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

31059

Vol. 61, No. 119

Wednesday, June 19, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–24–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10–15 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 all

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10–15

airplanes. This proposal would require,

among other things, inspections to

detect discrepancies at various locations

of pylons 1 and 3, and correction of any

discrepancy found. This proposal is

prompted by a report of internal

structural damage to the wing engine

pylon that occurred during maintenance

of a Model DC–10 series airplane. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to ensure the integrity of

the structure and attachment of the wing

engine pylon.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

24–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule 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

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Atmur, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5224; 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 96–NM–24–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.

96–NM–24–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On May 16, 1980, the FAA issued AD

80–11–05 R1, amendment 39–3981 (45

FR 35310, May 27, 1980), which is

applicable to all McDonnell Douglas

Model DC–10–10, –10F, –30, –30F, and

–40 series airplanes. That AD requires a

revision to the wing-pylon inspection

programs for these airplanes, which

includes various types of inspections to

detect discrepancies, and the correction

of any discrepancy found. That action

was prompted by a report of internal

structural damage to the wing engine

pylon that occurred during maintenance

of a Model DC–10 series airplane. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

ensure the integrity of the structure and

attachment of the wing engine pylon.

Since the issuance of AD 80–11–05

R1, the FAA certificated McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10–15 series

airplanes for operation in the U.S.

Subsequently, the FAA has determined

that these airplanes also are subject to

the unsafe condition addressed in AD

80–11–05 R1, since they are similar in

type design to the airplane models

addressed in that AD.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service

Bulletin 54–74, dated December 21,

1979, which describes procedures for

repetitive visual inspections to detect

discrepancies at various locations of

pylons 1 and 3, and correction of any

discrepancy found. The service bulletin

indicates that these locations include

the following: the pylon aft bulkhead;

the upper surface of the upper spar aft

of station Yn=342.864 to the aft

bulkhead; the lower surface of the upper

spar and spar cap angles aft of station

Yn=342.864 to the aft bulkhead; the

center and lower (firewall) spar and spar

cap angles; the thrust link installation;

the lower and upper forward spherical

bearing installation; the forward

bulkhead; and the forward wing attach

fitting (footstool) of the pylon.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

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:

1. At each pylon removal and

installation, the engine and pylon must

be removed and installed separately,

and the pylon aft bulkhead lug must be

protected from contact with certain

attach bolt heads.
31060 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Proposed Rules

2. Performance of various repetitive

inspections to detect discrepancies at

various locations of pylons 1 and 3, and

correction of any discrepancy found.

3. Submission of a pylon maintenance

program that includes specific repetitive

inspections at intervals of 20,000 hours

time-in-service.

Certain of these actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin

described previously; other actions

would be required to be accomplished

in accordance with the DC–10

Nondestructive Testing Manual and the

DC–10 Maintenance Manual.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 7 Model DC–

10–15 airplanes of the affected design in

the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates

that 2 airplanes of U.S. registry would

be affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 22 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 cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $2,640, or $1,320 per

airplane.

The 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.

Regulatory Impact

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. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 96–NM–24–AD.

Applicability: All Model DC–10–15

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 request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, 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: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To ensure the integrity of the structure and

attachment of the wing engine pylon,

accomplish the following:

(a) At each pylon removal and installation

that is accomplished after the effective date

of this AD: The engine and pylon shall be

removed and installed separately, unless

such removal or installation, or both, as an

assembly is accomplished in accordance with

a method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

(b) At each pylon removal and installation

that is accomplished after the effective date

of this AD: Protect the pylon aft bulkhead lug

from contact with the clevis-to-wing attach

bolt heads using part number (P/N)

DZZ7268–1 in accordance with page 417,

dated January 1, 1982, and page 427, dated

May 1, 1985, of Chapter 54–00–01 of the

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Maintenance

Manual.

(c) Prior to further flight following any

pylon reinstallation that is accomplished

after the effective date of this AD:

Accomplish the requirements of paragraphs

(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.

(1) Perform an inspection of the aft pylon

bulkhead to detect cracking, in accordance

with page 634, dated December 1, 1979, and

page 634A, dated August 1, 1990, of Chapter

54–10–11 of the McDonnell Douglas DC–10

Nondestructive Testing Manual.

(2) Perform a visual inspection of the pylon

aft spherical bearing and attaching hardware

to verify the security of the nut and bolt.

