[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 3, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46456-46462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17592]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2004-18670; Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-83-AD]
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; Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F 
Airplanes; and Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness 
directive (AD) for certain McDonnell Douglas transport category 
airplanes.

[[Page 46457]]

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 proposed AD 
would require the 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 
proposed 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 proposing this AD to 
detect and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise the 
structural integrity of these airplanes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 
2004.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on 
this proposed AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD 
from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood 
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service 
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
    You may examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov, or at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL-401, on 
the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC.

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:

Docket Management System (DMS)

    The FAA has implemented new procedures for maintaining AD dockets 
electronically. As of May 17, 2004, new AD actions are posted on DMS 
and assigned a docket number. We track each action and assign a 
corresponding directorate identifier. The DMS AD docket number is in 
the form ``Docket No. FAA-2004-99999.'' The Transport Airplane 
Directorate identifier is in the form ``Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-
999-AD.'' Each DMS AD docket also lists the directorate identifier 
(``Old Docket Number'') as a cross-reference for searching purposes.

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or 
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address 
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2004-18670; 
Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-83-AD'' at the beginning of your 
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will 
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the 
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will 
also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA 
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of our 
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our 
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or 
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, 
etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the 
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you 
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
    We are reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory 
documents. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of 
this document is clear, and your suggestions to improve the clarity of 
our communications that affect you. You can get more information about 
plain language at http://www.faa.gov/language and http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the AD docket 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 DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. 
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS 
receives them.

Discussion

    On November 6, 1995, we issued Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95-23-
09, amendment 39-9429 (60 FR 61649, December 1, 1995), for certain 
McDonnell Douglas transport category airplanes. That AD 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. That AD was prompted by data submitted by the 
manufacturer indicating that certain revisions to the program are 
necessary in order to clarify some principal structural elements (PSE) 
and some non-destructive inspection (NDI) procedures. We issued that AD 
to prevent fatigue cracking that could compromise the structural 
integrity of those airplanes.

Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) ADs

    In the early 1980's, as part of our continuing work to maintain the 
structural integrity of older transport category airplanes, we 
concluded that the incidence of fatigue cracking may increase as these 
airplanes reach or exceed their design service goal (DSG). A 
significant number of these airplanes were approaching or had exceeded 
the DSG on which the initial type certification approval was 
predicated. In light of this, and as a result of increased utilization, 
longer operational lives, and the high levels of safety expected of the 
currently operated transport category airplanes, we determined that a 
supplemental structural inspection program (SSIP) was necessary to 
ensure a high level of structural integrity for all airplanes in the 
transport fleet.

Issuance of Advisory Circular

    As a follow-on from that determination, we issued Advisory Circular 
(AC) No. 91-56, ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large 
Transport Category Airplanes,'' dated May 6, 1981. That AC provides 
guidance material to manufacturers and

[[Page 46458]]

operators for use in developing a continuing structural integrity 
program to ensure safe operation of older airplanes throughout their 
operational lives. This guidance material applies to transport 
airplanes that were certified under the fail-safe requirements of part 
4b (``Airplane Airworthiness, Transport Categories'') of the Civil Air 
Regulations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR part 25), 
and that have a maximum gross weight greater than 75,000 pounds. The 
procedures set forth in that AC are applicable to transport category 
airplanes operated under subpart D (``Special Flight Operations'') of 
part 91 of the FAR (14 CFR part 91); part 121 (``Operating 
Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations''); part 125 
(``Certification and Operations: Airplanes having a Seating Capacity of 
20 or More Passengers or a Maximum Payload of 6,000 Pounds or More''); 
and part 135 (``Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand 
Operations'') of the FAR (14 CFR parts 121, 125, and 135). The 
objective of the SSIP was to establish inspection programs to ensure 
timely detection of fatigue cracking.

Aging Aircraft Safety Act (AASA)

    In October 1991, Congress enacted Title IV of Public Law 102-143, 
the AASA of 1991, to address aging aircraft concerns. That Act 
instructed the FAA administrator to prescribe regulations that will 
ensure the continuing airworthiness of aging aircraft.

