[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36749-36751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17550]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95-NM-48-AD]


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, -15, 
-30, and -40 Series Airplanes, and KC-10A (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 McDonnell Douglas Model 
DC-10 series airplanes and KC-10A (military) airplanes. This proposal 
would require visual inspections to detect failure of the attachments 
located in the banjo No. 4 fitting of the vertical stabilizer. This 
proposal also would require an eddy current inspection to detect 
cracking of the flanges and bolt holes of that fitting, and repair or 
replacement of attachments. This proposal is prompted by reports of 
failed attachments of the vertical stabilizer; the failures are 
attributed to stress corrosion fatigue. The actions specified by the 
proposed AD are intended to prevent loss of the fail safe capability of 
the vertical stabilizer due to cracking of its attachments.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 11, 1995.


[[Page 36750]]

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-48-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, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, 
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications 
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). 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 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:

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-48-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-48-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    The FAA has received reports from operators of Model DC-10 series 
airplanes of failed attachments on the lower vertical stabilizer. These 
attachments were located on the forward and aft flanges of the banjo 
No. 4 fitting and the pylon carry-through cap. Additionally, one 
operator reported finding cracks in the forward flange of banjo No. 4 
at the pylon carry-through cap. The attachments on the aft flange of 
these airplanes also had failed. Lengths of the cracks varied from 1.0 
inch to 3.75 inches on airplanes that had accumulated between 20,903 
and 32,313 landings. Investigation revealed that the broken steel 
attachments failed due to cracking, which was caused by stress 
corrosion fatigue. Such cracking, if not detected and corrected in a 
timely manner, could result in loss of fail safe capability of the 
vertical stabilizer.
    The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service 
Bulletin 55-23, Revision 1, dated December 17, 1993, which describes 
procedures for accomplishing an eddy current inspection to detect 
cracking of the forward and aft flanges and bolt holes of the banjo No. 
4 fitting, and pylon carry-through cap of the lower vertical 
stabilizer. The service bulletin also describes procedures for 
replacement of 12 attachments located on the banjo No. 4 fitting and 
pylon carry-through cap with new attachments for airplanes on which no 
cracking is found. The new attachments are made from a higher strength 
and more corrosion resistant material. Accomplishment of the 
replacement will minimize the possibility of cracking and failure of 
the attachments. The manufacturer recommends that these actions be 
accomplished within 2,200 landings (approximately 5 years).
    Although the FAA has approved the technical content as well as the 
intent of the McDonnell Douglas service bulletin, it has determined 
that, prior to the time that the eddy current inspection (recommended 
by the manufacturer) is accomplished, visual inspections also must be 
accomplished to detect cracking of the 12 attachments located in the 
banjo No. 4 fitting. In order to ensure that any cracking is detected 
and corrected in a timely manner, the FAA finds that such visual 
inspections should be conducted annually.
    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, initially, repetitive visual inspections to 
detect failures of the 12 attachments located in the banjo No. 4 
fittings. These visual inspections would be required to be accomplished 
in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Nondestructive Testing Manual 
Chapter 20-10-00 or McDonnell Douglas Nondestructive Testing Standard 
Practice Manual, Part 09.
    Additionally, this proposed AD would require an eddy current 
inspection to detect cracking of the forward and aft flanges and bolt 
holes of the fitting of the vertical stabilizer and pylon carry-through 
cap; replacement of the attachments with new attachments if no cracking 
is found; and repair if cracking is found. The eddy current inspection 
and replacement procedures would be required to be accomplished in 
accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23, 
described previously. Repair procedures would be required to be 
accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA. 
Accomplishment of the replacement would constitute terminating action 
for the proposed inspections.
    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 notice to clarify this long-standing requirement.
    There are approximately 420 Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, -40 series 
airplanes and KC-10A (military) airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 237 airplanes of U.S. registry 
would be affected by this proposed AD. 

[[Page 36751]]

    The FAA estimates that it would take approximately 1 work hour per 
airplane to accomplish the proposed visual inspections, at an average 
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost 
impact of the proposed visual inspections on U.S. operators is 
estimated to be $14,220, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The FAA estimates that it would take approximately 2 work hours per 
airplane to accomplish the proposed eddy current inspection, at an 
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the 
total cost impact of the proposed eddy current inspection on U.S. 
operators is estimated to be $28,440, or $120 per airplane.
    The FAA estimates that it would take approximately 6 work hours per 
airplane to accomplish the proposed replacement of the 12 attachments 
located at the banjo No. 4 fitting, at an average labor rate of $60 per 
work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $250 per airplane. 
Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed 
replacement on U.S. operators is estimated to be $144,570, or $610 per 
airplane.
    The total cost impact figures discussed above are 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 95-NM-48-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, -40 series airplanes 
and KC-10A (military) airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin 55-23, Revision 1, dated December 17, 1993; 
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 (c) 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 loss of fail safe capability of the vertical 
stabilizer due to cracking of its attachments, accomplish the 
following:
    (a) Within one year after the effective date of this AD, perform 
a visual inspection, using a minimum 5X power magnifying glass, to 
detect failure of the 12 attachments located in the banjo No. 4 
fitting of the vertical stabilizer (as depicted in McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin 55-23, Revision 1, dated December 17, 1993). 
Perform this inspection in accordance with procedures specified in 
McDonnell Douglas Nondestructive Testing Manual Chapter 20-10-00 or 
McDonnell Douglas Nondestructive Testing Standard Practice Manual, 
Part 09.
    (1) If no failure is detected, repeat the visual inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed one year until the 
requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD are accomplished.
    (2) If any failure is detected, prior to further flight, 
accomplish the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.
    (b) Except as required by paragraph (a)(2) of this AD: Within 5 
years after the effective date of this AD, perform an eddy current 
inspection to detect cracking of the forward and aft flanges and 
bolt holes of the banjo No. 4 fitting and the pylon carry-through 
cap, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 55-23, 
Revision 1, dated December 17, 1993.
    (1) If no cracking is detected, prior to further flight, replace 
the 12 attachments located on the banjo No. 4 fitting in accordance 
with the service bulletin. Accomplishment of this replacement 
terminates the requirements of this AD.
    (2) If any cracking is detected, prior to further flight, repair 
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office, (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate.
    (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, 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.

    (d) 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 July 12, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-17550 Filed 7-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U