[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2909-2910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-791]



========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules
[[Page 2909]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94-NM-178-AD]


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 
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 Model 
DC-10-10 airplanes. This proposal would require repetitive inspections 
to detect cracking of the upper caps in the front spar of the left and 
right wing, and repair, if necessary. This proposal is prompted by 
reports of fatigue cracking in the upper cap of the front spar of the 
wing in the forward flange area. The actions specified by the proposed 
AD are intended to prevent progression of fatigue cracking, which could 
cause reduced structural integrity of the wing front spar and damage to 
adjacent structures.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-NM-178-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, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 
Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John L. Cecil, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-121L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los 
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard., Long 
Beach, California 90712-4137; telephone (310) 627-5322; 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-178-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-178-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    The FAA has recently received reports of cracking in the upper cap 
of the front spar of the left and right wing between stations Xos 669 
and Xos 789 on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 airplanes. In one of 
the reported instances, cracking went from the forward edge of the cap, 
through a fastener hole, and terminated at the vertical leg of the cap. 
Subsequent investigation has revealed that the cracking was initiated 
and propagated by fatigue. This condition, if not corrected, could 
result in reduced structural integrity of the wing front spar and 
damage to adjacent structures.
    The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service 
Bulletin 57-129, dated August 12, 1994, which describes procedures for 
eddy current test high frequency (ETHF) surface inspections to detect 
fatigue cracking in the upper cap of the front spar of the wing, and 
repair of the upper cap, if cracks are found. It also provides 
procedures for accomplishing a modification to prevent cracking.
    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 ETHF surface inspections to detect 
fatigue cracking, and repair of the upper cap in the front spar of the 
wing if any cracking is found. Additional repetitive inspections would 
be required after any repair of the upper cap. If the preventive 
modification is installed on an airplane on which no cracks were found 
during the initial inspection, the repetitive inspections of that 
airplane may be terminated. The actions would be required to be 
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described 
previously.
    Subsequent to the issuance of the referenced service bulletin, the 
manufacturer conducted further crack growth analysis. Based on the 
results of that analysis, the FAA is proposing a shorter compliance 
time for the initial ETHF inspection than the time specified in the 
service bulletin. This will provide additional inspection intervals to 
ensure adequate detection of cracking in the front spar cap in a timely 
manner.
    As a result of recent communications with the Air Transport 
Association (ATA) of America, the FAA has learned that, in general, 
some operators may [[Page 2910]] 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 126 Model DC 10-10 airplanes of the 
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 77 
airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that 
it would take approximately 14 work hours per airplane to accomplish 
the proposed actions, 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 $64,680, or $840 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.
    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.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 94-NM-178-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-10-10 airplanes, as listed in McDonnell 
Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 57-129, dated August 12, 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 (e) 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 reduced structural integrity of the wing front spar 
and damage to adjacent structures due to fatigue cracking in the 
upper cap of the front spar of the wing, accomplish the following:
    (a) Prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total landings, or 
within 1,800 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever 
occurs later, perform an initial eddy current test high frequency 
(ETHF) surface inspection to detect cracks in the upper cap of the 
front spar of the left and right wing between stations Xos 667.678 
and Xos 789.645, inclusive, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-
10 Service Bulletin 57-129, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat this 
inspection thereafter at intervals specified in paragraph (b) or (c) 
of this AD, as applicable.
    (b) For airplanes on which no crack is found: Repeat the 
inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 10,000 landings, or accomplish the crack 
preventative modification in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-10 
Service Bulletin 57-129, dated August 1994. Accomplishment of that 
preventative modification constitutes terminating action for the 
requirements of this paragraph.
    (c) For airplanes on which any crack is found that is identified 
as ``Condition II'' in McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 57-
129, dated August 12, 1994: Accomplish paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) 
of this AD in accordance with that service bulletin.
    (1) Prior to further flight, perform the permanent repair for 
cracks in accordance with the service bulletin; and
    (2) Within 12,500 landings after the installation of the 
permanent repair specified in paragraph (c) (1) of this AD, perform 
an ETHF surface inspection for cracks, in accordance with the 
service bulletin. Repeat this inspection thereafter at intervals not 
to exceed 7,000 landings.
    (d) For airplanes on which any crack is found that is identified 
as ``Condition III'' in McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 57-
129, dated August 12, 1994: Prior to further flight, repair the 
cracking in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los 
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate.
    (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, FAA. 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.

    (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 January 6, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-791 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U