96-22011. Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, -30, and -40 Series Airplanes, and KC-10 (Military) Series Airplanes  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 169 (Thursday, August 29, 1996)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 45375-45377]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-22011]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    14 CFR Part 39
    
    [Docket No. 96-NM-135-AD]
    RIN 2120-AA64
    
    
    Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, -30, 
    and -40 Series Airplanes, and KC-10 (Military) 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 McDonnell Douglas Model 
    DC-10-10, -30 and -40 series airplanes, and KC-10 (military) series 
    airplanes. This proposal would require repetitive high frequency eddy 
    current (HFEC) inspections to detect cracks in the number 4 banjo 
    fitting on the rear spar of the vertical stabilizer, and repair and 
    modification of the vertical stabilizer, if necessary. It also would 
    require the installation of a modification as terminating action for 
    the repetitive inspections. This proposal is prompted by reports of 
    failed attach bolts and cracking found in the area of the number 4 
    banjo fitting, which were caused by higher than normal operating 
    stresses. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to 
    prevent reduction in the structural integrity of this fitting due to 
    failed bolts and cracking. This condition, if not corrected, could 
    ultimately lead to reduced controllability of the airplane during 
    flight and ground operations.
    
    DATES: Comments must be received by October 7, 1996.
    
    ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
    Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, 
    Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-135-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, 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, or the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 
    Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount 
    Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
    
    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-135-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-135-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
    98055-4056.
    
    Discussion
    
        The FAA has received reports of failure of the bolts that connect 
    the lower web of the pylon of the number 2 tail engine to the number 4 
    banjo fitting on the rear spar of the vertical stabilizer on McDonnell 
    Douglas Model DC-10 series airplanes. Such failures occurred on 
    airplanes that had been operated for 10,300 to 16,000 total flight 
    hours, and had made 4,400 to 7,000 landings. In addition, an operator 
    found a crack in the aft flange of the number 4 banjo fitting; this 
    airplane had been operated for 48,500 total flight hours and had made 
    10,418 landings. These discrepancies have been attributed to higher 
    than normal stresses on the airplane in this area of the number 4 banjo 
    fitting, resulting from excessive maneuvers, excessive turbulence, and 
    hard landings. Such discrepancies, if not corrected, could result in a 
    reduction in the structural integrity of the number 4 banjo fitting 
    and, ultimately, could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane 
    during flight and ground operations.
    
    [[Page 45376]]
    
    Explanation of Relevant Service Information
    
        The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service 
    Bulletin DC10-54-096, Revision 03, dated February 6, 1996, which 
    describes procedures for conducting repetitive high frequency eddy 
    current (HFEC) inspections of the upper and lower surface of the aft 
    flange of the number 4 banjo fitting on the rear spar of the vertical 
    stabilizer; procedures for repairs; if necessary; and procedures for 
    modification of the vertical stabilizer in the vicinity of such 
    fitting. The repairs and modification entail trimming of parts; 
    replacing angles, shields, and spacers; and modifying the fireseal. 
    These actions will reduce the loads being transmitted from the pylon of 
    the number 2 tail engine to the rear spar of the vertical stabilizer; 
    such reduction of loads will minimize the possibility of bolt failure 
    and cracking of the flange of the number 4 banjo fitting. 
    Accomplishment of the repairs and modification eliminates the need for 
    repetitive HFEC inspections of this area.
    
    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 repetitive HFEC inspections of the upper and 
    lower surfaces of the aft flange of the number 4 banjo fitting on the 
    rear spar of the vertical stabilizer. If cracks are detected, repairs 
    and modification of the vertical stabilizer in the vicinity of the 
    number 4 banjo fitting would be required; accomplishment of these 
    actions would terminate the requirement for repetitive HFEC 
    inspections. This AD also would require that the modification be 
    installed eventually on all airplanes as terminating action for the 
    repetitive HFEC inspections. These actions would be required to be 
    accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described 
    previously.
    
    Cost Impact
    
        There are approximately 376 Model DC-10-10, -30 and -40 series 
    airplanes and KC-10 (military) series airplanes of the affected design 
    in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 230 airplanes of U.S. 
    registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
        It would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish 
    each proposed inspection; the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. 
    Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection 
    requirement on U.S. operators of airplanes is estimated to be $27,600, 
    or $120 per airplane, per inspection.
        It would take approximately 34 hours to accomplish the proposed 
    modification that would terminate the requirement for repetitive HFEC 
    inspections. Required parts to accomplish such modification would cost 
    approximately $3,875 per airplane for ``Group 1'' airplanes, as listed 
    in the service bulletin; and approximately $3,427 per airplane for 
    ``Group 2'' airplanes, as listed in the service bulletin. Based on 
    these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification requirement 
    on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,915 per Group 1 airplane and 
    $5,467 per Group 2 airplane.
        The cost impact figures discussed above are 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.
    
    
    Sec. 39.13  [Amended]
    
        2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new 
    airworthiness directive:
    
    McDonnell Douglas: Docket 96-NM-135-AD.
        Applicability: Model DC-10-10, -30, and -40 series airplanes, 
    and KC-10 (military) series airplanes; as listed in McDonnell 
    Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-54-096, Revision 03, dated February 6, 
    1996; certificated in any category.
    
        Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the 
    preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 
    otherwise 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 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 prevent reduction in the structural integrity of the number 4 
    banjo fitting on the rear spar of the vertical stabilizer, which 
    could ultimately result in a reduction in the ability to control the 
    airplane during flight and ground operations, accomplish the 
    following:
        (a) Prior to the accumulation of 5,000 total landings, or within 
    1,500 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 
    later, perform a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to 
    detect cracks in the upper and lower surface of the aft flange of 
    the number 4 banjo fitting on the rear spar of the vertical 
    stabilizer, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
    DC10-54-096, Revision 03, dated February 6, 1996.
        (1) If no crack is found, repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter 
    at intervals not to exceed 1,500 landings.
        (2) If any crack is found, prior to further flight, repair the 
    crack and install the modification in accordance with the service 
    bulletin.
        (b) Within 5 years after the effective date of this AD, modify 
    the vertical stabilizer in the area of the number 4 banjo fitting on 
    the rear spar, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
    DC10-54-096, Revision 03, dated February 6, 1996. Accomplishment of 
    this modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive 
    HFEC inspections required by paragraph (a)(1) of this AD.
    
    [[Page 45377]]
    
        (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.
    
        Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 22, 1996.
    Darrell M. Pederson,
    Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
    Service.
    [FR Doc. 96-22011 Filed 8-28-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
08/29/1996
Department:
Transportation Department
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
Document Number:
96-22011
Dates:
Comments must be received by October 7, 1996.
Pages:
45375-45377 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 96-NM-135-AD
RINs:
2120-AA64: Airworthiness Directives
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2120-AA64/airworthiness-directives
PDF File:
96-22011.pdf
CFR: (1)
14 CFR 39.13