6160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0032; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–213–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Corporation Model DC–10–10, 

DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC– 

10–30F (KC–10A and KDC–10), DC–10– 

40, DC–10–40F, MD–10–10F, MD–10– 

30F, MD–11, and MD–11F Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10– 

15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A 

and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–40F, 

MD–10–10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11, and 

MD–11F airplanes. This proposed AD 

would require a one-time installation of 

electrical bonding jumpers for the fill 

valve controllers of fuel tanks. This 

proposed AD results from fuel system 

reviews conducted by the manufacturer. 

We are proposing this AD to prevent 

point-of-contact arcing or filament 

heating damage in the fuel tanks, which 

could result in fuel tank explosions and 

consequent loss of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by March 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, California 90846–0001; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; 

fax 206–766–5683; e-mail 

dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221 or 425–227–1152. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Philip Kush, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; 

telephone (562) 627–5263; fax (562) 

627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0032; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–213–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The FAA has examined the 

underlying safety issues involved in fuel 

tank explosions on several large 

transport airplanes, including the 

adequacy of existing regulations, the 

service history of airplanes subject to 

those regulations, and existing 

maintenance practices for fuel tank 

systems. As a result of those findings, 

we issued a regulation titled ‘‘Transport 

Airplane Fuel Tank System Design 

Review, Flammability Reduction and 

Maintenance and Inspection 

Requirements’’ (66 FR 23086, May 7, 

2001). In addition to new airworthiness 

standards for transport airplanes and 

new maintenance requirements, this 

rule included Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88 (‘‘SFAR 88,’’ 

Amendment 21–78, and subsequent 

Amendments 21–82 and 21–83). 

Among other actions, SFAR 88 

requires certain type design (i.e., type 

certificate (TC) and supplemental type 

certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate 

that their fuel tank systems can prevent 

ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This 

requirement applies to type design 

holders for large turbine-powered 

transport airplanes and for subsequent 

modifications to those airplanes. It 

requires them to perform design reviews 

and to develop design changes and 

maintenance procedures if their designs 

do not meet the new fuel tank safety 

standards. As explained in the preamble 

to the rule, we intended to adopt 

airworthiness directives to mandate any 

changes found necessary to address 

unsafe conditions identified as a result 

of these reviews. 

In evaluating these design reviews, we 

have established four criteria intended 

to define the unsafe conditions 

associated with fuel tank systems that 

require corrective actions. The 

percentage of operating time during 

which fuel tanks are exposed to 

flammable conditions is one of these 

criteria. The other three criteria address 

the failure types under evaluation: 

single failures, single failures in 

combination with a latent condition(s), 

and in-service failure experience. For all 

four criteria, the evaluations included 

consideration of previous actions taken 

that may mitigate the need for further 

action. 

We have determined that the actions 

identified in this AD are necessary to 

reduce the potential of ignition sources 

inside fuel tanks, which, in combination 

with flammable fuel vapors, could result 

in fuel tank explosions and consequent 

loss of the airplane. 

Fuel system reviews conducted by the 

manufacturer revealed that fill valve 

controller installations had inadequate 

electrical bonding. This could allow 

point-of-contact arcing or filament 

heating damage in the fuel tanks. 

Installing electrical bonding jumpers 

from the fill valve controllers to airplane 

structure will provide a grounding path 

in the event of a fault current 

occurrence in the fill valve controller. If 

not corrected, a high current occurrence 

could result in a potential source of 

ignition and consequent fire or 

explosion. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6161 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Service 

Bulletins DC10–28–249, Revision 1, 

dated November 6, 2008; and MD11– 

28–135, Revision 1, dated November 6, 

2008. The service bulletins describe 

procedures for a one-time installation of 

electrical bonding jumpers for the fill 

valve controllers of the fuel tanks. 

Depending on the airplane 

configuration, the fuel tanks include left 

wing outboard leading edge; right wing 

inboard leading edge; right wing 

outboard leading edge; center wing 

lower auxiliary fuel tank; center wing 

upper auxiliary fuel tank; tail tank 

horizontal stabilizer front spar; wing 

fuel tanks 1, 2, and 3; upper and lower 

auxiliary fuel tank; aft auxiliary fuel 

tank; and forward and aft body tanks. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all relevant information and 

determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. This proposed AD would 

require accomplishing the actions 

specified in the service information 

described previously. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 267 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. The following table provides 

the estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this proposed AD. 

