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

2909

Vol. 60, No. 8

Thursday, January 12, 1995

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
2910 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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.

§ 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