[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