[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 58 (Monday, March 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12015-12018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6932]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-48-AD; Amendment 39-9549; AD 96-07-01]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 series airplanes
and KC-10A (military) airplanes, that requires visual inspections to
detect failure of the attachments located in the banjo No. 4 fitting of
the vertical stabilizer. This amendment also requires an eddy current
inspection to detect cracking of the flanges and bolt holes of that
fitting, and repair or replacement of attachments. This amendment is
prompted by reports of failed attachments of the vertical stabilizer;
the failures are attributed to fatigue. The actions specified by this
AD are intended to prevent loss of the fail safe capability of the
vertical stabilizer due to cracking of its attachments.
DATES: Effective April 24, 1996.
[[Page 12016]]
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 24, 1996.
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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 series airplanes and KC-10A (military) airplanes was published in
the Federal Register on July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36749). That action
proposed to require repetitive visual inspections to detect failure of
the attachments located in the banjo No. 4 fitting of the vertical
stabilizer. That action also proposed to require an eddy current
inspection to detect cracking of the flanges and bolt holes of that
fitting, and repair or replacement of attachments.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Two commenters request that the proposed compliance time for the
repetitive inspections be revised to coincide with routine maintenance
visits. One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that the initial
compliance time and the repetitive inspection interval of one year be
expressed as 1,500 landings. The manufacturer points out that since the
failures of the attachments are fatigue related, it would be
appropriate to specify the compliance time in terms of landings.
The FAA concurs with the commenters' request to revise the
compliance time. The FAA agrees with the manufacturer that the
compliance times are more appropriately expressed in terms of landings.
Accordingly, the FAA has revised paragraphs (a) and (a)(1) of the AD to
reflect a revised initial compliance time and repetitive inspection
interval of 1,500 landings.
Two commenters request clarification concerning the proposed visual
inspections of the attachments. The commenters ask whether that
inspection is to be accomplished from the exterior or the interior
surface of the airplane (i.e., an external or an internal visual
inspection). The FAA finds that clarification is necessary. Paragraphs
(a) and (a)(1) of the final rule have been revised to reflect the FAA's
intent that the inspection to be performed is an external visual
inspection.
One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that paragraph (b) of the
proposed rule be revised to specify that accomplishment of the
replacement prior to December 17, 1993, in accordance with the original
issue of McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23, dated December
17, 1992, is considered acceptable as terminating action for the
requirements of the proposed AD, provided that an eddy current surface
inspection of the forward and aft flanges is accomplished in accordance
with Revision 1 of that service bulletin. The commenter states that
several operators have already accomplished the replacement in
accordance with the original issue of the service bulletin.
The FAA concurs. The FAA agrees that paragraph (b)(1) of the
proposed rule should be revised to allow credit for replacements
accomplished prior to December 17, 1993, in accordance with the
original issue of McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23,
provided that an eddy current surface inspection of the forward and aft
flanges is accomplished in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-10
Service Bulletin 55-23, Revision 1, dated December 17, 1993.
Additionally, the FAA finds that the type of inspection required by
paragraph (b) requires clarification. That paragraph has been revised
to specify that the type of inspection required for the forward and aft
flanges is an ``eddy current surface inspection.'' In addition, the FAA
has determined that certain bolt holes of the banjo No. 4 fitting do
not require eddy current inspections, provided that the attachments of
that fitting have been replaced in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23, dated December 17, 1992. A note has been
added to the final rule to clarify that eddy current inspection of the
bolt holes is not required in that case.
The FAA also has revised paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule to
specify that the replacement required by that paragraph may be
accomplished in accordance with the original issue of the service
bulletin or Revision 1, dated December 17, 1993. That paragraph has
also been revised to specify that accomplishment of the replacement in
accordance with the original issue of the service bulletin constitutes
terminating action for the requirements of the AD, provided that the
eddy current surface inspection of the forward and aft flanges is
accomplished in accordance with Revision 1 of the service bulletin.
Additionally, accomplishment of the replacement in accordance with
Revision 1 of the service bulletin constitutes terminating action for
the requirements of the AD, provided that the eddy current surface
inspection of the forward and aft flanges and the eddy current bolt
hole inspection of the bolt holes of the banjo No. 4 fitting are
accomplished in accordance with Revision 1 of the service bulletin.