(3) Perform a visual inspection of the

torque stripe for proper alignment.

(d) Perform the inspections required by

paragraph (e) of this AD at the later of the

times specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and

(d)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat these

inspections at intervals not to exceed 3,600

hours time-in-service or 12 months,

whichever occurs later.

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 3,600 total

hours time-in-service.

(2) Within 3,600 hours time-in-service or

12 months after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later.

(e) Perform the inspections required by

paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this AD at

the times indicated in paragraph (d) of this

AD.

(1) Perform a visual inspection to detect

cracking of the external surfaces of the thrust

link forward (pylon) and aft (wing)

attachment lugs, in accordance with

paragraph 2.C.(1) of McDonnell Douglas DC–

10 Service Bulletin 54–74, dated December

21, 1979.

(2) Perform a visual inspection to detect

discrepancies of the upper surface of the

pylon upper spar aft of station Yn=342.864,

in accordance with paragraph 2.G. of

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin

54–74, dated December 21, 1979.

(3) Perform a visual inspection to detect

discrepancies of the center and lower

(firewall) spar and spar cap angles from the

aft bulkhead to the forward bulkhead, in

accordance with paragraph 2.M. of

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin

54–74, dated December 21, 1979.

(4) Perform an inspection for discrepancies

at the various locations of the wing and tail

specified on pages 601, 602, 602A, 604, 605,

606, and 608, all dated November 1, 1986;

page 603, dated May 1, 1986; and pages 604A

and 607, dated May 1, 1987; of Chapter 05–

51–08 of the McDonnell Douglas DC–10

Maintenance Manual. Accomplish the

inspections in accordance with the

procedures specified on those pages of the

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Maintenance

Manual.

(5) Perform a visual inspection of the pylon

aft spherical bearing and attaching hardware

to verify the security of the nut and bolt, and

inspect the torque stripe for alignment.

(f) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD: Submit a pylon maintenance

program, as an amendment to the

maintenance program, to the assigned FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector for

approval. The pylon maintenance program

shall specify that, prior to the accumulation

of 20,000 total hours time-in-service, or

within 20,000 hours time-in-service since the

last inspection, whichever occurs later, the

operator will accomplish, as a minimum, the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31061

actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1)through

(f)(9) of this AD.

(1) Perform a visual inspection to detect

cracking of the pylon aft bulkhead, in

accordance with paragraphs 2.E. and 2.F. of

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin

54–74, dated December 21, 1979; and an

eddy current inspection to detect cracking of

the pylon aft bulkhead, in accordance with

page 634, dated December 1, 1979, and page

634A, dated August 1, 1990, of Chapter 54–

10–11 of the McDonnell Douglas DC–10

Nondestructive Testing Manual.

(2) Perform a visual inspection to detect

discrepancies of the front spar bulkhead, in

accordance with paragraph 2.H. of

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin

54–74, dated December 21, 1979.

(3) Perform a visual inspection to detect

cracking of the attachment fitting-to-pylon

forward bulkhead (footstool) of the wing

front spar; perform a detailed visual

inspection to detect cracking, and loose or

missing fasteners, of the wing pylon

attachment; and verify that the pre-load

indicating (PLI) washers cannot be rotated; in

accordance with paragraph 2.L. of McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 54–74, dated

December 21, 1979.

(4) Perform an inspection to verify that the

attach bolt PLI washers on the lower

spherical bearing plug cannot be rotated;

verify that no interference exists between the

plug forward flange aft face, and the forward

face of the spherical bearing; and perform a

detailed visual inspection of the plug in situ;

in accordance with paragraph 2.I. of

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin

54–74, dated December 21, 1979.

(5) Perform a visual inspection to verify the

condition, security, and torque stripe

alignment of the plug assembly of the

forward upper spherical bearing installation,

in accordance with paragraph 2.J. of

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin

54–74, dated December 21, 1979.

(6) Perform a visual inspection to verify

proper installation of the thrust link bolts,

nuts, and retaining washers of the thrust link

installation, in accordance with paragraph

2.C.(2) of McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service

Bulletin 54–74, dated December 21, 1979.

(7) Perform an inspection of the aft

spherical bearing, as specified in paragraphs

(f)(7)(i) through (f)(7)(iv) of this AD.

