wing, in accordance with either service

bulletin.

(i) If any corrosion is detected and the

corrosion is within the limits specified in

either service bulletin, prior to further flight,

remove the corrosion in accordance with

either service bulletin.

(ii) If any corrosion is detected and that

corrosion exceeds the limits specified in

either service bulletin, prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, Standardization Branch,

ANM–113, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate.

(3) Prior to further flight after

accomplishing the actions required by

paragraph (a)(2) of this AD, conduct a dye

penetrant inspection to detect corrosion of

the TKS panel rebate and radius, on the top

and bottom leading edge skin section on each

wing, in accordance with either service

bulletin.

(i) If any corrosion is detected and the

corrosion is within the limits specified in

either service bulletin, prior to further flight,

remove the corrosion in accordance with

either service bulletin.

(ii) If any corrosion is detected and that

corrosion exceeds the limits specified in the

service bulletin, prior to further flight, repair

in accordance with a method approved by

the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM–

113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

(4) Prior to further flight after

accomplishing the actions required by

paragraph (a)(3) of this AD, accomplish both

of the following actions in accordance with

either service bulletin:

(i) Apply enhanced protective treatment to

the TKS panel rebate and radius, on the top

and bottom leading edge skin section on each

wing; and

(ii) Conduct a flight check of the airplane

stall warning system and stall characteristics.

(b) Accomplish the actions specified in

paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD

within the time schedule indicated in each

paragraph, and in accordance with Raytheon

Corporate Jets Service Bulletin S.B. 57–77,

Revision 1, dated October 28, 1993:

Note 2: Any inspection specified in

paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD

that was conducted prior to the effective date

of this AD in accordance with Corporate Jets

Limited Service Bulletin S.B. 57–77, dated

May 20, 1993, is considered to be in

compliance with this paragraph.

Note 3: The actions required by paragraph

(b) of this AD may be accomplished in

conjunction with the actions required by

paragraph (a) within the compliance time

required by paragraph (a).

(1) Within 2 years after the effective date

of this AD, conduct a detailed visual

inspection to detect corrosion of the landing/

taxiing lamp window assembly recess and

the stall vane spoiler rebate and radius, on

the top and bottom leading edge skin section

on each wing, in accordance with the service

bulletin.

(i) If any corrosion is detected and the

corrosion is within the limits specified in

either service bulletin, prior to further flight,

remove the corrosion in accordance with the

service bulletin.

(ii) If any corrosion is detected and that

corrosion exceeds the limits specified in

either service bulletin, prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, Standardization Branch,

ANM–113, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate.

(2) Prior to further flight after

accomplishing the actions required by

paragraph (b)(1) of this AD, conduct a dye

penetrant inspection to detect corrosion of

the landing/taxiing lamp window assembly

recess and the stall vane spoiler rebate and

radius, on the top and bottom leading edge

skin section on each wing, in accordance

with the service bulletin.

(i) If any corrosion is detected and the

corrosion is within the limits specified in

either service bulletin, prior to further flight,

remove the corrosion in accordance with the

service bulletin.

(ii) If any corrosion is detected and that

corrosion exceeds the limits specified in

either service bulletin, prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, Standardization Branch,

ANM–113, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate.

(3) Prior to further flight after

accomplishing the actions required by

paragraph (b)(2) of this AD, accomplish both

of the following actions in accordance with

the service bulletin:

(i) Apply enhanced protective treatment to

the landing/taxiing lamp window assembly

recess and the stall vane spoiler rebate and

radius, on the top and bottom leading edge

skin section on each wing; and

(ii) Conduct a flight check of the airplane

stall warning system and stall characteristics.

(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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(d) 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 11,

1995.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9349 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–244–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10 Series Airplanes

and KC–10A (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–10 series airplanes

and KC–10A (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
19186 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Proposed Rules

would require, among other things,

clarification of some Principle

Structural Elements (PSE) and some

non-destructive inspection (NDI)

procedures. This proposal is prompted

by new data submitted by the

manufacturer indicating that certain

revisions to the program are necessary

in order to clarify some PSE’s and some

NDI procedures. 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

June 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

244–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, P.O.