SSID Team

    In April 2000 the Transport Airplane Directorate (TAD) chartered a 
SSID Team to develop recommendations to standardize the SID/SSID ADs 
regarding the treatment of repairs, alterations, and modifications 
(RAMs). The report can be accessed at http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/transport.htm.

FAA Responses to AASA

    In addition to the SSID Team activity, there are other on-going 
activities associated with FAA's Aging Aircraft Program. This includes, 
among other initiatives, our responses to the AASA.
    On November 1, 2002, as one of the responses to the AASA, we issued 
the Aging Airplane Safety Interim Final Rule (AASIFR) (67 FR 72726, 
December 6, 2002). The applicability of that rule addresses airplanes 
that are operated under part 121 of the FAR (14 CFR part 121), all U.S. 
registered multi-engine airplanes operated under part 129 of the FAR 
(14 CFR part 129), and all multi-engine airplanes used in scheduled 
operations under part 135 of the FARs (14 CFR part 135). The AASIFR 
requires the maintenance programs of those airplanes to include damage 
tolerance-based inspections and procedures that include all major 
structural RAMs. Currently, the ASSIFR requires that these procedures 
be established and incorporated within four years after December 8, 
2003, the effective date specified by the AASIFR.

Public Technical Meeting

    The TAD also held a public meeting regarding standardization of the 
FAA approach to RAMs in SID/SSID ADs on February 27, 2003, in Seattle, 
Washington. We presented our views and heard comments from the public 
concerning issues regarding the standardization of the requirements of 
ADs for certain transport category airplanes that mandate SSIDs, and 
that address the treatment of RAMs for those certain transport category 
airplanes. Our presentation included a plan for the standardization of 
SID/SSID ADs, the results of the SSID Team findings, and the TAD vision 
of how SID/SSID ADs may support compliance to the AASIFR. We also asked 
for input from operators on the issues addressing RAMs in SID/SSID ADs. 
One of the major comments presented at the public meeting was that 
operators do not have the capability to accomplish the damage tolerance 
assessments, and they will have to rely on the manufacturers to perform 
those assessments. Furthermore, the operators believe that the 
timeframes to accomplish the damage tolerance assessments will not 
permit manufacturers to support the operators. Another major comment 
presented was from the Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (AAWG) of 
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). The AAWG requested 
that we withdraw the damage tolerance requirements from the final rule 
and task AAWG to develop a new RAM damage tolerance based program with 
timelines to be developed by ARAC. The public meeting presentations can 
be accessed at http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/transport.htm.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental 
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated February 2002. 
The SID provides a description of PSEs and NDI procedures and 
thresholds with repetitive inspection intervals for inspections of 
PSEs. For the purposes of this proposed AD, a PSE is defined as an 
element that contributes significantly to the carrying of flight, 
ground or pressurization loads, and the integrity of that element is 
essential in maintaining the overall structural integrity of the 
airplane. Certain planning data (inspection threshold and repetitive 
inspections) and reporting requirements defined in Section 2 of Volume 
III-94, of the SID have been removed and are now included in Volume 1 
of Revision 6 of the SID. We have determined that accomplishment of the 
actions specified in the service information will adequately address 
the unsafe condition.
    We also have reviewed McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 91K0264, 
``DC-10/KC-10 Aging Aircraft Repair Assessment Program Document,'' 
Revision 1, dated October 2000, which provides procedures to determine 
the appropriate inspection or replacement program for certain repairs 
to the fuselage pressure boundary. These repairs and inspection/
replacement programs are acceptable alternative methods of compliance 
for the repair and repair inspection programs specified in this 
proposed AD.

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 implementation of a structural inspection 
program of baseline structure to detect and correct fatigue cracking in 
order to ensure the continued airworthiness of airplanes as they 
approach the manufacturer's original fatigue design life goal.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an 
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products 
of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which 
would supersede AD 95-23-09. This proposed AD would continue to require 
revision of the FAA-approved maintenance program. This proposed AD 
would also require implementation of a structural inspection program of 
baseline structure to detect and correct fatigue cracking in order to 
ensure the continued airworthiness of airplanes as they approach the 
manufacturer's original fatigue design life goal. The following 
paragraphs summarize certain specific actions proposed in this AD.

