[Federal Register: July 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40651-40656]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy05-2]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2004-18670; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-83-AD;
Amendment 39-14187; AD 2005-14-10]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and
DC-10-10F Airplanes; Model DC-10-15 Airplanes; Model DC-10-30 and DC-
10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) Airplanes; and Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to certain McDonnell Douglas transport category
airplanes. That AD currently requires implementation of a program of
structural inspections to detect and correct fatigue cracking in order
to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes as they
approach the manufacturer's original fatigue design life goal. This new
AD requires implementation of a program of structural inspections of
baseline structure to detect and correct fatigue cracking in order to
ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes as they approach
the manufacturer's original fatigue design life goal. This AD is
prompted by a significant number of these airplanes approaching or
exceeding the design service goal on which the initial type
certification approval was predicated. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise the structural
integrity of these airplanes.
DATES: This AD becomes effective August 18, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of Boeing Report No. L26-012, ``DC-
10 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6,
dated February 2002; and McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume II Revision 8, dated
November 2003; as listed in the AD, is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of August 18, 2005.
On January 2, 1996, (60 FR 61649, December 1, 1995), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
certain publications, as listed in the regulations.
On November 24, 1993 (58 FR 54949, October 25, 1993), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation of a certain other
publication, as listed in the regulations.
ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). You can examine this information
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202)
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.
Docket: The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any
final disposition. You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (Telephone (800) 647-
5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL-401,
Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2004-18670; the directorate
identifier for this docket is 2002-NM-83-AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Atmur, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone (562) 627-5224; fax (562) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with an AD to supersede
AD 95-23-09, amendment 39-9429 (60 FR 61649, December 1, 1995). The
existing AD applies to certain McDonnell Douglas transport category
airplanes. The proposed AD was published in the Federal Register on
August 3, 2004 (69 FR 46456), to require implementation of a program of
structural inspections of baseline structure to detect and correct
fatigue cracking in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of
these airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's original fatigue
design life goal.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
submitted on the proposed AD.
One Commenter Has No Objection to the Proposed AD
One commenter, an operator, advises that it has no objection to the
proposed AD.
Requests To Revise Compliance Times for Certain Airplanes
One commenter, an operator, requests that, for airplanes
approaching \3/4\ of the fatigue life threshold (Nth), the
grace period for the compliance time required by paragraph (j)(1) of
the proposed AD be extended from ``within 18 months of the effective
date of the AD'' to ``within 60 months of the effective date of the
AD.'' The commenter states that some of the inspections would require
significant efforts and cost to access the inspection area. The
commenter notes that while the proposed AD would require inspection
within 18 months from the effective date of the AD for airplanes
approaching \3/4\ Nth, the proposed AD would not require the
same inspections for airplanes just beyond \3/4\ Nth at the
effective date of the AD until the airplane reached Nth,
which is several years later in most cases. Another commenter requests
that the inspections required by paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD be
revised to ``prior to Nth or [Delta]NDI/2, whichever comes
later.'' The commenter points out that the revision would more
accurately reflect the intent of the DC-10 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID) program.
We agree that the grace period specified in paragraph (j)(1) of the
AD may be extended to ``within 60 months after the effective date of
the AD,'' and have revised paragraph (j)(1) of the final rule
accordingly. We consider that extension of the grace period will not
[[Page 40652]]
adversely affect the safety of the fleet. Additionally, we agree to
revise the final rule to specify the compliance time for certain
airplanes specified in paragraph (j)(1) of the AD by requiring ``before
reaching the threshold (Nth) or [Delta]NDI/2, whichever
occurs later.''
Request To Clarify Compliance ``Procedure''
One commenter states that the proposed AD introduces a more
complicated compliance ``procedure'' than that in the existing AD. The
commenter also states that the ``new procedure'' leaves questions of
interpretation.
The FAA agrees that some clarification is needed. The concept of
the SID inspections has resulted in some confusion since the beginning
of the DC-10 SID program more than 15 years ago. The original intent of
the SID program was that operators would perform the principal
structural element (PSE) inspections at or near the threshold
(Nth). In that case, inspecting every [Delta]NDI/2 after
that inspection met the intent of the program. However, some operators
have inspected certain PSEs well before the threshold (Nth).
In that case, inspecting every [Delta]NDI/2 after that inspection may
have caused the operator to inspect many more times than was intended
by the program. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (j)(1) of this
final rule to clarify the compliance times and have also specified
that, ``After reaching the threshold (Nth), repeat the
inspection for that PSE at intervals not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.''
