[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 11, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19350-19353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8995]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98-NM-228-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


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: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of 
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness 
directive (AD) applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 
series airplanes, and KC-10A (military) airplanes, that would have 
required repetitive inspections to detect failure of the attachment 
fasteners located in the banjo No. 4 fitting of the vertical 
stabilizer. That proposed AD also would have required a one-time 
inspection to detect cracking of the flanges and bolt holes of the 
banjo No. 4 fitting, and repair or replacement of the attachment 
fasteners with new, improved fasteners. In addition, the proposed AD 
would have required a one-time inspection to determine whether certain 
fasteners are installed in the banjo No. 4 fitting of the vertical 
stabilizer, and follow-on actions, if necessary. That proposal was 
prompted by reports of failure of certain fasteners installed in the 
banjo No. 4 fitting of the vertical stabilizer. This new action 
revises, among other actions, the proposed rule by amending certain 
corrective actions. The actions specified by this new proposed AD are 
intended to prevent cracking of the attachment fasteners of the 
vertical stabilizer, which could result in loss of fail-safe capability 
of the vertical stabilizer and reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by May 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 98-NM-228-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 The Boeing Company, Douglas Products Division, 3855 
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical 
Publications Business Administration, Dept. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Atmur, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los 
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5224; fax (562) 
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 98-NM-228-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-114, Attention: Rules 
Docket No. 98-NM-228-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to 
certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 series airplanes, was published 
as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on 
November 23, 1998 (63 FR 64664). That NPRM would have required 
repetitive inspections to detect failure of the attachment fasteners 
located in the banjo No. 4 fitting of the vertical stabilizer. That 
NPRM also would have required a one-time inspection to detect cracking 
of the flanges and bolt holes of the banjo No. 4 fitting, and repair or 
replacement of the attachment fasteners with new, improved fasteners. 
In addition, that NPRM would have required a one-time inspection to 
determine whether certain fasteners are installed in the banjo No. 4 
fitting of the vertical stabilizer, and follow-on actions, if 
necessary. That NPRM was prompted by reports of failure of certain 
fasteners installed in the banjo No. 4 fitting of the vertical 
stabilizer. That condition, if not corrected, could result in cracking 
of the

[[Page 19351]]

attachment fasteners of the vertical stabilizer, which could result in 
loss of fail-safe capability of the vertical stabilizer and reduced 
controllability of the airplane.

Comments Received That Result in a Change to the Proposal

    Due consideration has been given to the following comments received 
in response to the NPRM.

Request to Limit Applicability of Paragraph (c) of the AD

    One commenter requests that the visual inspection of the second 
oversize fasteners, part number (P/N) S4931917-8Y, as required by 
paragraph (c) of the proposed AD, apply only to airplanes that have not 
accomplished the requirements of AD 96-07-01, amendment 39-9549 (61 FR 
12015, March 25, 1996) in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC10-55-023, Revision 03, dated March 25, 1998 [which also was 
referenced in the proposed AD as an appropriate source of service 
information for accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph 
(b)].
    The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. The FAA finds that 
second oversize fasteners, P/N S4931917-8Y, would not have been 
installed if the requirements of paragraph (b) of the AD had been 
accomplished in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
DC10-55-023, Revision 03, dated March 25, 1998, or if the requirements 
of AD 96-07-01 had been accomplished in accordance with Revision 03 of 
that service bulletin. Therefore, paragraph (c) of the final rule is 
revised accordingly.

