Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66299

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

(2) Within 3 years or 4,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, replace the existing fasteners in

the two door-side hinge elements at the

forward and aft ends of the hinge with

fasteners of acceptable strength.

Actions Addressing Main Deck Cargo 9g

Crash Barrier

(g) Within 3 years or 4,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, install a main deck cargo 9g

crash barrier that complies with the

applicable requirements of CAR part 4b, in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(h) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA. 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.

Special Flight Permits

(i) 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.

Effective Date

(j) This amendment becomes effective on

January 30, 2002.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 13, 2001.

Kalene C. Yanamura,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31553 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–282–AD; Amendment

39–12567; AD 2001–26–03]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–8 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–8 series airplanes

that have been converted from a

passenger- to a cargo-carrying

(‘‘freighter’’) configuration. This

amendment requires, among other

actions, modification of the main deck

cargo door structure and fuselage

structure; modification of a main deck

cargo door hinge; modification of the

main deck cargo floor; and installation

of a main deck cargo 9g crash barrier.

These actions are necessary to prevent

opening of the cargo door while the

airplane is in flight or collapse of the

main deck cargo floor, and consequent

rapid decompression of the airplane

including possible loss of flight control

or severe structural damage. These

actions are intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective January 30, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Information pertaining to

this amendment 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael E. O’Neil, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5320; fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–8 series airplanes

that have been converted from a

passenger- to a cargo-carrying

(‘‘freighter’’) configuration was

published in the Federal Register on

September 27, 2000 (65 FR 58197). That

action proposed to require, among other

actions, modification of the main deck

cargo door structure and fuselage

structure; modification of a main deck

cargo door hinge; modification of the

main deck cargo floor; and installation

of a main deck cargo 9g crash barrier.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were submitted in response

to the proposal or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

However, the FAA did receive

comments in response to notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Rules

Docket 2000–NM–283–AD. Because

certain issues raised by the commenter

are generally relevant to this AD, those

comments are discussed below.

Request To Revise Compliance Times

One commenter requests that the

compliance times specified in paragraph

(b) of the proposed be revised from

‘‘Within 2 years or 2,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs first’’ to ‘‘within 3

years or 4,000 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first.’’ The commenter contends

that if the inspection and evaluation

required by that paragraph reveals a

discrepancy, the corrective modification

will be extensive. The commenter states

that such an extension would allow

operators to correct discrepancies at one

maintenance visit, and thus, minimize

airplane downtime.

The FAA agrees. Since issuance of the

NPRM, we have gained a better

understanding of the design feature of

the original modification relative to the

vertical side restraint installation and

decompression venting. We have

determined that the structure is

sufficiently robust, and that

accomplishing the required inspection,

evaluation, and modification, if

necessary, required by paragraph (b) of

this AD ‘‘within 3 years or 4,000 flight

hours after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs first,’’ will provide an

acceptable level of safety. For the same

reasons, we also find that the 2-year

compliance time for the modification

required by paragraph (e) of this AD can

be extended to ‘‘within 3 years or 4,000

flight hours after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs first.’’

Therefore, we have revised the

compliance times of paragraphs (b) and

(e) of the final rule accordingly.

Request To Provide an Alternate Means

of Compliance

The commenter also requests that

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the proposed AD

66300 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

be revised to include an option that

states: ‘‘Main deck zone loading can be

limited as approved by manager LA

ACO in such a manner that no

modification is required for the main

deck floor structure. This will eliminate

the requirement for Alternate Means of

Compliance.’’ The commenter notes that

under the heading ‘‘3. Capability of the

Unmodified Floor’’ in the preamble of

the proposed AD, it states ‘‘It is also

possible to limit the main deck zone

loading to a level that the main deck

cargo floor can be supported safely

without modification.’’ The commenter

states that the analysis performed by the

DC–8 Cargo Conversion Joint Task Force

and FAA has shown that the main deck

floor modified per Supplemental Type

Certificate (STC) SA1862SO is capable

of carrying the zone loads equivalent to

Aeronavali modified airplanes.

The FAA consulted with the

commenter to clarify its reference to

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the proposed AD.

The commenter meant to refer to

paragraph (c) of the proposed AD. We

do not agree with the commenter’s

request to revise paragraph (c) of the

final rule. We find that the option

suggested by the commenter would

require operators to obtain a separate

approval from the Manager of the Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO). Adding the commenter’s

statement in the AD would not save us

or the operators any resources, because,

like the requirements of paragraph (c) of

this AD, it also would require operators

to submit a letter and substantiating

data to us for review. The difference

between the two letters would be in

name only (i.e., alternate method of

compliance vs. approved method of

compliance). Therefore, no change to

paragraph (c) of the final rule is

necessary.

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 6 Model DC–

8 series airplanes of the affected design

in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 6 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD. The

following table shows the estimated cost

impact for airplanes affected by this AD.

The average labor rate is $60 per work

hour. The estimated maximum total cost

for all airplanes affected by this AD is

$1,175,820, or $196,420 per airplane.

Action Work hours

(estimated)

Parts cost

(estimated) Total cost (estimated)

Incorporation of inspections into maintenance or inspection program.8 N/A $2,880 or $480 per airplane.

