3590 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

Grob Luft Und Raumfahrt: Docket No. 93–

CE–59–AD.

Applicability: Models G102 Astir CS, Club

Astir IIb, Twin Astir, Speed Astir, Standard

Astir II, and Speed Astir IIb Sailplanes (all

serial numbers), certificated in any category.

Compliance: Required within the next 30

calendar days after the effective date of this

AD, unless already accomplished.

To prevent elevator and rudder hinge

separation, which could result in loss of

control of the sailplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Visually inspect all elevator and rudder

hinges for damage (delamination, cracks,

corrosion, or buckling) in accordance with

the III. Procedure section of Grob Repair

Instruction No. 306–27/1 to Service Bulletin

TM 306–27/1, dated June 4, 1991. Prior to

further flight, repair any damaged parts in

accordance with the service information

referenced above.

Note 1: The service instructions of this AD

call for ‘‘the work to be carried out by a

competent person or an authorized aviation

workshop and has to be certified in the

logbook by an authorized inspector.’’ This

statement does not apply to sailplanes

registered in the United States and the AD is

to be accomplished using procedures in part

43 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR part 43).

(b) 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 sailplane

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The request

should be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Small Airplane

Directorate.

(d) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to Grob Luft und

Raumfahrt, D–8939 Mattsies, Germany; or

may examine this document at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January

10, 1995.

Barry D. Clements,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–1130 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–176–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10–10, –15, –30,

–40, and KC–10 (Military) Series

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 DC–10 and

KC–10 series airplanes. This proposal

would require repetitive eddy current

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

the pylon aft bulkhead flange, upper

pylon box web, fitting radius, and

adjacent tangent areas; and repair, if

necessary. This proposal is prompted by

fatigue cracking found in the wing

pylon aft bulkheads on two airplanes.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent failure of the

wing pylon aft bulkhead due to fatigue

cracking, which could lead to separation

of the engine and pylon from the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

176–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, P.O.

Box 1771, Long Beach, California

90801–1771, Attention: Business Unit

Manager, Technical Administrative

Support, Dept. L51, M.C. 2–98. This

information may be examined 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen Moreland, Aerospace

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,

Lakewood, California 90712; telephone

(310) 627–5238; 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 94–NM–176–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.

94–NM–176–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On July 24, 1992, the FAA issued AD

92–17–13, amendment 39–8342 (57 FR

36894, August 17, 1992), which is

applicable to McDonnell Douglas Model

DC–10 series airplanes. That AD

requires a one-time visual inspection to

detect cracks of the wing pylon aft

bulkheads and upper spar webs, and

repair, if necessary; additionally, it

requires that operators submit a report

of their inspection findings to the FAA.

That AD was prompted by reports of

fatigue cracking that occurred in the

wing pylon aft bulkheads on two

airplanes. The fatigue cracking initiated

at fastener holes and/or at the lower

forward edge of the bulkhead flange.

Such cracking, if not detected and

corrected in a timely manner, could lead

to failure of the wing pylon aft bulkhead
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules 3591

and subsequent separation of the engine

and pylon from the airplane.

One of the intended purposes of the

one-time visual inspection and

submission of reports required by that

AD was to allow the FAA and the

manufacturer to obtain data as to the

general condition of the affected fleet

relevant to the identified fatigue

cracking. Based on this data, the

manufacturer has conducted further

investigation and analysis of the

cracking found in the subject areas. This

effort has revealed that the cracking was

caused by fatigue that was accelerated

by preload conditions. The

manufacturer has developed inspection

procedures that will ensure that this

fatigue cracking is identified and

corrected before it reaches critical

lengths.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin A54–106, Revision 2, dated

November 3, 1994, which describes

procedures for conducting repetitive

eddy current inspections to detect

fatigue cracking of the pylon aft

bulkhead flange, upper pylon box web,

fitting radius, and adjacent tangent

areas.

The service bulletin also describes

procedures for performing a visual

inspection for gaps between the pylon

aft bulkhead flange, upper pylon box

web, fitting radius, and adjacent tangent

areas, and shimming any gaps found.

Once this inspection is performed, the

repetitive eddy current inspections of

these areas are no longer necessary.

