This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

55598 

Vol. 70, No. 183 

Thursday, September 22, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22503; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–062–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas 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), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain McDonnell Douglas transport 

category airplanes. This proposed AD 

would require an initial ultrasonic 

inspection for cracks of the studbolts of 

the inboard and outboard hinge fittings 

of the left and right outboard flaps of the 

wings. Based on the inspection results, 

this proposed AD would also require 

doing repetitive ultrasonic inspections, 

replacing upper and/or lower studbolts 

with new or serviceable studbolts, doing 

a detailed inspection for corrosion of the 

upper studbolts, doing a magnetic 

particle inspection for cracks of 

studbolts, and changing the protection 

treatment; as applicable. This proposed 

AD is prompted by reports of corrosion 

and failures of the upper and lower 

studbolts of the outboard flaps inboard 

and outboard hinge fittings. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent corrosion 

and subsequent cracking of studbolts, 

which could result in failure of the flap 

hinge fittings and their possible 

separation from the wing rear spar, and 

consequent reduced controllability of 

the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 7, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• By fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 

DC, 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, Long Beach 

Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, 

Long Beach, California 90846, 

Attention: Data and Service 

Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800– 

0024). 

You can examine the contents of this 

AD docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street 

SW., room PL–401, on the plaza level of 

the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. 

This docket number is FAA–2005– 

22503; the directorate identifier for this 

docket is 2005–NM–062–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maureen Moreland, Aerospace 

Engineer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 

627–5238; fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2005–22503; Directorate Identifier 

2005–NM–062–AD’’ in the subject line 

of your comments. We specifically 

invite comments on the overall 

regulatory, economic, environmental, 

and energy aspects of the proposed AD. 

We will consider all comments 

submitted by the closing date and may 

amend the proposed AD in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You can 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you can visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You can examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the DMS 

receives them. 

Discussion 

We have received several reports of 

corrosion and failures of the upper and 

lower studbolts of the outboard flaps 

inboard and outboard hinge fittings on 

certain McDonnell Douglas 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, 

and MD–10–30F airplanes. We have 

also received several reports of 

corrosion of the upper studbolts of the 

outboard flaps inboard and outboard 

hinge fittings on certain McDonnell 

Douglas Model MD–11 and –11F 

airplanes. (The lower studbolts installed 

on Model MD–11 and –11F airplanes 

during production are made of 

corrosion-resistant material and are not 

subject to the identified unsafe 

condition.) 

Investigation has shown that the 

failures are caused by stress corrosion 

starting at corrosion pits. Corrosion and 

subsequent cracking of the studbolts, if 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules 55599 

not detected and corrected, could result 

in failure and possible separation of the 

flap hinge fittings from the wing rear 

spar, and consequent reduced 

controllability of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed the service 

bulletins in the following table: 

REFERENCED SERVICE BULLETINS

Model— Boeing service bulletin— 

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 and MD–10–30F airplanes.

DC10–57–154, dated February 2, 2005. 

MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes ................................................................................. MD11–57–076, dated February 2, 2005. 

The service bulletins describe 

procedures for an initial ultrasonic 

inspection for cracks of the upper and 

lower studbolts (upper only for MD–11 

and –11F airplanes) of the inboard and 

outboard hinge fittings of the left and 

right outboard flaps of the wings. Based 

on the inspection results, the service 

bulletins describe the procedures in the 

following two tables: 

CONDITION 1.—(NO CRACKED STUDBOLTS) 

Option Description 

1 .............. Repetitive ultrasonic inspections (described previously). 

2 .............. Replacement of the upper and lower studbolts (as applicable) with new or serviceable studbolts. Replacing studbolts with studbolts 

that have increased corrosion protection ends the repetitive inspections. 

3 .............. Removal of upper and lower studbolts (as applicable), a visual inspection for corrosion of the studbolts, a magnetic particle inspection for cracks of studbolts if necessary, contact Boeing for protection treatment procedures if necessary, and installation of new 

or serviceable studbolts. 

CONDITION 2.—(CRACKED STUDBOLTS) 

Option Description 

1 .............. Removal of upper and lower studbolts (as applicable), a visual inspection for corrosion of studbolts, a magnetic particle inspection 

for cracks of studbolts if necessary, installation of new or serviceable studbolts, and repetitive ultrasonic inspections (described 

previously) if necessary. Replacing studbolts with studbolts that have increased corrosion protection ends the repetitive inspections. 

2 .............. Replacement of the upper and lower studbolts (as applicable) with new or serviceable studbolts. 

3 .............. Removal of upper and lower studbolts (as applicable), a detailed inspection for corrosion of the studbolts, a magnetic particle inspection for cracks of studbolts if necessary, and installation of new or serviceable studbolts. 

Accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information is intended to 

adequately address the unsafe 

condition. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on other airplanes of this same 

type design. Therefore, we are 

proposing this AD, which would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Service Bulletins.’’

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Service Bulletins 

Although the service bulletins specify 

that operators may contact the 

manufacturer for disposition of certain 

repair conditions, this proposed AD 

would require operators to repair those 

conditions according to a method 

approved by the FAA. 

The service bulletins refer only to a 

‘‘visual inspection’’ for corrosion of 

studbolts. We have determined that the 

procedures in the service bulletins 

should be described as a ‘‘detailed 

inspection.’’ Note 1 has been included 

in this proposed AD to define this type 

of inspection. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 594 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

This proposed AD would affect about 

297 U.S.-registered 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, and MD–

10–30F airplanes; and 69 Model MD–11 

and –11F airplanes. 

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Action Work 

hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Parts Cost per 

airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Initial ultrasonic inspection ...................................................... 16 $65 None $1,040 366 $380,640 

55600 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 have 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 that the 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. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES

section for a location to examine the 

regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, 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 airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA–2005–

22503; Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–

062–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) must receive comments on this AD 

action by November 7, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability: (c) This AD applies to 

McDonnell Douglas airplanes identified in 

Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any 

category. 

TABLE 1.—APPLICABILITY

Model— As identified in—

(1) 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 and MD–10–30F airplanes.

Boeing Service Bulletin DC10–57–154, dated 

February 2, 2005 

(2) MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes .................................................................................................. Boeing Service Bulletin MD11–57–076, dated 

February 2, 2005 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

corrosion and failures of the upper and lower 

studbolts of the outboard flaps inboard and 

outboard hinge fittings. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent corrosion and subsequent 

cracking of studbolts, which could result in 

failure of the flap hinge fittings and their 

possible separation from the wing rear spar, 

and consequent reduced controllability of the 

airplane. 

Compliance: (e) You are responsible for 

having the actions required by this AD 

performed within the compliance times 

specified, unless the actions have already 

been done. 

Service Bulletins 

(f) The term ‘‘service bulletin,’’ as used in 

this AD, means the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the applicable service bulletin 

listed in Table 1 of this AD. 

Ultrasonic Inspection 

(g) Do an ultrasonic inspection for cracks 

of the upper and lower studbolts (upper 

studbolts only for Model MD–11 and –11F 

airplanes) of the inboard and outboard hinge 

fittings of the left and right outboard flaps of 

the wings, in accordance with the service 

bulletin. Inspect within 72 months from the 

time the studbolts were last replaced, or 

within 24 months after the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs later. 

Condition 1: No Cracked Studbolts 

(h) If no cracked upper or lower studbolt 

is detected during any ultrasonic inspection 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the 

actions specified in paragraph (i), (j), or (k) 

of this AD. 

Condition 1, Option 1: Repetitive Inspections 

(i) Repeat the ultrasonic inspection 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 

months, until the action in paragraph (j)(1), 

(j)(2), (k)(1), or (k)(2)(i) of this AD is done. 

Condition 1, Option 2: Replacement 

(j) Within 72 months from the time the 

studbolts were last replaced, or within 24 

months after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs later, do any one of the 

replacements in Table 2 of this AD. 

Thereafter, at the times specified in Table 2, 

repeat the ultrasonic inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD (if applicable). 

TABLE 2.—REPLACEMENT PARTS

Replace the upper and lower studbolts (as applicable) of the inboard and outboard hinge fitting with—

And repeat the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (g) of 

this AD thereafter—

Accomplishing this replacement terminates—

(1) New studbolts that have increased corrosion protection in accordance with the service bulletin.None .............................................. The repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph 

(i), (j)(3), and (j)(4) of this AD. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules 55601 

TABLE 2.—REPLACEMENT PARTS—Continued 

Replace the upper and lower studbolts (as applicable) of the inboard and outboard hinge fitting with—

And repeat the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (g) of 

this AD thereafter—

Accomplishing this replacement terminates—

(2) Studbolts changed with protective treatment in 

accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification (ACO), 

FAA.

None .............................................. The repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph 

(i), (j)(3), and (j)(4) of this AD. 

(3) Equivalent studbolts in accordance with the service bulletin.At intervals not to exceed 24 

months.

None. 

(4) Kept serviceable studbolts wet with sealant ......... At intervals not to exceed 24 

months.

None. 