Modification of main deck cargo door structure and fuselage structure.225 $700 $85,200, or $14,200 per airplane.

Inspection of exposed surfaces of main deck cargo

door hinge.

16 N/A $5,760, or $960 per airplane.

Inspection of mating surfaces of main deck cargo door

hinge.

16 N/A $5,760, or $960 per airplane.

Installation of a main deck cargo door hinge ................. 60 $200 $22,800, or $3,800 per airplane.

Inspection and evaluation of the cargo handling system 16 N/A $5,760, or $960 per airplane.

Modification of main deck cargo floor ............................ 60 500 $24,600 or $4,100 per airplane.

Inspection and evaluation of the venting system ........... 16 N/A $5,760, or $960 per airplane.

Installation of main deck cargo 9g crash barrier ............ 2,000 $50,000 $1,020,000, or $170,000 per airplane.

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.

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, 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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

2001–26–03 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–12567. Docket 2000–

NM–282–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–8 series airplanes

that have been converted from a passengerto a cargo-carrying (‘‘freighter’’) configuration

in accordance with Supplemental Type

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66301

Certificate (STC) SA1832SO; certificated in

any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 (i) 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 opening of the cargo door while

the airplane is in flight or collapse of the

main deck cargo floor, and consequent rapid

decompression of the airplane including

possible loss of flight control or severe

structural damage, accomplish the following:

Actions Addressing the Main Deck Cargo

Door and Associated Fuselage Structure

(a) Accomplish the actions specified in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), FAA.

(1) Within 1 year or 1,200 flight cycles after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, incorporate inspections into the

operator’s FAA-approved maintenance or

inspection program that ensure that

continued operational safety of the airplane.

These inspections should be based on a

damage tolerance assessment that identifies

any principal structural element (PSE)

associated with the STC modification and

should include associated inspection

thresholds, inspection methods, and

repetitive inspection intervals.

(2) Within 3 years or 4,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, accomplish the actions specified

in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) and this

AD.

(i) Modify the main deck cargo door

structure and fuselage structure immediately

surrounding the main deck cargo door to

comply with the applicable requirements of

Civil Air Regulations (CAR) part 4b.

(ii) Incorporate inspections into the

operator’s FAA-approved maintenance or

inspection program that ensure the continued

operational safety of the airplane. These

inspections should be based on a damage

tolerance assessment that identifies any PSE

associated with the STC modification

required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this AD and

should include associated inspection

thresholds, inspection methods, and

repetitive inspection intervals.

Actions Addressing the Main Deck Cargo

Floor

(b) Within 3 years or 4,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, perform an inspection and

evaluation of the cargo handling system to

determine if the side restraints provide the

support required by the unit load device

(ULD), in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

If any vertical side restraint does not provide

the required support, within 3 years or 4,000

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs first, modify the

vertical side restraint to provide the support

appropriate to the ULD’s compatible with the

cargo handling system, in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO.

(c) Within 3 years or 4,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, modify the main deck cargo floor

to safely carry the applicable FAA-approved

payload limits for above and below the main

deck cargo floor. The modification and

payload distribution shall be accomplished

in accordance with a method approved by

the Manger, Los Angeles ACO. The

modification must comply with the

applicable requirements of CAR part 4b for

the FAA-approved payload distribution.

(d) Except for those airplanes that have

been modified in accordance with paragraph

(c) of this AD, within 1 year or 1,000 flight

cycles after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs first, perform an inspection

and evaluation of the venting system of the

main deck cargo floor to determine if the

system limits decompression loads to a level

that can be carried by the floor structure

without failure, in accordance with a method

approving by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(e) If, based on the evaluation required by

paragraph (d) of this AD, the venting systems

does not limit decompression loads to a level

that can be carried by the floor structure

without failure, within 3 years or 4,000 flight

cycles after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs first, modify the venting

system, as necessary, to limit the

decompression loads to a level that can be

supported successfully by the existing floor

structure, in accordance with a method

approved by the Manger, Los Angeles ACO.

Actions Addressing Main Deck Cargo Door

Hinge

(f) Within 250 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD, perform a detailed

visual inspection to detect cracks of the

exposed surfaces of the main deck cargo door

hinge (both fuselage and door side hinge

elements), in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

If any crack is detected, prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, or replace

the cracked hinge element with a new, like

part.

Note 2: 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 mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

(g) Within 3 years or 4,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, accomplish the actions specified

in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(1) Perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect cracks or other discrepancies (i.e.,

double or closely drilled holes, corrosion,

chips, scratches, or gouges) of the mating

surfaces of the main deck cargo door hinge,

skin of the main deck cargo door, and

external fuselage doubler underlying the

hinge. If any discrepancy is detected, prior to

further flight, repair the discrepant part.

(2) Install a main deck cargo door hinge

that complies with the applicable

requirements of CAR part 4b, including failsafe requirements.

Actions Addressing Main Deck Cargo 9g

Crash Barrier

(h) Within 3 years or 4,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, install a main deck cargo 9g

crash barrier that complies with the

applicable requirements of CAR part 4b, in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(i) 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permit

(j) 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.

Effective Date

(k) This amendment becomes effective on

January 30, 2002.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 13, 2001.

Kalene C. Yanamura,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31552 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U