(i) Remove the aft spherical bearing

through bolt. Inspect the inner bore of the

bushing in situ using Magnaflux bolt and

visual inspection techniques. Perform a

visual inspection using a 10x (power) glass

(or equivalent) to detect cracks of the forward

and aft surfaces of the spherical bearing.

Reinstall the through bolt.

(ii) Verify that the torque of the through

bolt is 1,200 to 1,300 inch-pounds.

(iii) Inspect the clearance of the aft

spherical bearing forward face/clevis.

(iv) Torque stripe the nut to bolt.

(8) Perform an ultrasonic inspection to

detect cracking of the bulkhead lug and wing

clevis-to-wing attachment, including the

bolts, in accordance with pages 635, 636,

638, 638A, and 638B, dated December 1,

1979; page 637, dated September 1, 1993;

page 651, dated February 1, 1982; and page

652, dated August 1, 1992; of Chapter 54–10–

11 of the McDonnell Douglas DC–10

Nondestructive Testing Manual.

(9) Accomplish either paragraph (f)(9)(i) or

(f)(9)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Perform an X-ray inspection in situ to

ensure the integrity of the steel thrust links,

in accordance with page 632A, dated August

1, 1984, and page 632B, dated February 1,

1981, of the McDonnell Douglas DC–10

Nondestructive Testing Manual. Or

(ii) Perform an ultrasonic inspection in situ

to ensure the integrity of the steel thrust

links, in accordance with page 632C, dated

August 1, 1985, and page 632D, dated August

1, 1984, of the McDonnell Douglas DC–10

Nondestructive Testing Manual.

(g) Prior to further flight after a pylon has

been subjected to vertical or horizontal

misalignment, or both (e.g., during

maintenance), perform an inspection to

detect cracking of the aft pylon bulkhead, in

accordance with page 634, dated December 1,

1979, and page 634A, dated August 1, 1990,

of Chapter 54–10–11 of the McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Nondestructive Testing

Manual.

(h) Prior to further flight following any

event that produces high pylon loads:

Perform an inspection of the pylon for

structural integrity, in accordance with pages

601, 602, 602A, 604, 605, 606, and 608, dated

November 1, 1986; page 603, dated May 1,

1986; and pages 604A and 607, dated May 1,

1987; of Chapter 05–51–08 of the McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Maintenance Manual.

Note 2: Examples of events that produce

high pylon loads, include, but are not limited

to, the following:

• Hard or overweight landings (for the

purpose of this AD, overweight landings are

made at aircraft weights in excess of 369,000

pounds);

• Severe turbulence encounters;

• Engine vibration that requires engine

removal or critical engine failure, or both;

• Ground damage (work stands, etc.);

• Compressor stalls requiring engine

removal; and

• Excursions from the runway of a nature

that might have imposed loads more severe

than those encountered normally on the

runway.

(i) Prior to further flight, correct any

discrepancy found during any inspection

required by this AD, in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO; the Structural Repair Manual;

or McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service

Bulletin 54–74, dated December 21, 1979; as

appropriate.

(j) Within 10 days after accomplishing the

inspections required by this AD, report

inspection results, positive or negative, to the

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector. The

report shall include the information specified

in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) of this AD.

Information collection requirements

contained in this regulation have been

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2120–0056.

(1) The ‘‘N’’ number of the airplane.

(2) The total number of hours time-inservice accumulated on the airplane.

(3) The pylon number of the airplane.

(4) The specific paragraph (and

subparagraph) of this AD that corresponds

with the inspection results being reported.

(5) Specific inspection results: For

example, the location and size of cracking,

specific location of discrepant fasteners, and

part numbers.

(k) 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. 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(l) 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 June 13,

1996.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–15601 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–106–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 727 and 737 Series 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 Boeing Model 727 and 737 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

replacing the fuel cap assembly with a

new assembly on the inlet fitting at the

inside top of the auxiliary fuel tank. The

proposal would also require replacing

the INOP placards with new placards.

This proposal is prompted by reports

that the fuel cap assembly, due to its

design, became loose and allowed fuel

to enter the deactivated auxiliary fuel

tanks on in-service airplanes. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent unwanted fuel

transferring to the deactivated auxiliary

fuel tanks, due to the problems

associated with a loose fuel cap

assembly.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 29, 1996.