Condition 1, Option 3: Removal, 

Inspection(s), and Corrective Actions 

(k) Within 72 months from the time the 

studbolts were last replaced, or within 24 

months after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs later, remove the upper 

and lower studbolts (as applicable) of the 

inboard and outboard hinge fittings, and do 

a detailed inspection for corrosion of the 

upper and lower studbolts (as applicable), in 

accordance with the service bulletin. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

(1) If no corroded studbolt is found, before 

further flight, change the protective treatment 

of all upper and lower studbolts (as 

applicable) to give increased corrosion 

protection in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, 

FAA. Accomplishing this change ends the 

repetitive inspection requirements of 

paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(2) If any corroded studbolt is found, before 

further flight, install any studbolt identified 

in and in accordance with Table 2 of this AD, 

thereafter do the repetitive inspections (if 

applicable) in accordance with Table 2 of this 

AD, and do a magnetic particle inspection for 

cracks in any remaining studbolt in 

accordance with the service bulletin. 

(i) If no cracked studbolt is found, before 

further flight, change the protective treatment 

of all remaining studbolts to give increased 

corrosion protection in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, Los 

Angeles ACO, FAA. Accomplishing this 

change ends the repetitive inspection 

requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(ii) If any cracked studbolt is found, before 

further flight, install any studbolt identified 

in and in accordance with Table 2 of this AD, 

and thereafter do the repetitive inspections 

(if applicable) in accordance with Table 2 of 

this AD. 

Condition 2: Cracked Studbolts 

(l) If any cracked studbolt is detected 

during any ultrasonic inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, before further fight, 

do the actions specified in paragraph (m), (n), 

or (o) of this AD. 

Condition 2, Option 1: Removal, 

Inspection(s), and Corrective Actions 

(m) Remove any cracked upper and lower 

studbolt (as applicable) of the inboard and 

outboard hinge fittings, install any studbolt 

identified in and in accordance with Table 2 

of this AD, do the repetitive inspections (if 

applicable) in accordance with Table 2 of this 

AD, and do a detailed inspection for 

corrosion of any remaining studbolts in 

accordance with the service bulletin. 

(1) If no corroded studbolt is found, before 

further flight, do a magnetic particle 

inspection for cracks in any remaining 

studbolt in accordance with the service 

bulletin. If any crack is found, before further 

flight, install any studbolt identified in and 

in accordance with Table 2 of this AD and 

do the repetitive inspections (if applicable) in 

accordance with Table 2 of this AD. 

(2) If any corroded studbolt is found, before 

further flight, install any studbolt identified 

in and in accordance with Table 2 of this AD, 

do the repetitive inspections (if applicable) in 

accordance with Table 2 of this AD, and do 

a magnetic particle inspection for cracks in 

any remaining studbolt in accordance with 

the service bulletin. 

(i) If no cracked studbolt is found, before 

further flight, install any studbolt identified 

in and in accordance with Table 2 of this AD, 

and do the repetitive inspections (if 

applicable) in accordance with Table 2 of this 

AD. 

(ii) If any cracked studbolt is found, before 

further flight, install any studbolt identified 

in and in accordance with Table 2 of this AD, 

and do the repetitive inspections (if 

applicable) in accordance with Table 2 of this 

AD. 

Condition 2, Option 2: Replacement 

(n) Replace all studbolts in accordance 

with paragraph (j) of this AD. 

Condition 2, Option 3: Removal, Inspections, 

and Installation 

(o) Remove any cracked studbolt, install 

any studbolt identified in and in accordance 

with Table 2 of this AD, do the repetitive 

inspections (if applicable) in accordance with 

Table 2 of this AD, and do a detailed 

inspection for corrosion of any remaining 

studbolt in accordance with the service 

bulletin. 

(1) If no corroded studbolt is found, before 

further flight, do a magnetic particle 

inspection for cracks in any remaining 

studbolt in accordance with the service 

bulletin, and change the protective treatment 

of all remaining upper and lower studbolts 

(as applicable) to give increased corrosion 

protection in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, 

FAA. Accomplishing this change ends the 

repetitive inspection requirements of 

paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(2) If any corroded studbolt is found, before 

further flight, install any studbolt identified 

in and in accordance with Table 2 of this AD, 

do the repetitive inspections (if applicable) in 

accordance with Table 2 of this AD, and do 

a magnetic particle inspection for cracks in 

any remaining studbolt in accordance with 

the service bulletin. 

(i) If no cracked studbolt is found, before 

further flight, change the protective treatment 

of all remaining studbolts to give increased 

corrosion protection in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, Los 

Angeles ACO, FAA. Accomplishing this 

change ends the repetitive inspection 

requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(ii) If any cracked studbolt is found, before 

further flight, install any studbolt identified 

in and in accordance with Table 2 of this AD, 

and do the repetitive inspections (if 

applicable) in accordance with Table 2 of this 

AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(p) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested in accordance with the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 15, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18907 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P