Request To Clarify the Requirements of Paragraph (k) of the Proposed AD
One commenter notes that, if a discrepancy is found, the compliance
time in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD could ground an airplane while
approval of a repair from the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), is obtained. Another commenter, the
manufacturer, points out that, in some instances, a repair is installed
after the approved inspection is accomplished and is not discovered
until the next required inspection is attempted, which would
effectively ground the airplane. The manufacturer suggests that we
continue to require inspection after detection of a discrepancy before
(Nth), but that we add a ``grace period'' of 18 months after
the discovery of the discrepancy, whichever occurs later.
We agree that a ``grace period'' may be added to paragraph (k) of
the AD. We have determined that allowing an 18-month grace period for
repairs that have met the static strength requirement provides an
acceptable level of safety. We have revised paragraph (k) of the final
rule accordingly.
Request To Remove Certain Airplanes From the Applicability of the
Proposed AD
One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that Model MD-10
airplanes be removed from the applicability of the proposed AD. The
commenter notes that Model MD-10 airplanes have an Airworthiness
Limitations Instructions (ALI) document that references the Model DC-10
SID. The commenter believes that confusion may result if the Model MD-
10 airplanes are included in the applicability of the proposed AD.
We agree that Model MD-10 airplanes may be removed from the
applicability of this AD. The Model MD-10 airplanes have an ALI
document that is based on a previous Model DC-10 SID, which was a 100%
inspection program at the threshold. However, since rulemaking is
necessary to ensure that the Model MD-10 ALI is revised with the latest
revision, we may engage in separate rulemaking for those airplanes. We
have removed reference to the MD-10 airplanes in the applicability of
this AD.
Request To Revise the Definition of ``Discrepant PSE''
One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that the FAA reference
the SID definition of ``discrepant PSE'' or specify the SID definition
verbatim. The commenter advises that making the definition of
``discrepant PSE'' the same as the SID may prevent any possible
confusion.
We agree that clarification is necessary. We have revised paragraph
(k) of the final rule to more clearly correlate the definition of
``discrepancy'' with the definition provided in the SID.
Request To Limit Previous Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that paragraph (r) of the
proposed AD be revised to limit the acceptable AMOCs to repairs and
inspections accomplished using previous alternative inspection
procedures. (Paragraph (r) of the proposed AD addresses AMOCs approved
previously in accordance with AD 95-23-09.) The commenter explains that
this will help clarify the change to the SID program that occurred with
Boeing Report No. L26-012, Volume I, Revision 6, dated February 2002.
We agree with the commenter and have revised paragraph (r)(2) of
the final rule accordingly.
Request To Revise the ``Costs of Compliance'' Section
Several commenters disagree with the statement in the ``Costs of
Compliance'' section of the proposed AD that ``there is no additional
economic burden on affected operators to perform any additional
recurrent inspections.'' The commenters state that the inspection
schedule used in AD 95-23-09 is based on fleet sampling, and the new
SID program and the proposed AD would change this requirement to a 100%
sampling program. The commenters state that the change in the
requirement would result in a significant increase in the average labor
hours per aircraft in operators' fleets. One commenter also notes that,
in the same section of the proposed AD, in the phrase ``* * * takes
about 1,290 work hours per airplane,'' the correct reference should be
``per operator'' rather than ``per airplane.'' Additionally, the
commenter points out that no costs were stated in the proposed AD for
the hours necessary for access to perform the inspections.
We do agree that the correct reference in the phrase `` * * * takes
about 1,290 work hours per airplane'' should be ``per operator,'' and
we have revised the final rule accordingly. We do not agree with the
commenter that AD 95-23-09 is based on fleet sampling. As specified in
paragraph (g)(1) of the AD, which is part of the ``Restatement of
Certain Requirements of AD 95-23-09,'' all PSEs are required to be
inspected before the fatigue life threshold (Nth). No change
is necessary to this final rule in that regard. We do not agree that
hours and estimated costs should be provided for time necessary to
access the inspection area. The cost information provided in the AD
describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by
this AD. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided
the number of work hours necessary to do the required actions. This
number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions
actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions
required by an AD, operators may incur incidental costs in addition to
the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however,
typically does not include incidental costs such as the time required
to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or time
necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs,
which may vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to
calculate. Additionally, with the extension of the grace period in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, there is
[[Page 40653]]
sufficient time to plan inspections when the airplanes are in a major
maintenance visit. No change is necessary to this final rule in that
regard.
