[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