Box 1771, Long Beach, California

90801–1771, Attention: Business Unit

Manager, Technical Administrative

Support, Department 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:

Maureen Moreland, Aerospace

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–121L,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,

Lakewood, California 90712; telephone

(310) 627–5238; 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 94–NM–244–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.

94–NM–244–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On August 25, 1993, the FAA issued

AD 93–17–09, amendment 39–8680 (58

FR 54949, October 25, 1993), applicable

to McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10

series airplanes and KC–10A (military)

airplanes, to require 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. That action was

prompted by new data submitted by the

manufacturer indicating that certain

revisions to the program are necessary

in order to clarify some Principal

Structural Elements (PSE) and some

non-destructive inspection (NDI)

procedures. The requirements of that

AD are intended to prevent fatigue

cracking that could compromise the

structural integrity of these airplanes.

Since the issuance of that AD, the

manufacturer has issued McDonnell

Douglas Report No. L26–012, ‘‘DC–10

Supplemental Inspection Document

(SID),’’ Volume I, Revision 5, dated

October 1994; Volume II, Revision 5,

dated October 1994; and Volume III–94,

dated November 1994. This revision of

the SID revises the sampling program

by:

1. Clarifying some PSE titles;

2. Moving portions of some PSE’s

under a different PSE designator;

3. Clarifying some non-destructive

inspection (NDI) procedures;

4. Including some revised alternative

NDI procedures for previously existing

PSE’s; and

5. Updating the planning data

continued in Volume III–94.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

the revised SID and has determined that

these revised procedures must be

incorporated into the affected operators’

SID programs in order to provide an

acceptable level of confidence that

cracks in PSE’s do not exist in the fleet.

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 93–17–09 to require

clarifying some PSE titles and some NDI

procedures, and updating the planning

data. The actions would be required to

be accomplished in accordance with the

service document described previously.

There are approximately 419 Model

DC–10 series airplanes and KC–10A

(military) airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 249 airplanes of U.S.

registry and 13 U.S. operators would be

affected by this proposed AD.

Incorporation of the SID program into

an operator’s maintenance program, as

required by AD 93–17–09 is estimated

to necessitate 1,270 work hours (per

operator), at an average labor rate of $60

per work hour. Based on these figures,

the cost to the 13 affected U.S. operators

to incorporate the SID program is

estimated to be $990,600.

The incorporation of the revised

procedures proposed in this AD action

would require approximately 20

additional work hours per operator to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost to the 13 affected U.S.

operators to incorporate these revised

procedures into the SID program into an

operator’s maintenance program is

estimated to be $15,600.

The recurring inspection costs, as

required by AD 93–17–09, are estimated

to be 365 work hours per airplane per

year, at an average labor rate of $60 per

work hour. Based on these figures, the

recurring inspection costs required by

AD 93–17–09 are estimated to be

$21,900 per airplane, or $5,453,100 for

the affected U.S. fleet.

Since no new recurring inspection

procedures have been added to the

program by this proposed AD action,

there would be no additional economic

burden on affected operators to perform

additional recurrent inspections.

Based on the above figures, the total

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $5,468,700

for the first year, and $5,453,100 for

each year thereafter. These ‘‘total cost
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19187

impact’’ figures assume that no operator

has yet accomplished any of the

requirements of this AD. However, it

can be reasonably assumed that a

majority of the affected operators have

already initiated the SID program (as

required by AD 93–17–09).

Additionally, the number of required

work hours for each proposed

inspection (and the SID program), as

indicated above, is presented as if the

accomplishment of those actions were

to be conducted as ‘‘stand alone’’

actions. However, in actual practice,

these actions for the most part will be

accomplished coincidentally or in

combination with normally scheduled

airplane inspections and other

maintenance program tasks. Therefore,

the actual number of necessary

additional work hours will be minimal

in many instances. Further, any cost

associated with special airplane

scheduling can be expected to be

minimal.

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 39–8680 (58 FR

54949, October 25, 1993), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 94–NM–244–

AD. Supersedes AD 93–17–09,

Amendment 39–8680.

Applicability: Model DC–10 series

airplanes and KC–10A (military) airplanes,

certificated in any category.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To ensure the continuing structural

integrity of these airplanes, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 6 months after November 24,

1993 (the effective date of AD 93–17–09,

amendment 39–8680), incorporate a revision

into the FAA-approved maintenance

inspection program which provides for

inspection(s) of the Principal Structural

Elements (PSE’s) defined in Section 2 of

Volume I of McDonnell Douglas Report No.

