24688 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California;

or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective

on June 20, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9,

1996.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12148 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–108–AD; Amendment

39–9624; AD 96–10–17]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10–10, –15, and,

–30 Series Airplanes and KC–10

(Military) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10–10, –15, and –30

series airplanes and KC–10A (military)

airplanes, that requires inspections to

detect cracks of the upper aft mating

bolt hole of the wing pylon truss

fittings, and various follow-on actions.

This amendment is prompted by reports

of cracks found in the upper aft mating

bolt hole of the wing pylon truss fitting

located near the engine forward mount

on Model DC–10–30 series airplanes,

which were caused by fatigue-related

stress. The actions specified by this AD

are intended to prevent fatigue-related

cracking, which could lead to failure of

the fitting, separation of a portion of the

engine forward mount truss from the

pylon, and consequent separation of the

engine from the airplane.

DATES: Effective June 20, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 20,

1996.

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, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 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–120L,

FAA, 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 certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10–10, –15, and –30

series airplanes and KC–10A (military)

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on September 27, 1995 (60 FR

49809). That action proposed to require

repetitive ultrasonic or eddy current

inspections to detect cracks of the upper

aft mating bolt hole of the wing pylon

truss fittings, and various follow-on

actions.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

Two commenters support the

proposed rule.

Request for Extension of Compliance

Time for Initial Inspection

One commenter requests that the

compliance time for the initial

inspection be extended from the

proposed 1,000 landings to 1,200

landings for Model DC–10–30 series

airplanes. The commenter states such a

compliance time would follow the

recommendations of McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 54–108,

dated February 9, 1995. The commenter

also questions what data or analysis the

FAA used to justify shortening the

threshold to 1,000 landings.

The FAA does not agree with the

commenter’s request to extend the

compliance time. The FAA points out

that 1,000 landings is not the inspection

‘‘threshold,’’ but a ‘‘grace period’’ that

was established to preclude

unnecessarily grounding airplanes that

have exceeded the 10,000-landing

threshold or will exceed it within 1,000

landings. In determining the appropriate

‘‘grace period’’ for this action, the FAA

not only considered the degree of

urgency associated with addressing the

unsafe condition, but the amount of

time necessary for operators to

accomplish the required inspection and

other factors affecting the ability of the

operators to comply. In light of all these

factors, the FAA finds the 1,000 landing

‘‘grace period’’ for initiating the

required inspections to be warranted, in

that it represents an appropriate interval

of time allowable for affected airplanes

to continue to operate without

compromising safety.

Clarification of Requirements for Type

of Inspection

One commenter points out that

proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) indicate

that operators are to perform either

ultrasonic or eddy current inspections

to detect the subject cracking. However,

the commenter states that the initial and

repetitive eddy current inspections are

not an option if the upper aft and/or

middle mating bolt hole(s) have

bushings installed from previous

rework, in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 54–108,

dated February 9, 1995.

The FAA finds that clarification of

this point is necessary. As paragraphs

(a) and (b) of the proposed rule were

worded, operators could incorrectly

interpret the requirements as meaning

that they have a choice between

performing an ultrasonic inspection or

an eddy current inspection for all

configurations of the bolt holes.

However, the intent of those

requirements was to require operators to

perform either an ultrasonic inspection

or an eddy current inspection, as

appropriate, depending upon the

configuration of the subject area and as

specified in the service bulletin.

Therefore, the commenter is correct in

noting that, for airplanes on which the

upper aft and middle mating bolt holes

have bushings installed from previous

rework (Condition 2), operators must

accomplish the inspection by using only

the ultrasonic method. In light of this,

the FAA has revised the wording of

paragraphs (a) and (b) of the final rule

to clarify this.

Clarification of Requirements for

Repetitive Inspections

The same commenter asks if the

repetitive ultrasonic inspection intervals
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24689

are the same for bolt hole(s) that have

bushings installed from previous rework

as well as for bolt hole(s) that do not

have bushings installed.

The FAA finds that clarification of

this point is necessary. The FAA points

out that, for certain Model DC–10–15,

and –30 series airplanes, and KC–10A

(military) airplanes, Service Bulletin

54–108 recommends that the

compliance time for the repetitive

ultrasonic inspections be accomplished

at intervals of 4,000 landings if the bolts

holes have bushings installed, and at

intervals of 5,000 landings if the bolt

holes do not have bushings installed.

However, for those airplanes, paragraph

(b)(1)(i) of the final rule differs from the

recommendations of the service bulletin

in that it requires a compliance time

interval of 5,000 landings, whether or

not the bolt holes have bushings

installed. In developing an appropriate

compliance time for that action, the

FAA, along with McDonnell Douglas,

reviewed the damage tolerance analysis

of the bolt hole, and determined that the

compliance time of 5,000 landings will

not adversely affect safety. McDonnell

Douglas is planning to revise Service

Bulletin 54–108 in the future to be

consistent with this AD

Conclusion

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.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 376

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10–10,

–15, and –30 series airplanes and KC–

10 (military) airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 228 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately 5 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the required

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$68,400, or $300 per airplane, per

inspection.

The 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.

Regulatory Impact

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:

Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

96–10–17 McDonnell Douglass:

Amendment 39–9624, Docket 95–NM–

108–AD.