One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that the FAA revise
paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed rule to reference the repair
procedures described in Figure 6 or Figure 7, as applicable, of Chapter
55-20-00, Volume 1, of the DC-10 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) as an
alternative method of compliance. The commenter states that repair
procedures for cracking detected in the No. 4 banjo fitting have been
developed and incorporated into the SRM. The FAA concurs. The FAA has
determined that those repair procedures incorporated into the SRM are
acceptable as an alternate method of compliance. The FAA has revised
paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule accordingly.
One commenter states that there is a lack of available parts, which
will not allow operators to perform the replacement of the attachments
as required by paragraph (b)(1) of the proposed rule. From that
comment, the FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the
compliance time be extended to allow time for the manufacture of
replacement parts. The FAA does not concur. The FAA has verified with
the manufacturer that parts will be available to operators before the
required compliance time. However, paragraph (c) of the final rule does
provide affected operators the opportunity to require an adjustment of
the compliance time if data are presented to justify such an extension.
[[Page 12017]]
The FAA notes that a statement in the Summary section of the
preamble to the notice, indicated that failures of the attachments of
the vertical stabilizer were attributed to ``stress corrosion
fatigue.'' The FAA finds that revision is necessary in order to clarify
the fact that the failures of the attachments of the vertical
stabilizer were attributed to ``fatigue.''
Additionally, the manufacturer has notified the FAA that, while
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23 describes procedures for
performing 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, the correct description would entail deleting the
words ``pylon carry-through cap.'' The manufacturer noted that the
pylon carry through cap is not directly inspected by eddy current
inspections. Therefore, references to the ``pylon carry-though cap''
have been deleted in paragraph (b) of the final rule, and elsewhere in
the Supplementary Information section of this preamble to the final
rule.
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.
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
will be affected by this AD.
The FAA estimates that it will take approximately 1 work hour per
airplane to accomplish the visual inspections, at an average labor rate
of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the
visual inspections on U.S. operators is estimated to be $14,220, or $60
per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The FAA estimates that it will take approximately 2 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the eddy current inspection, at an average labor
rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of
the eddy current inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$28,440, or $120 per airplane.
The FAA estimates that it will take approximately 6 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the replacement of the 12 attachments located at
the banjo No. 4 fitting, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Required parts cost approximately $250 per airplane. Based on these
figures, the total cost impact of the replacement on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $144,570, or $610 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 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 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-07-01 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9549. 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 DC-
10 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
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 (c) 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 loss of fail safe capability of the vertical
stabilizer due to cracking of its attachments, accomplish the
following:
(a) Within 1,500 landings after the effective date of this AD,
perform an external 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 DC-10 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 external visual
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 landings
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
surface inspection to detect cracking of the forward and aft
flanges; and an eddy current bolt hole inspection of the bolt holes
of the banjo No. 4 fitting; in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-
10 Service Bulletin 55-23, Revision 1, dated December 17, 1993.
Note 2: Paragraph (b) of this AD does not require that eddy
current bolt hole inspections be accomplished for the bolt holes of
the banjo No. 4 fitting if the attachments were replaced, prior to
the effective date of this AD, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23, dated December 17, 1992.
-(1) If no cracking is detected, prior to further flight,
replace the 12 attachments
[[Page 12018]]
located on the banjo No. 4 fitting, in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23, dated December 17, 1992, or
Revision 1, dated December 17, 1993. Accomplishment of this
replacement terminates the requirements of this AD, provided that
the eddy current surface inspection of the forward and aft flanges;
and the eddy current bolt hole inspection of the bolt holes of the
banjo No. 4 fitting, if applicable; are accomplished in accordance
with Revision 1 of the service bulletin.
(i) Accomplishment of the replacement in accordance with the
original issue of the service bulletin constitutes terminating
action for the requirements of this AD, provided that the eddy
current surface inspection of the forward and aft flanges is
accomplished in accordance with Revision 1 of the service bulletin.
(ii) Accomplishment of the replacement in accordance with
Revision 1 of the service bulletin constitutes terminating action
for the requirements of this AD, provided that the eddy current
surface inspection of the forward and aft flanges; and the eddy
current bolt hole inspection of the bolt holes of the banjo No. 4
fitting are accomplished in accordance with Revision 1 of the
service bulletin.
(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to further flight, repair
either in accordance with Figure 6 or Figure 7, as applicable, of
Chapter 55-20-00, Volume 1, of the DC-10 Structural Repair Manual
(SRM); or 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 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23, dated December 17, 1992, and
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23, Revision 1, dated
December 17, 1993. 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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on April 24, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 18, 1996.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6932 Filed 3-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P