Editorial Clarification of References

    Paragraph (g) of AD 95-23-09 requires, among other things, that the 
maintenance program be revised to include the inspection threshold and

[[Page 46459]]

repetitive inspections (planning data) defined in Section 2 of Volume 
III-94 of the SID. Paragraph (g)(4) of AD 95-23-09 also requires 
inspection results to be reported per Section 2 of Volume III-94. Those 
planning and data reporting requirements are now contained in Section 4 
of Volume I, Revision 6, dated February 2002. Therefore, this NPRM 
proposes use of the information in Section 4 of Volume 1 of Revision 6, 
and reference to Volume III has been removed in the new requirements of 
this proposed AD.

Revision of the Maintenance Program

    Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD would require a revision of the 
maintenance inspection program that provides for inspection(s) of the 
PSE per Boeing Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection 
Document (SID),'' Volume 1, Revision 6, dated February 2002. PSEs are 
also defined and specified in the SID. All references in this proposed 
AD to the ``SID'' are to Revision 6, dated February 2002.

Supplemental Inspection Program (SIP)

    Paragraph (j) of the proposed AD would specify that the SIP be 
implemented on a PSE-by-PSE basis before structure exceeds its 75% 
fatigue life threshold (\3/4\Nth), and its full fatigue life 
threshold (Nth). The threshold value is defined as the life 
of the structure measured in total landings, when the probability of 
failure reaches one in a billion. The DC-10 SID program is not a 
sampling program. All airplanes would be inspected once prior to 
reaching both PSE thresholds (once by \3/4\Nth and once by 
Nth). In order for the inspection to have value, no PSE 
would be inspected prior to half of the fatigue life threshold, \1/
2\Nth. The additional \3/4\Nth threshold aids in 
advancing the threshold for some PSEs as explained in Section 3 of 
Volume I of the SID. Inspection of each PSE should be accomplished in 
accordance with the NDI procedures set forth in Section 2 of Volume II, 
Revision 8, dated November 2003.
    Once threshold Nth is passed, the PSE would be inspected 
at repetitive intervals not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2 as specified in 
Section 3 of Volume I of the SID per the NDI procedure, which is 
specified in Section 2 of Volume II of the SID. The definition of 
[Delta]NDI/2 is half of the life for a crack to grow from a given NDI 
detectable crack size to instability.

SIP Inspection Requirements

    Paragraph (k) of this proposed AD also would require, for airplanes 
that have exceeded the Nth, that each PSE be inspected prior 
to reaching the established thresholds (\3/4\Nth and 
Nth) or within 18 months after the effective date of this 
AD. The entire PSE must be inspected regardless of whether or not it 
has been repaired, altered, or modified. If any PSE is repaired, 
altered, or modified, it must be reported as ``discrepant.'' A 
discrepant report indicates that a PSE could not be completely 
inspected because the NDI procedure could not be accomplished due to 
differences on the airplane from the NDI reference standard (i.e., 
RAMs).

Reporting Requirements

    Paragraph (l) of this proposed AD would require that all negative, 
positive, or discrepant findings of the inspection accomplished in 
paragraph (b) of the AD be reported to Boeing at the times specified, 
and in accordance with, the instructions contained in Section 3 of 
Volume 1 of the SID.

Corrective Action

    Paragraph (m) of this proposed AD would require that any cracked 
structure detected during any inspection required per paragraph (g) of 
this AD be repaired before further flight. Additionally, paragraph (i) 
of this AD would require accomplishment of follow-on actions as 
specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this proposed AD, 
at the times specified below.
    1. Within 18 months after repair, accomplish a Damage Tolerance 
Assessment (DTA) that defines the threshold for inspection and submit 
the assessment for approval to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
    2. Prior to reaching 75% of the threshold, submit the inspection 
methods and repetitive inspections intervals for the repair for 
approval by the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.
    3. Prior to the threshold, the inspection method and repetitive 
inspection intervals are to be incorporated into the FAA-approved 
structural maintenance or inspection program for the airplane.
    For the purposes of this proposed AD, the FAA anticipates that 
submissions of the DTA of the repair, if acceptable, should be approved 
within six months after submission.