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

–30 series airplanes and KC–10A (military)

airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas

DC–10 Service Bulletin 54–108, dated

February 9, 1995; 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 request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modficiation, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Requried as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fatigue-related cracking, which

could lead to failure of the pylon truss fitting,

separation of a portion of the engine from the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) For Model DC–10–15, and –30 series

airplanes and KC–10A (military) airplanes:

Prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total

landings on the pylon truss fitting or within

1,000 landings on the pylon truss fitting after

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform either an ultrasonic

inspection or an eddy current inspection, as

applicable, to detect cracks of the upper aft

mating bolt hole of the wing pylon truss

fittings, in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 54–108,

dated February 9, 1995.

(1) If no cracks are detected, repeat the

inspections in accordance with paragraph

(a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii), as applicable:

(i) If inspecting using ultrasonic techniques

repeat inspection at intervals not to exceed

5,000 landings.

(ii) If inspection using eddy current

techniques, repeat inspection at intervals not

to exceed 8,000 landings.

(2) Accomplishment of the actions

specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), and

(a)(2)(iii) constitutes terminating action for

the repetitive inspections required by

paragraph (a)(1) of this AD:

(i) Accomplish the preventative

modification in accordance with Condition 1

(bushing not installed), Option III. or

Condition 2 (bushing installed), Option II, of

the service bulletin, as applicable. And

(ii) Prior to the accumulation of 10,000

total landings on the pylon truss fitting

following accomplishment of the

modification, perform an ultrasonic

inspection to detect cracks of the upper aft

mating bolt hole of the wing pylon truss

fittings, in accordance with the service

bulletin. And

(iii) Thereafter, repeat the ultrasonic

inspection at intervals not to exceed 5,000

landings on the pylon truss fitting.

(3) If any crack is found in the pylon truss

fitting during any inspection required by this

paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with the service bulletin. At the

times specified in the service bulletin,

perform follow-on actions in accordance with

the service bulletin. In all cases, where the

service bulletin indicates ‘‘contact Douglas

for disposition,’’ the repair must be

accomplished in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(b) For Model DC–10–10 series airplanes:

Prior to the accumulation of 17,000 total

landings on the pylon truss fitting or within

1,500 landings on the pylon truss fitting after
24690 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform either an ultrasonic

inspection or an eddy current inspection, as

applicable, to detect cracks of the upper aft

mating bolt hole of the wing pylon truss

fittings, in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 54–108,

dated February 9, 1995.

(1) If no cracks are detected, repeat the

inspections in accordance with paragraph

(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii), as applicable:

(i) If inspecting using ultrasonic

techniques, repeat the inspection at intervals

not to exceed 10,000 landings.

(ii) If inspecting using eddy current

techniques, repeat the inspection at intervals

not to exceed 15,000 landings.

(2) Accomplishment of the actions

specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii),

and (b)(2)(iii) constitutes terminating action

for the repetitive inspections required by

paragraph (b)(1) of this AD:

(i) Accomplish the preventative

modification in accordance with Condition 1

(bushing not installed), Option III, or

Condition 2 (bushing installed), Option II, of

the service bulletin, as applicable. And

(ii) Prior to the accumulation of 18,000

total landings on the pylon truss fitting

following accomplishment of the

modification, perform an ultrasonic

inspection to detect cracks of the upper aft

mating bolt hole of the wing pylon truss

fittings, in accordance with the service

bulletin. And

(iii) Thereafter, repeat the ultrasonic

inspection at intervals not to exceed 10,000

landings on the pylon truss fitting.

(3) If any crack is found in the pylon truss

fitting during any inspection required by this

paragraph, prior to further flight, repair it in

accordance with the service bulletin. At the

times specified in the service bulletin,

perform follow-on actions in accordance with

the service bulletin. In all cases, where the

service bulletin indicates ‘‘contact Douglas

for disposition,’’ the repair must be

accomplished in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) The actions shall be done in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service

Bulletin 54–108, dated February 9, 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 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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California;

or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

June 20, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9,

1996.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12147 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–198–AD; Amendment

39–9625; AD 96–10–18]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320–111, –211, –212, and –231 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A320–111, –211, –212, and –231 series

airplanes, that requires removing the

existing forward pintle nut and cross

bolt on the main landing gear (MLG),

and installing a new nylon spacer and

cross bolt and nut. This amendment is

prompted by results of fatigue testing

which revealed that the cross bolt and

nut in the forward pintle pin of the MLG

were damaged due to fatigue cracking.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent such fatigue

cracking, which could result in collapse

of the MLG.

DATES: Effective June 20, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 20,

1996.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. 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 Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Backman, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2797; fax (206) 227–1149.

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 certain Airbus

Model A320 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

March 6, 1996 (61 FR 8896). That action

proposed to require removing the

existing forward pintle nut and cross

bolt on the MLG; and installing a new

nylon spacer and cross bolt and nut.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the two

comments received.

Both commenters support the

proposed rule.

Conclusion

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 as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 90 Airbus

Model A320–111, –211, –212, and –231

series airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the required actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Required parts will be

supplied by the parts manufacturer at

no cost to the operators. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,400,

or $60 per airplane.

The 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.

Regulatory Impact

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