L26–012, ‘‘DC–10 Supplemental Inspection

Document (SID),’’ Revision 3, dated

December 1992, in accordance with Section

2 of Volume III–92, dated October 1992, of

the SID. The non-destructive inspection

(NDI) techniques set forth in Section 2 and

Section 4 of Volume II, Revision 3, dated

December 1992, of the SID provide

acceptable methods for accomplishing the

inspections required by this paragraph. All

inspection results (negative or positive) must

be reported to McDonnell Douglas, in

accordance with the instructions contained

in Section 2 of Volume III–92, dated October

1992, of the SID. 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.

(1) For those Fleet Leader Operator

Sampling (FLOS) PSE’s which do not have a

Normal Maintenance Visual Inspection

specified in Section 4 of Volume II, Revision

3, dated December 1992, of the SID, the

procedure for general visual inspection is as

follows: Perform an inspection of the general

PSE area for cleanliness, presence of foreign

objects, security of parts, cracks, corrosion,

and damage.

(2) For PSE’s 53.10.031E/.032E,

53.10.047E/.048E, and 57.10.029E/.030E: The

ENDDATE for these PSE’s is October 1993.

(For these PSE’s disregard the June 1993

ENDDATE specified in Section 2 of Volume

III–92, dated October 1992, of the SID.)

(b) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, replace the revision of the FAAapproved maintenance inspection program

required by paragraph (a) of this AD with a

revision that provides for inspection(s) of the

PSE’s defined in Section 2 of Volume I of

McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26–012,

‘‘DC–10 Supplemental Inspection Document

(SID),’’ Revision 5, dated October 1994, in

accordance with Section 2 of Volume III–94,

dated November 1994, of the SID.

(1) Prior to reaching the threshold (Nth)

specified for any PSE listed in Volume III–

94, dated November 1994, of the SID inspect

each PSE sample in accordance with the NDI

procedures set forth in Section 2 and Section

4 of Volume II, Revision 5, dated October

1994. Thereafter repeat the inspection for

that PSE at intervals not to exceed DNDI/2 of

the NDI procedure that is specified in

Volume III–94, dated November 1994, of the

SID.

(2) The NDI techniques set forth in Section

2 and Section 4 of Volume II, Revision 5,

dated October 1994, of the SID provide

acceptable methods for accomplishing the

inspections required by this paragraph.

(3) Visual inspections of all PSE’s on

airplanes listed in Volume III–94, dated

November 1994, of the SID planning data, are

required by the fleet leader-operator

sampling (FLOS) program at least once

during the interval between the start date

(SDATE) and the end date (EDATE)

established for each PSE. These visual

inspections are defined in Section 4 of

Volume II, Revision 5, dated October 1994,

of the SID, and are required only for those

airplanes that have not been inspections

previously in accordance with Section 2 of

Volume II, Revision 5, dated October 1994,

of the SID.

(4) For those Fleet Leader Operator

Sampling (FLOS) PSE’s which do not have a

Normal Maintenance Visual Inspection

specified in Section 4 of Volume II, Revision

3, dated December 1992, of the SID, the

procedure for general visual inspection is as

follows: Perform an inspection of the general

PSE area for cleanliness, presence of foreign

objects, security of parts, cracks, corrosion,

and damage.

(5) For PSE’s 53.10.055/.056E, 55.10.013/

.014B, 53.10.005/.006E, 53.10.031/.032E,

53.10.047/.048E, 57.10.029/.030E: The

EDATE for these PSE’s is June 1998. (For

these PSE’s, disregard the June 1996 EDATE

specified in Section 2, of Volume III–94,

dated November 1994, of the SID.)

(6) All inspection results (negative or

positive) must be reported to McDonnell

Douglas in accordance with the instructions

contained in Section 2 of Volume III–94,

dated November 1994, of the SID.

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.

(c) Any cracked structure detected during

the inspections required by paragraph (a) or

(b) of this AD must be repaired before further

flight, in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate.

Note 1: Requests for approval of any PSE

repair that would affect the FAA-approved
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