Request To Reference Previous ADs Instead of Previous SID Revisions
One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that paragraph (o) of the
proposed AD be revised to reference previous ADs rather than previous
service information. The commenter states that all inspections
accomplished per any previous revision of the DC-10 SID should be
satisfactory to meet the requirements of paragraph (j) of the proposed
AD.
We do not agree with the commenter. Paragraph (o) of the AD simply
specifies certain revisions of the DC-10 SID that are acceptable for
compliance with the inspection requirements of paragraph (j) of this
AD. That information may be helpful for operators who may have
performed certain inspections previously in accordance with the
specified revisions. No change to the final rule is necessary in this
regard.
Request To Explain Why Certain Requirements of AD 95-23-09 Are Restated
One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that the AD explain why
certain requirements of AD 95-23-09 are included in the proposed AD.
Including a restatement in an AD of certain requirements of a
superseded AD is a standard and common method of ensuring that certain
actions are continued until the compliance times of ``new''
requirements are effective. Otherwise, there would be a gap between the
two ADs when operators would be subject to the requirements of neither.
In the preamble of the proposed AD, under the heading ``Change to
Existing AD,'' we identified the specific requirements of AD 95-23-09
that would be retained with the requirements of this AD. In this case,
those ``certain requirements'' continue to be required until the new
requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD are accomplished. No change to
the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Request To Clarify Thresholds
One commenter requests that we clarify paragraphs (m)(2) and (m)(3)
to ensure that the thresholds specified in those paragraphs refer to
the repair threshold, not the PSE threshold.
We agree that clarification is necessary, and we have revised those
paragraphs in this final rule accordingly.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (p) of the Proposed AD
One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that paragraph (p) of the
proposed AD also reference paragraph (j) of the proposed AD. (Paragraph
(p) of the proposed AD specifies that McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC
91K0264, ``DC-10/KC-10 Aging Aircraft Repair Assessment Program
Document,'' Revision 1, dated October 2000, provides inspection/
replacement programs for certain repairs to the fuselage pressure
shell.) The commenter states that the document should also be
considered as an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements
of paragraph (j) of the proposed AD.
We do not agree. Paragraph (j) of the AD requires NDI inspections
for fatigue cracking of each PSE at certain specified times, and does
not specify repair requirements. Paragraph (p) of the AD specifies that
certain repairs and inspection/replacement programs are acceptable for
compliance with certain requirements of paragraphs (h) and (m) of the
AD for repairs that are subject to that document. No change to the
final rule is necessary in this regard.
Requests To Make Editorial Changes for Certain Paragraph References
Several commenters note that the references in paragraphs (m)(2)
and (m)(3) of the proposed AD should refer to paragraph (m)(1) instead
of (j)(1) of the proposed AD.
We agree that the correct reference is paragraph (m)(1) and have
revised the final rule accordingly.
One commenter requests a definition of the word ``you'' in
paragraph (e) of the proposed AD. We have recently revised the
paragraph with the heading, ``Compliance,'' in our ADs. We use the word
``you'' as part of our ``plain language'' effort to make ADs easier to
understand. In this case, ``you'' means whoever is responsible for the
certificated operation of an aircraft, e.g., the owner of the airplane,
the operator of the airplane, etc.
Changes to Delegation Authority
Boeing has received a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA). We
have revised this final rule add a delegation of authority to approve
an alternative method of compliance for any repair required by this AD
to the Authorized Representative for the Boeing DOA Organization.
Editorial Changes
We noticed that in paragraph (l) of the proposed AD, there is
reference to ``paragraph (o)'' of the proposed AD. The correct
reference should be to paragraph (j) or (o) of the AD, and we have
revised paragraph (l) of the final rule accordingly. Additionally, we
note that, in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, we inadvertently
specified December 1, 1995, as the effective date of AD 95-23-09. The
effective date of AD 95-23-09 is January 2, 1996, and we have revised
the final rule accordingly.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase
the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Interim Action
This is considered to be interim action. We are currently
considering requiring damage tolerance-based inspections and procedures
that include all major structural repairs, alterations, and
modifications (RAMs), which may result in additional rulemaking. That
rulemaking may include appropriate recommendations from the previously
mentioned FAA team and a public meeting on how to address RAMs.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 419 McDonnell Douglas transport category airplanes
worldwide of the affected design. This AD will affect about 249
airplanes of U.S. registry and 13 U.S. operators.
The incorporation of the SID program into an operator's maintenance
program, as required by AD 95-23-09, and retained in this AD takes
about 1,290 work hours per operator, at an average labor rate of $65
per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost to the 13 affected U.S.
operators to incorporate the SID program is estimated to be $1,090,050.