TABLE—ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Average labor 

rate per hour Parts Cost per product 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Installation .............. 8 to 24 1 ....... $85 $1,459 to $3,805 1 $2,139 to $5,845 1 267 $571,113 to $1,560,615 1

1 Depending on airplane group or model. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify 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. 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. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance in the AD Docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0032; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–213–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by March 

25, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas 

Corporation Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, 

DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A 

and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–40F, MD– 

10–10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11, and MD–11F 

airplanes; certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 28: Fuel. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from fuel system 

reviews conducted by the manufacturer 

which revealed that fill valve controller 

installations had inadequate electrical 

bonding. The Federal Aviation 

Administration is issuing this AD to prevent 

point-of-contact arcing or filament heating 

damage in the fuel tanks which could result 

in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss 

of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Installation 

(g) Within 60 months after the effective 

date of this AD, install electrical bonding 

jumpers for the fill valve controllers of the 

fuel tanks, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin DC10–28–249, Revision 1, 

dated November 6, 2008 (for Model DC–10– 

10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC– 

10–30F (KC–10A and KDC–10), DC–10–40, 

DC–10–40F, MD10–10F, MD–10–30F 

airplanes); or MD11–28–135, Revision 1, 

dated November 6, 2008 (for Model MD–11 

and MD–11F airplanes). 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: 

Philip Kush, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion 

Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627– 

5263; fax (562) 627–5210. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

6162 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

28, 2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2687 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1213; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–097–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Corporation Model DC–9–81 

(MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 

(MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model 

DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), 

DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), 

and MD–88 airplanes. This proposed 

AD would require repetitive inspections 

for cracking of the lower rear spar caps 

of the wings, and related investigative 

and corrective actions if necessary. This 

AD would also require repetitive 

inspections of certain repaired areas. 

This proposed AD results from reports 

of cracking of the wing rear spar lower 

cap at the outboard flap and inboard 

drive hinge at station Xrs=164.000; the 

cracking is due to material fatigue from 

normal flap operating loads. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

such fatigue cracking, which could 

result in fuel leaks, damage to the wing 

skin or other structure, and consequent 

reduced structural integrity of the wing. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by March 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, California 90846–0001; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; 

fax 206–766–5683; e-mail 

dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221 or 425–227–1152. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 

627–5233; fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2009–1213; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–097–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We have received reports of an 

inspection for fuel leaks that revealed 

cracking of the wing rear spar lower cap 

at the outboard flap and inboard drive 

hinge at station Xrs=164.000. The 

manufacturer determined that the cracks 

are the result of material fatigue from 

normal flap operating loads. Inspecting 

this area for cracks will prevent crack 

migration and ensure repairs are done 

before further damage occurs. Such 

fatigue cracking, if not detected and 

corrected in a timely manner, could 

result in fuel leaks, damage to the wing 

skin or other structure, and consequent 

reduced structural integrity of the wing. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated 

May 8, 2009. For Group 1, Configuration 

2, and Group 2 airplanes: The service 

bulletin describes procedures for 

repetitive eddy current testing high 

frequency (ETHF) inspections for 

cracking of the lower rear spar caps of 

the wings, and related investigative and 

corrective actions if necessary. The 

related investigative action is an ETHF 

inspection for cracking of the upper rear 

spar cap of the wings. The corrective 

actions include doing a temporary 

repair of the lower rear spar cap, doing 

a temporary repair of the upper and 

lower rear spar cap, and contacting 

Boeing for repair instructions and doing 

the repair. The service bulletin also 

describes procedures for repetitive 

ETHF inspections of any temporary 

repair, and corrective actions if 

necessary. The service bulletin specifies 

that no action is necessary for Group 1, 

Configuration 1, airplanes. 

The recommended compliance time 

for the initial inspection of the lower 

rear spar caps of the wings is before the 

accumulation of 30,000 total flight 

cycles or within 3,360 flight cycles after 

the issue date on the service bulletin, 

whichever occurs later. The 

recommended repetitive inspection 

interval is 2,650 flight cycles for 

airplanes on which no cracking is 

found. The recommended compliance 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS