Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28037

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 uncommanded retraction of the

landing gear, which can adversely affect

airplane controllability, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 8 hours time-in-service after the

effective date of this AD, perform an

inspection to determine the number of hours

time-in-service on the landing gear control

unit, in accordance with Jetstream Alert

Service Bulletin J41–A32–042, dated April

13, 1995.

(1) For those airplanes on which the

control unit has accumulated less than 200

hours time-in-service: Prior to further flight,

modify the cable (electrical wiring circuit) of

the landing gear control unit in accordance

with the alert service bulletin.

(2) For those airplanes on which the

control unit has accumulated 200 hours or

more time-in-service: Within 50 hours timein-service or within 7 days after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs earlier,

modify the cable (electrical wiring circuit) of

the landing gear control unit in accordance

with the alert service bulletin.

(b) 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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

(c) 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.

(d) The inspection and modification shall

be done in accordance with Jetstream Alert

Service Bulletin J41–A32–042, dated April

13, 1995. 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 Jetstream Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 16029,

Dulles International Airport, Washington, DC

20041–6029. Copies may be inspected at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

June 14, 1995, to all persons except those

persons to whom it was made immediately

effective by priority letter AD 95–09–03,

issued April 18, 1995, which contained the

requirements of this amendment.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12711 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–79–AD; Amendment

39–9242; AD 95–11–07]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10 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 all McDonnell Douglas

Model DC–10 series airplanes and KC–

10A (military) airplanes, that requires

inspections to detect cracking of H–11

attach bolts of the upper vertical

stabilizer and replacement of these bolts

and associated nuts with Inconel bolts

and nuts. This amendment is prompted

by failure of the attach bolts of the

upper vertical stabilizer due to stress

corrosion. The actions specified by this

AD are intended to prevent undetected

cracked or failed attach bolts that may

lead to reduced structural integrity of

the vertical stabilizer.

DATES: Effective June 29, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 29,

1995.

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,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

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:

Maureen Moreland, Aerospace

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–121L,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,

Lakewood, California 90712; telephone

(310) 627–5238; 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 all McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10 series airplanes

and KC–10A (military) airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47825). That

action proposed to require inspections

to detect cracking of H–11 attach bolts

of the upper vertical stabilizer and

replacement with Inconel attach bolts

and associated nuts.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

One commenter supports the

proposed rule.

The Air Transport Association of

America, on behalf of one of its member

operators, requests that the 18-month

compliance time for the repetitive

inspections required by proposed

paragraph (a)(1) be extended to 24

months. The commenter states that this

extension in the compliance time would

coincide with regularly scheduled

maintenance visits, and would result in

savings of over $2,800 per airplane if

operators were not required to ‘‘special

schedule’’ these airplanes for the

inspection.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to extend the

compliance time. The FAA has

determined that the compliance time, as

proposed, represents the maximum

interval of time allowable for the

affected airplanes to continue to operate

prior to accomplishing the required

inspections without compromising

safety. Further, the FAA’s intent is to

have the compliance time for the

repetitive inspections coincide with the

18-month interval recommended by the

manufacturer. Additionally, since the

FAA has received an additional report

of bolt failure, the FAA finds that the

18-month interval for the repetitive

inspections is appropriate to ensure

safety of the fleet.

Additionally, the Service Action

Requirements Document (SARD) that is

referenced in this final rule was

developed by McDonnell Douglas only

after extensive and detailed

consultations with large numbers of

operators of Model DC–10 series

airplanes. The compliance times were

based on these consultations and

developed in order to minimize the

economic impact on operators without

compromising the safety objectives of
28038 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

this AD. Further, the FAA has received

no data substantiating that an extension

of the compliance time to 24 months

would provide an acceptable level of

safety.

One commenter requests that the

requirement to replace all H–11 attach

bolts and associated nuts within 5 years

as proposed in paragraph (c) be revised

to be an option. The commenter asserts

that these bolts need not be replaced

within 5 years since the cause of the

failed bolts has been attributed to stress

corrosion, not fatigue. Further, the

commenter contends that the bolts are

easily inspected and that damage would

be easily detectable. Finally, the

commenter believes that service history

(three incidents of one failed bolt per

airplane in over 20 years) supports its

assertion that mandatory replacement of

these bolts is unnecessary.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA

finds that bolt failure due to stress

corrosion is less predictable than failure

due to fatigue; therefore, the

requirement to replace these bolts is

even more crucial. Furthermore, the

FAA does not consider that these

inspections are easy to perform. Finally,

although only one bolt has failed per

airplane, thus far, the FAA has no

technical data to substantiate preclusion

of potential multiple failures of this bolt

on any Model DC–10 series airplane.

Additionally, the FAA has determined

that long term continued operational

safety will be better assured by actual

modification of the airframe to remove

the source of the problem, rather than

by repetitive inspections. Long term

inspections may not be providing the

degree of safety assurance necessary for

the transport airplane fleet. This,

coupled with a better understanding of

the human factors associated with

numerous repetitive inspections, has led

the FAA to consider placing less

emphasis on special procedures and

more emphasis on design

improvements. The replacement

requirement is in consonance with these

considerations.