The recurring inspection costs, as required by AD 95-23-09, are
estimated to be 365 work hours per airplane, per year, at an average
labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the recurring
inspection costs required by AD 95-23-09 are estimated to be $23,725
per airplane, per year, or $5,907,525 for the affected U.S. fleet per
year.
Since no new recurring inspection procedures have been added to the
program by this new AD, there is no additional economic burden on
affected operators to perform any additional recurrent inspections.
Additionally, the number of required work hours for each inspection
(and the
[[Page 40654]]
SID program), as indicated above, is presented as if the accomplishment
of those actions are to be conducted as ``stand alone'' actions.
However, in actual practice, these actions for the most part will be
accomplished coincidently or in combination with normally scheduled
airplane inspections and other maintenance program tasks. Further, any
costs associated with special airplane scheduling are expected to be
minimal.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to
examine the regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
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]
0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by removing amendment 39-9429 (60 FR
61649, December 1, 1995), and by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
2005-14-10 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-14187. Docket No. FAA-
2004-18670; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-83-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective August 18, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 95-23-09, amendment 39-9429.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and
DC-10-10F airplanes; Model DC-10-15 airplanes; Model DC-10-30 and
DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes; and Model DC-10-40 and DC-
10-40F airplanes; certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by a significant number of these
airplanes approaching or exceeding the design service goal on which
the initial type certification approval was predicated. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking that could
compromise the structural integrity of these airplanes.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 95-23-09
(f) Within 6 months after November 24, 1993 (the effective date
of AD 93-17-09, amendment 39-8680), incorporate a revision into the
FAA-approved maintenance inspection program which provides for
inspection(s) of the Principal Structural Elements (PSEs) defined in
Section 2 of Volume I of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-012, ``DC-
10 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Revision 3, dated
December 1992, in accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-92, dated
October 1992, of the SID. The non-destructive inspection (NDI)
techniques set forth in Section 2 and Section 4 of Volume II,
Revision 3, dated December 1992, of the SID provide acceptable
methods for accomplishing the inspections required by this
paragraph. All inspection results (negative or positive) must be
reported to McDonnell Douglas, in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III-92, dated October 1992, of the
SID. 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) For those Fleet Leader Operator Sampling (FLOS) PSEs that do
not have a Normal Maintenance Visual Inspection specified in Section
4 of Volume II, Revision 3, dated December 1992, of the SID, the
procedure for general visual inspection is as follows: Perform an
inspection of the general PSE area for cleanliness, presence of
foreign objects, security of parts, cracks, corrosion, and damage.
(2) For PSEs 53.10.031E/.032E, 53.10.047E/.048E, and
57.10.029E/.030E: The ENDDATE for these PSEs is October 1993. (For
these PSEs, disregard the June 1993 ENDDATE specified in Section 2
of Volume III-92, dated October 1992, of the SID.)
(g) Within 6 months after January 2, 1996 (the effective date of
AD 95-23-09, amendment 39-9429), replace the revision of the FAA-
approved maintenance inspection program required by paragraph (f) of
this AD with a revision that provides for inspection(s) of the PSEs
defined in Section 2 of Volume I of McDonnell Douglas Report No.
L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Revision
5, dated October 1994, in accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-
94, dated November 1994, of the SID. The NDI techniques set forth in
Section 2 of Volume II, Revision 5, dated October 1994, of the SID
provide acceptable methods for accomplishing the inspections
required by this paragraph.
(1) Prior to reaching the threshold (Nth), but no
earlier than one-half of the threshold (Nth/2), specified
for all PSEs listed in Volume III-94, dated November 1994, of the
SID, inspect each PSE sample in accordance with the NDI procedures
set forth in Section 2 of Volume II, Revision 5, dated October 1994.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals not to
exceed DNDI/2 of the NDI procedure that is specified in Volume III-
94, dated November 1994, of the SID.
(2) This AD does not require visual inspections of FLOS PSEs on
airplanes listed in Volume III-94, dated November 1994, of the SID
planning data at least once during the specified inspection
interval, in accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-94, dated
November 1994, of the SID.
(3) For PSEs 53.10.055/.056E, 55.10.013/.014B, 53.10.005/.006E,
53.10.031/.032E, 53.10.047/.048E, 57.10.029/.030E: The EDATE for
these PSEs is June 1998. (For these PSEs, disregard the June 1996
EDATE specified in Section 2, of Volume III-94, dated November 1994,
of the SID.)
