[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2909-2910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-791]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 2909]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-178-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10
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 McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-10-10 airplanes. This proposal would require repetitive inspections
to detect cracking of the upper caps in the front spar of the left and
right wing, and repair, if necessary. This proposal 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 the proposed
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: Comments must be received by March 7, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-NM-178-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: John L. Cecil, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-121L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard., Long
Beach, California 90712-4137; telephone (310) 627-5322; 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-178-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-178-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The FAA has recently received reports of cracking in the upper cap
of the front spar of the left and right wing between stations Xos 669
and Xos 789 on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 airplanes. In one of
the reported instances, cracking went from the forward edge of the cap,
through a fastener hole, and terminated at the vertical leg of the cap.
Subsequent investigation has revealed that the cracking was initiated
and propagated by fatigue. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in reduced structural integrity of the wing front spar and
damage to adjacent structures.
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service
Bulletin 57-129, dated August 12, 1994, which describes procedures for
eddy current test high frequency (ETHF) surface inspections to detect
fatigue cracking in the upper cap of the front spar of the wing, and
repair of the upper cap, if cracks are found. It also provides
procedures for accomplishing a modification to prevent cracking.
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 repetitive 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. Additional repetitive inspections would
be required after any repair of the upper cap. 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. The actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described
previously.
Subsequent to the issuance of the referenced service bulletin, the
manufacturer conducted further crack growth analysis. Based on the
results of that analysis, the FAA is proposing a shorter compliance
time for the initial ETHF inspection than the time specified in the
service bulletin. This will provide additional inspection intervals to
ensure adequate detection of cracking in the front spar cap in a timely
manner.
As a result of recent communications with the Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America, the FAA has learned that, in general,
some operators may [[Page 2910]] 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 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 would be affected by this proposed AD, that
it would take approximately 14 work hours per airplane to accomplish
the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed 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 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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: 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) 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 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 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, 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 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.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 6, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-791 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U