[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 130 (Friday, July 7, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35326-35328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15850]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-178-AD; Amendment 39-9291; AD 95-13-11]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10
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-10-10 airplanes, that
requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the upper caps in
the front spar of the left and right wing, and repair, if necessary.
This amendment is prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the upper
cap of the front spar of the wing in the forward flange area. The
actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent progression of
fatigue cracking, which could cause reduced structural integrity of the
wing front spar and damage to adjacent structures.
DATES: Effective August 7, 1995.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of August 7, 1995.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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: John Cecil, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (310) 627-5322; fax (310) 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-10-10 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on January 12,
1995 (60 FR 2909). That action proposed to require repetitive eddy
current test high frequency (ETHF) surface inspections to detect
fatigue cracking, and repair of the upper cap in the front spar of the
wing if any cracking is found. That action also proposed to require
additional repetitive inspections after any repair of the upper cap.
Additionally, that proposed action stipulated that, if the preventive
modification is installed on an airplane on which no cracks were found
during the initial inspection, the repetitive inspections of that
airplane may be terminated.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
One commenter supports the proposed rule.
One commenter supports the proposed rule, but requests that the FAA
require McDonnell Douglas to have repair parts (i.e., angles, straps,
fillers, doublers, and fasteners) available prior to the issuance of
the final rule. The FAA does not concur. The manufacturer has advised
that an ample number of parts, which may be necessary for ``on
condition'' actions, will be available. Since those parts are required
only ``on condition'' of findings of cracking, the FAA does not
anticipate that any operator will encounter a parts availability
problem. However, under the provisions of paragraph (e) of the final
rule, the FAA may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance
time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment
would provide an acceptable level of safety.
Another commenter supports the rule, but requests that the
compliance time for the eddy current inspection between stations Xos
667 and Xos 789 to detect cracking, as stated in paragraph (a) of the
proposed rule, be expanded to add ``or two years after the effective
date of the AD, whichever occurs later.'' The commenter does not state
the reason for requesting this revision of the compliance time. The FAA
does not concur. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this
action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated
with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the normal
maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the actions required
by the final rule for all affected airplanes to continue to operate
without compromising safety. The subject cracking in the upper cap of
the front spar of the left and right wing between stations Xos 667 and
Xos 789 has been identified as being caused by fatigue. Since fatigue
stresses are related to the landing process, the FAA normally considers
that intervals for fatigue inspections should be based on the number of
landings (or flight cycles) that would ensure that cracking is detected
before it can reach a critical length. However, under the provisions of
paragraph (e) of the final rule, the FAA may approve requests for
adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to
substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level
of safety.
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 as proposed.
[[Page 35327]]
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 rule to clarify this long-standing requirement.
There are approximately 126 Model DC-10-10 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 77
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will
take approximately 14 work hours per airplane to accomplish the
required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $64,680, or $840 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
The total cost impact figure discussed above is 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 regulations adopted herein will 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 final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
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. App. 1354(a), 1421 and 1423; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.89.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
95-13-11 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9291. Docket 94-NM-178-AD.
Applicability: Model DC-10-10 airplanes, as listed in McDonnell
Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 57-129, dated August 12, 1994;
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) of this AD 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 reduced structural integrity of the wing front spar
and damage to adjacent structures due to fatigue cracking in the
upper cap of the front spar of the wing, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total landings, or
within 1,800 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, perform an initial eddy current test high frequency
(ETHF) surface inspection to detect cracks in the upper cap of the
front spar of the left and right wing between stations Xos 667.678
and Xos 789.645, inclusive, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-
10 Service Bulletin 57-129, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat this
inspection thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph (b) or
(c) of this AD, as applicable.
(b) For airplanes on which no crack is found: Repeat the
inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 10,000 landings, or accomplish the crack
preventative modification in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-10
Service Bulletin 57-129, dated August 12, 1994. Accomplishment of
that preventative modification constitutes terminating action for
the requirements of this paragraph.
(c) For airplanes on which any crack is found that is identified
as ``Condition II'' in McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 57-
129, dated August 12, 1994: Accomplish paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)
of this AD in accordance with that service bulletin.
(1) Prior to further flight, perform the permanent repair for
cracks in accordance with the service bulletin; and
(2) Within 12,500 landings after the installation of the
permanent repair specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, perform
an ETHF surface inspection for cracks, in accordance with the
service bulletin. Repeat this inspection thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 7,000 landings.
(d) For airplanes on which any crack is found that is identified
as ``Condition III'' in McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 57-
129, dated August 12, 1994: Prior to further flight, repair the
cracking in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate.
(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. 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
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.
(g) The inspections, modification, and permanent repair shall be
done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 57-
129, dated August 12, 1994. 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
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,
California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business
Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). Copies may be inspected at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Los
[[Page 35328]]
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.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on August 7, 1995.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 22, 1995.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-15850 Filed 7-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U