Two commenters request that the cost

estimate be revised, since it seems to be

unrealistic. One of these commenters

requests that the estimated cost of

accomplishing the proposed actions

include the time necessary to obtain

access to the area, remove and re-install

access doors, remove sealant from bolts,

and remove and re-install bolts. The

FAA does not concur. The appropriate

number of work hours to accomplish the

required actions (specified as 2 for the

inspection and 8 for the replacement of

the bolts) in the economic impact

information, below, was provided to the

FAA by the manufacturer based on the

best data available to date. This number

does not include the time required to

gain access, remove parts, remove

sealant from parts, and close up. The

cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions

typically does not include these costs,

since there may be great variations in

them from operator to operator.

The FAA has recently reviewed the

figures it has used over the past several

years in calculating the economic

impact of AD activity. In order to

account for various inflationary costs in

the airline industry, the FAA has

determined that it is necessary to

increase the labor rate used in these

calculations from $55 per work hour to

$60 per work hour. The economic

impact information, below, has been

revised to reflect this increase in the

specified hourly labor rate.

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 added to this final rule to clarify

this long-standing requirement.

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 426

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10 series

airplanes and KC–10A (military)

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

269 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 2 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required inspections at an average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the total cost impact of the

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$32,280, or $120 per airplane.

It will take approximately 8 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required replacements at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$9,009 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

replacements requirements of this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$2,552,541, or $9,489 per airplane.

Based on the above figures, the total

cost impact of the inspection and

replacement requirements of this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$2,584,821, or $9,609.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is 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:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28039

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:

95–11–07 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment

39–9242. Docket 94–NM–79–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–10–10, –10F, –15,

–30, –30F, –40, and –40F series airplanes,

and KC–10A (military) airplanes; 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 undetected cracked or failed

attach bolts that may lead to reduced

structural integrity of the vertical stabilizer,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 12 months after the effective

date of this AD, perform an ultrasonic

inspection to detect cracking in the attach

bolts of the upper vertical stabilizer, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC–10

Service Bulletin 55–20, Revision 2, dated

August 4, 1994, unless accomplished within

the last 18 months prior to the effective date

of this AD in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 55–20,

Revision 1, dated March 8, 1991, or Revision

2, dated August 4, 1994.

(1) If no cracking is detected in any bolt,

repeat the inspection of the uncracked bolt

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18

months, until the requirements of paragraph

(c) of this AD are accomplished.

(2) If cracking is detected in any bolt, prior

to further flight, replace the cracked bolt and

associated nut with a new Inconel attach bolt

and associated nut, in accordance with the

service bulletin. No further action is required

by this AD for the new Inconel bolts and

associated nuts.

(b) Compliance with the inspections

required by paragraph (a) of this AD

constitutes compliance with the inspections

and reports required by paragraph (b) of AD

93–17–09, amendment 39–8680, for Principal

Structural Element (PSE) 55.10.001/002.

However, after installation of new Inconel

bolts and associated nuts, in accordance with

the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c) of

this AD, PSE 55.10.001/002 must continue to

be inspected in accordance with AD 93–17–

09.

(c) Within 5 years after the effective date

of this AD, replace all H–11 attach bolts and

associated nuts of the upper vertical

stabilizer with new Inconel attach bolts and

associated nuts, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin

55–20, Revision 1, dated March 8, 1991; or

Revision 2, dated August 4, 1994. Such

replacement constitutes terminating action

for the requirements 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 Aircraft Certification Office (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.

(f) The inspections and replacement shall

be done in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 55–20,

Revision 1, dated March 8, 1991, or

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin

55–20, Revision 2, dated August 4, 1994.

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, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California;

or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

June 29, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12713 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Part 10

[T.D. 95–45]

Reciprocal Privileges Extended to

Aircraft Registered in Abu Dhabi,

Bahrain, Oman and Qatar

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service,

Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Customs Regulations by adding Abu

Dhabi, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar to the

list of countries whose registered

commercial aircraft are entitled to

certain privileges that exempt from

Customs duties and internal revenue

taxes their supplies and equipment that

are withdrawn from Customs or Internal

Revenue custody. Customs has been

duly informed that the Governments of

these countries allow exemption

privileges to U.S.-registered aircraft in

connection with international

commercial operations that are

substantially reciprocal to the

exemption privileges that may be

allowed under U.S. law to aircraft of

foreign registry. Accordingly, Customs

is extending reciprocal privileges.

DATES: This amendment is effective May

30, 1995. These reciprocal privileges

were granted on June 1, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William G. Rosoff, Entry Rulings

Branch, (202) 482–7040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 309 (a)(3) and (d) and 317,

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1309 (a)(3) and (d) and 1317),

provide that foreign-registered aircraft

engaged in foreign trade may withdraw

from Customs or Internal Revenue

custody, free of customs duties and

internal revenue taxes imposed by

reason of importation, articles of foreign

or domestic origin for supplies

(including equipment), ground

equipment, maintenance, or repair of

the aircraft. The privileges granted by

these sections are allowed only if the

Secretary of Commerce finds and

advises the Secretary of the Treasury

that the foreign country in question

affords substantially reciprocal

privileges to U.S.-registered aircraft. The

regulations implementing these

reciprocal duty-free customs and

internal revenue tax exemptions are

found at § 10.59(f), Customs Regulations

(19 CFR 10.59(f)), which enumerates