Request for Clarification of Requirements

    One commenter states that the proposed AD is not clear on what the 
terminating action requirements are if the second oversize fasteners, 
P/N S4931917-8Y, are found installed on previously modified airplanes. 
The commenter states that paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii) of the 
proposed AD indicate that terminating action should be accomplished in 
accordance with paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. In the transmittal 
sheet of Revision 03 of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-55-023, 
it states that S4931917-8Y fasteners are to be repetitively inspected 
and finally replaced with HLT717B-8 fasteners if found on previously 
modified airplanes. It is understood that if the fasteners are found 
and there is no failure, they can be simply replaced. However, this 
statement does not indicate what must be done if failed fasteners are 
found during these repetitive inspections. The commenter contends that 
the current wording of the proposed rule implies that in the situation 
of a failed fastener found during a repetitive inspection, all twelve 
bolts must be removed and eddy current inspections must be accomplished 
before the new fasteners, P/N HLT717B-8, are installed. The commenter 
disagrees with this action due to the possibility of sustaining damage 
to the previously cold worked holes with correct fasteners installed, 
which would require additional oversize or repair. The commenter 
asserts that only the affected holes with failed fasteners should be 
eddy current bolt hole inspected, not all holes.
    The FAA concurs that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (c)(3) 
of the AD provides corrective actions if second oversize fasteners P/N 
S4931917-8Y are installed. The FAA has determined that removal of 
fasteners and inspection of fastener holes is not necessary for holes 
that do not have second oversize fasteners P/N S4931917-8Y installed. 
The FAA's intent in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of the AD was to require 
repetitive external inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 
1,500 landings until the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD are 
accomplished, and eventually require accomplishment of the requirements 
of paragraph (b) of the AD again. The FAA's intent in paragraph 
(c)(3)(ii) of the AD was to require accomplishment of the requirements 
of paragraph (b) of this AD for the failed fastener and its associated 
fastener hole only. Therefore, the FAA has revised paragraphs (c)(3)(i) 
and (c)(3)(ii) of the AD to reflect this clarification.
    Another commenter requests that the wording of paragraph (c)(3)(i) 
of the proposed AD be clarified as to when the second oversize 
fasteners, P/N S4931917-8Y, must be replaced. The commenter contends 
that it is possible to interpret the proposed AD in a way that would 
require replacement of all the fasteners by April 24, 2001, which is 
the date for compliance to paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. However, 
the 1,500 landing compliance time required by paragraph (c) of the 
proposed AD for the initial inspection could occur after April 24, 
2001, for operators that have accomplished the modification in 
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-55-023, 
Revision 02, dated October 30, 1996.
    The FAA agrees that clarification is necessary. As discussed 
previously, the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of the AD are 
intended to provide an acceptable level of safety through the use of 
repetitive external visual inspections until the requirements of 
paragraph (b) of the proposed AD are accomplished. The FAA acknowledges 
that maintenance scheduling conflicts may arise because of the 
compliance times associated with the new actions required by the 
proposed AD and the actions retained from the superseded AD. Therefore, 
paragraph (c)(3)(i) has been revised to allow a minimum of 1,500 
landings, from the initial inspection, to accomplish the replacement of 
second oversize fasteners, P/N S4931917-8Y.

Explanation of Change to Proposal

    The FAA has added a note to the final rule to clarify the 
definition of a detailed visual inspection.

Conclusion

    Since these changes expand the scope of the originally proposed 
rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment 
period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 420 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 242 airplanes of U.S. registry 
will be affected by this AD.
    Since the issuance of AD 96-07-01, the manufacturer has revised its 
estimate of the work hours necessary to perform the actions that are 
currently required by that AD. McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-
55-023, Revision 03, reflects the manufacturer's revised estimates; and 
the cost information, below, also has been revised to refer to the new 
estimates.
    The visual inspection that is currently required by AD 96-07-01, 
and retained in this AD, takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane 
to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of the visual inspection currently 
required by that AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $14,520, or 
$60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The eddy current inspection that is currently required by AD 96-07-
01, and retained in this AD, takes approximately 4 work hours per 
airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. 
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the eddy current inspection 
currently required by that AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be 
$58,080, or $240 per airplane.
    The replacement of the 12 attachment fasteners of the banjo No. 4 
fitting that is currently required by AD 96-07-01,

[[Page 19352]]

and retained in this AD, takes approximately 14 work hours per airplane 
to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required 
parts cost approximately $250 per airplane. Based on these figures, the 
cost impact of the replacement currently required by that AD on U.S. 
operators is estimated to be $263,780, or $1,090 per airplane.
    The new inspection that is proposed in this AD action would take 
approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average 
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost 
impact of the inspection proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is 
estimated to be $14,520, or $60 per airplane.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions 
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed 
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish 
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
    Should an operator that has already completed the replacement of 
the attachment fasteners of the banjo No. 4 fitting in accordance with 
AD 96-07-01 be required to repeat the replacement, it would take 
approximately 14 additional work hours, at an average labor rate of $60 
per work hour. Additional parts would cost $150 per airplane. Based on 
these figures, the cost impact of any necessary repetition of the 
replacement is estimated to be $990 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct 
effect 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, it 
is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 13132.
    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. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9549 (61 FR 
12015, March 25, 1996), and by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD) to read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 98-NM-228-AD. Supersedes AD-96-07-01, 
Amendment 39-9549.