[[Page 40655]]
(4) All inspection results (negative or positive) must be
reported to McDonnell Douglas in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III-94, dated November 1994, of the
SID. 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.
(h) Any cracked structure detected during the inspections
required by paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD must be repaired before
further flight, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
Note 1: Requests for approval of any PSE repair that would
affect the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program required by
this AD should include a damage tolerance assessment for that PSE
repair.
New Requirements of This AD
Revision of the Maintenance Inspection Program
(i) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection
program that provides for inspection(s) of the PSEs, in accordance
with Boeing Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated February 2002.''
Unless otherwise specified, all further references in this AD to the
``SID'' are to Revision 6, dated February 2002.
Non-Destructive Inspections (NDIs)
(j) For all PSEs listed in Section 2 of Volume I of the SID,
perform an NDI for fatigue cracking of each PSE in accordance with
the NDI procedures specified in Section 2 of Volume II, Revision 8,
dated November 2003, of the SID, at the times specified in paragraph
(j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes that have less than three quarters of the
fatigue life threshold (\3/4\Nth) as of the effective
date of the AD: Perform the NDI for fatigue cracking at the times
specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this AD. After
reaching the threshold (Nth), repeat the inspection for
that PSE at intervals not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
(i) Perform an initial NDI no earlier than one-half of the
threshold (\1/2\Nth), but before reaching three-quarters
of the threshold (\3/4\Nth), or within 60 months after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(ii) Repeat the NDI no earlier than (\3/4\Nth), but
before reaching the threshold (Nth), or within 18 months
after the inspection required by paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
Note 2: The SID and this AD refer to the repetitive inspection
interval as [Delta]NDI/2. However, the headings of the tables in
Section 4 of Volume I of the SID refer to the repetitive inspection
interval of NDI/2. The values listed under NDI/2 in the tables in
Section 4 of Volume I of the SID are the repetitive inspection
intervals, [Delta]NDI/2.
(2) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded three-quarters
of the fatigue life threshold (\3/4\Nth), but less than
the threshold (Nth), as of the effective date of the AD:
Perform an NDI prior to reaching the threshold (Nth), or
within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later. Thereafter, after passing the threshold
(Nth), repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals
not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
(3) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded the fatigue life
threshold (Nth) as of the effective date of the AD:
Perform an NDI within 18 months after the effective date of this AD.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals not to
exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
Discrepant Findings
(k) If any discrepancy (e.g., differences on the airplane from
the NDI reference standard, such as PSEs that cannot be inspected as
specified in Volume II of the SID or do not match rework, repair, or
modification descriptions in Volume I of the SID) is detected during
any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, accomplish the
action specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, as
applicable.
(1) If a discrepancy is detected during any inspection performed
prior to \3/4\Nth or Nth: The area of the PSE
affected by the discrepancy must be inspected prior to
Nth or within 18 months after the discovery of the
discrepancy, whichever occurs later, in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(2) If a discrepancy is detected during any inspection performed
after Nth: The area of the PSE affected by the
discrepancy must be inspected prior to the accumulation of an
additional [Delta]NDI/2 or within 18 months after the discovery of
the discrepancy, whichever occurs later, in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Reporting Requirements
(l) All negative, positive, or discrepant findings (examples of
discrepant findings are described in paragraph (k) of this AD) of
the inspections accomplished under paragraphs (j) or (o) of this AD
must be reported to Boeing, at the times specified in, and in
accordance with the instructions contained in, Section 4 of Volume I
of the SID. 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.
Corrective Actions
(m) Any cracked structure of a PSE detected during any
inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Los Angles ACO or in accordance with data meeting the
certification basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization
Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), to make those findings. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to
this AD. Accomplish the follow-on actions described in paragraphs
(m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this AD, at the times specified.
(1) Within 18 months after repair, perform a damage tolerance
assessment (DTA) that defines the threshold for inspection of the
repair and submit the assessment for approval.
(2) Before reaching 75% of the repair threshold as determined in
paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, submit the inspection methods and
repetitive inspection intervals for the repair for approval.
(3) Before the repair threshold, as determined in paragraph
(m)(1) of this AD, incorporate the inspection method and repetitive
inspection intervals into the FAA-approved structural maintenance or
inspection program for the airplane.
Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, we anticipate that
submissions of the DTA of the repair, if acceptable, should be
approved within six months after submission.