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 repetitive eddy current

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

the pylon aft bulkhead flange, upper

pylon box web, fitting radius, and

adjacent tangent areas. If any cracks are

found, they would be required to be

repaired in accordance with a method

approved by the FAA. The proposed AD

would also provide for an optional

terminating action consisting of a gap

inspection of bulkhead components and

necessary shimming. The actions would

be required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

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 requirement.

There are approximately 426 Model

DC–10 and KC–10 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 269 airplanes of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 8 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

eddy current inspections, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $129,120, or

$480 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is 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.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

action that would be provided by this

proposed rule, it would require

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the gap

inspection, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. The cost and labor

associated with any necessary shimming

would vary, depending upon what was

revealed by the gap inspection.

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.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 94–NM–176–

AD.

Applicability: Model DC–10–10, -15, -30,

-40, and KC–10 (military) series airplanes; as

listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin A54–106, Revision 2, dated

November 3, 1994; 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 (d) 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 failure of the wing pylon aft

bulkhead due to fatigue cracking, which

could lead to separation of the engine and

pylon from the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 1,800

landings after the effective date of this AD,

conduct an eddy current inspection to detect

fatigue cracks in the pylon aft bulkhead

flange, upper pylon box web, fitting radius,

and adjacent tangent areas, in accordance
3592 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules

with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin A54–106, Revision 2, dated

November 3, 1994. Repeat this inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,800

landings.

(b) If any crack(s) is found during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, 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) Accomplishment of the gap inspection

and necessary shimming in accordance with

‘‘Phase III,’’ as specified in McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A54–106,

Revision 2, dated November 3, 1994,

constitutes terminating action for the

inspections required by paragraph (a) of this

AD.

(d) 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, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate. 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.

(e) 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 January

11, 1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–1134 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–220–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Corporate Jets Models DH/BH/HS/BAe

125–1 to –700 Series Airplanes; BAe

125–800A Airplanes; and Hawker 800

Series 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 Raytheon Corporate Jets Models

DH/BH/HS/BAe 125–1 to –700 series,

BAe 125–800A, and Hawker 800 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

replacement of the existing standby

static inverter with an inverter that

incorporates a circuit board assembly

sealed with a conformal coating. This

proposal is prompted by reports of

failure of the standby static inverter

caused by electrical shorting from

moisture condensing on the printed

circuit boards (PCB), due to aberrations

in the PCB conformal coating. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent malfunction of

the standby static inverter due to

exposure to moisture caused by

inadequate insulation coating of the

circuit board assembly. Malfunction or

failure of the standby static inverter,

when its use is necessary, could result

in the loss of electric power for certain

equipment critical to safety of flight.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

220–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

Raytheon Corporate Jets, Inc., 3 Bishops

Square, St. Albans Road West, Hatfield,

Hertfordshire, AL109NE, United

Kingdom. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2148; fax (206) 227–1320.

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 94–NM–220–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.

94–NM–220–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the United Kingdom, recently notified

the FAA that an unsafe condition may

exist on certain Raytheon Corporate Jets

Models DH/BH/HS/BAe 125–1 to -700,

BAe 125–800A, and Hawker 800 series

airplanes. The CAA advises that it has

received reports of failure of the standby

static inverter on certain of these

airplanes. Failure was caused by

electrical shorting from moisture

condensing on the printed circuit

boards (PCB), due to aberrations in the

PCB’s conformal coating. Investigation

has revealed that certain circuit boards

in the inverters have conformal coatings

that were applied improperly. The

purpose of this coating is to protect the

electric/electronic circuits from

moisture. Improper coating of the circuit

boards can allow moisture to condense

on the PCB; this could cause an

electrical short that, subsequently, could

result in a malfunction or failure of the

standby static inverter. This condition,

if not corrected, could result in the loss

of all alternating current (AC) electric

power for equipment that is critical to

safety of flight.

Raytheon Corporate Jets has issued

Hawker Service Bulletin SB.24–308–

7673A, Revision 1, dated July 11, 1994,

which describes procedures for

removing the existing standby static

inverter and replacing it with a printed

circuit board assembly that is properly

sealed with a conformal coating. The

CAA classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued British

airworthiness directive 005–05–94 in

order to assure the continued