    Applicability: Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, and -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 
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 (e) 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 cracking of the attachment fasteners of the vertical 
stabilizer, which could result in loss of fail-safe capability of 
the vertical stabilizer and reduced controllability of the airplane, 
accomplish the following:
    (a) Except as required by paragraph (c)(3) of this AD, within 
1,500 landings after April 24, 1996 (the effective date of AD 96-07-
01, amendment 39-9549): Perform an external visual inspection, using 
a minimum 5X power magnifying glass, to detect any failure of the 12 
attachment fasteners located in the banjo No. 4 fitting of the 
vertical stabilizer (as specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service 
Bulletin 55-23, Revision 1, dated December 17, 1993; or McDonnell 
Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-55-023, Revision 02, dated October 30, 
1996, or Revision 03, dated March 25, 1998). 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 paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(3)(ii) of 
this AD, within 5 years after April 24, 1996: 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; or 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-55-023, Revision 02, dated 
October 30, 1996, or Revision 03, dated March 25, 1998.

    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 attachment fasteners were replaced 
prior to April 24, 1996, 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 attachment fasteners located on the banjo No. 4 fitting with 
new, improved attachment fasteners, in accordance with McDonnell 
Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23, dated December 17, 1992, or 
Revision 1, dated December 17, 1993; or McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC10-55-023, Revision 02, dated October 30, 1996, or 
Revision 03, dated March 25, 1998. After the effective date of this 
AD, only Revision 03 of the service bulletin shall be used.
    (i) Accomplishment of the replacement in accordance with the 
original issue of the service bulletin constitutes terminating 
action for the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD, provided 
that the 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; or 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-55-023, Revision 02, dated 
October 30, 1996, or Revision 03, dated March 25, 1998.
    (ii) Accomplishment of the replacement in accordance with 
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 55-23, Revision 1, dated 
December 17, 1993; or McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-55-
023, Revision 02, dated October 30, 1996, or Revision 03, dated 
March 25, 1998; constitutes terminating action for the requirements 
of paragraph (a) 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, Revision 02, or Revision 
03 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

[[Page 19353]]

Chapter 55-20-00, Volume 1, of the DC-10 Structural Repair Manual; 
or in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate.
    (c) For airplanes that have not accomplished the requirements of 
paragraph (b) in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
DC-55-023, Revision 3, dated March 25, 1998: Within 1,500 landings 
after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time detailed 
visual inspection to determine whether second oversize fasteners 
having part number (P/N) S4931917-8Y are installed in the banjo No. 
4 fitting of the vertical stabilizer.

    Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is 
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific 
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, 
failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally 
supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity 
deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, 
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate 
access procedures may be required.''

    (1) If second oversize fasteners having P/N S4931917-8Y are not 
installed, and the actions required by paragraph (b) of this AD have 
been accomplished, no further action is required by this AD.
    (2) If second oversize fasteners having P/N S4931917- 8Y are not 
installed, and the actions required by paragraph (b) of this AD have 
not been accomplished: Within 1,500 landings after the last 
inspection performed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD, 
repeat that inspection, and perform the follow-on actions specified 
by paragraph (a) of this AD.
    (3) If second oversize fasteners having P/N S4931917- 8Y are 
installed, prior to further flight, perform an external visual 
inspection to detect any failure of the 12 attachment fasteners 
located in the banjo No. 4 fitting of the vertical stabilizer in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD.
    (i) If no failure is detected, accomplish the actions specified 
in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) and (c)(3)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) For any hole that has a P/N S4931917-8Y fastener installed: 
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.
    (B) For any hole that has a P/N S4931917-8Y fastener installed: 
Within 5 years after April 24, 1996, or within 1,500 landings from 
the inspection required by paragraph (c)(3) of this AD, whichever 
occurs later, accomplish the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
AD.
    (ii) If any failure is detected, prior to further flight, 
accomplish the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD for the 
failed fastener and its associated fastener hole only.
    (d) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install 
a second oversize fastener having part number (P/N) S4931917-8Y in 
the banjo No. 4 fitting of the vertical stabilizer on any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (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 4: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

    (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 April 5, 2000.
Donald L. Riggin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-8995 Filed 4-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U