Note 4: Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529-1, ``Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness of Structural Repairs on Transport
Airplanes,'' dated August 1, 1991, is considered to be additional
guidance concerning the approval of repairs to PSEs.
Inspection for Transferred Airplanes
(n) Before any airplane that has exceeded the fatigue life
threshold (Nth) can be added to an air carrier's
operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the
inspections required by this AD must be established as specified in
paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes that have been inspected in accordance with
this AD, the inspection of each PSE must be accomplished by the new
operator in accordance with the previous operator's schedule and
inspection method, or the new operator's schedule and inspection
method, at whichever time would result in the earlier accomplishment
date for that PSE inspection. The compliance time for accomplishment
of this inspection must be measured from the last inspection
accomplished by the previous operator. After each inspection has
been performed once, each subsequent inspection must be performed in
accordance with the new operator's schedule and inspection method.
(2) For airplanes that have not been inspected in accordance
with this AD, the inspection of each PSE required by this AD must be
accomplished either prior to adding the airplane to the air
carrier's operations specification, or in accordance with a schedule
and an inspection method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
After each inspection has been performed once, each subsequent
inspection must be performed in accordance with the new operator's
schedule.
Inspections Accomplished Before the Effective Date of This AD
(o) Inspections accomplished before the effective date of this
AD in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 4,
dated June
[[Page 40656]]
1993, or Revision 5, dated October 1994; Volume II, Revision 6,
dated October 1997, or Boeing Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Revision 7, dated August
2002; and McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume III-94, dated November 1994; are
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (j) of
this AD.
Acceptable for Compliance
(p) McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 91K0264, ``DC-10/KC-10
Aging Aircraft Repair Assessment Program Document,'' Revision 1,
dated October 2000, provides inspection/replacement programs for
certain repairs to the fuselage pressure shell. These repairs and
inspection/replacement programs are considered acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (h) and (m) of this
AD for repairs subject to that document.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(q) The Manager, Los Angles ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(r)(1) Inspection procedures accomplished and approved
previously as AMOCs prior to the effective date of this AD as
alternative inspection procedures in accordance with AD 95-23-09,
amendment 39-9429; AD 93-17-09, amendment 39-8680; AD 92-02-08,
amendment 39-8144; or AD 89-22-10, amendment 39-6330; are approved
as AMOCs with the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) Repairs accomplished and approved previously as AMOCs in
accordance with AD 95-23-09, amendment 39-9429; AD 93-17-09,
amendment 39-8680; AD 92-02-08, amendment 39-8144; or AD 89-22-10,
amendment 39-6330; are approved as AMOCs with the actions required
by paragraph (h) or (m) of this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(s) You must use the service information that is specified in
Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
Table 1.--Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service information Volume Revision Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10 Volume I.............. Revision 6........... February 2002.
Supplemental Inspection Document
(SID),'' including Appendices A and
B.
McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-012, Volume II............. Revision 8........... November 2003.
``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID)''.
McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-012, Volume II............. Revision 5........... October 1994.
``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID)''.
McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-012, Volume III-92......... Original............. October 1992.
``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID)''.
McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-012, Volume III-94......... Original............. November 1994.
``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID)''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The incorporation by reference of Boeing Report No. L26-012,
``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I,
including Appendices A and B, Revision 6, dated February 2002; and
McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID)'' Volume II, Revision 8, dated November
2003; is approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (Only the title,
Record of Revision, and List of Effective pages identify Boeing
Report No. L26-012, Volume I, as Revision 6. Only page 3.1 of
Section 3 and pages B-1 through B-4 of Appendix B of Volume I,
Revision 6, contain the Boeing Report No., L26-012. Only the title,
Record of Revision, and Table of Contents pages identify McDonnell
Douglas Report No. L26-012, Volume II, as Revision 8. Only the title
page of Volume II, Revision 8, contains the McDonnell Douglas Report
No., L26-012.)
(2) The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Report
No. L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),''
Volume II, Revision 5, dated October 1994; and McDonnell Douglas
Report No. L26-012, Volume III-94, dated November 1994; was approved
previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 2,
1996 (60 FR 61649, December 1, 1995).
(3) The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Report
No. L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),''
Volume III-92, dated October 1992, was approved previously by the
Director of the Federal Register as of November 24, 1993 (58 FR
54949, October 25, 1993).
(4) To get copies of the service information, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). To view the AD docket, go to
the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street SW., room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington,
DC. To review copies of this service information, go to the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or
go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 28, 2005.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-13437 Filed 7-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P