Transferability of Airplanes

    Paragraph (n) of this proposed AD specifies the requirements of the 
inspection program for transferred airplanes. Before any airplane that 
is subject to this proposed AD can be added to an air carrier's 
operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the 
inspections required by this proposed AD must be established. Paragraph 
(n) of the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the following:
    1. For airplanes that have been inspected per this proposed AD, the 
inspection of each PSE must be accomplished by the new operator per the 
previous operator's schedule and inspection method, or per 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 per the new operator's schedule and inspection 
method.
    2. For airplanes that have not been inspected per this proposed AD, 
the inspection of each PSE must be accomplished either prior to adding 
the airplane to the air carrier's operations specification, or per a 
schedule and an inspection method approved by the FAA. After each 
inspection has been performed once, each subsequent inspection must be 
performed per the new operator's schedule.
    Accomplishment of these actions will ensure that: (1) An operator's 
newly acquired airplanes comply with its SSIP before being operated; 
and (2) frequently transferred airplanes are not permitted to operate 
without accomplishment of the inspections defined in the SSID.

Inspections Accomplished Previously

    Paragraph (o) of this proposed AD merely provides approval of 
Boeing Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection Document 
(SID),'' Volume I, Revision 4, dated June 1993, and Revision 5, dated 
October 1994; and Volume II, Revision 6, dated October 1997, and 
Revision 7, dated August 2002; as acceptable for compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (j) of this proposed AD for inspections 
accomplished prior to the effective date of the proposed AD.

Acceptable for Compliance

    Paragraph (p) of this proposed AD also provides approval of 
McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 91K0264, ``DC-10/KC-10 Aging Aircraft 
Repair Assessment Program Document,'' Revision 1, dated October 2000, 
as an acceptable means compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 
(i) and (m) of this proposed AD for repairs and inspection/replacement 
for certain repairs to the fuselage pressure shell

[[Page 46460]]

accomplished prior to the effective date of the proposed AD.

Change to Existing AD

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 95-23-09. 
Since AD 95-23-09 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and 
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding 
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in 
the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Corresponding requirement in
        Requirement in AD 95-23-09                this proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (a).............................  paragraph (f).
paragraph (b).............................  paragraph (g).
paragraph (c).............................  paragraph (h).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 proposed AD would 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 proposed AD 
takes about 1,290 work hours per airplane, 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, or $5,907,525 for the affected U.S. fleet.
    Since no new recurring inspection procedures have been added to the 
program by this new proposed AD action, there is no additional economic 
burden on affected operators to perform any additional recurrent 
inspections.
    Additionally, the number of required work hours for each proposed 
inspection (and the SID program), as indicated above, is presented as 
if the accomplishment of those actions were 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.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the 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. 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 proposed 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, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing amendment 39-9429 (60 FR 
61649 FR, December 1, 1995) and adding the following new airworthiness 
directive (AD):

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2004-18670; Directorate Identifier 
2002-NM-83-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on 
this airworthiness directive (AD) action by September 17, 2004.

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; Model 
DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes; and Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F 
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 (PSE's) 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) PSE's 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 PSE's 53.10.031E/.032E, 53.10.047E/.048E, and 
57.10.029E/.030E: The ENDDATE for these PSE's is October 1993.

[[Page 46461]]

(For these PSE's, disregard the June 1993 ENDDATE specified in 
Section 2 of Volume III-92, dated October 1992, of the SID.)
    (g) Within 6 months after December 1, 1995 (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 PSE's 
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 PSE's 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 PSE's 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 PSE's 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 PSE's is June 1998. (For these PSE's, disregard the June 1996 
EDATE specified in Section 2, of Volume III-94, dated November 1994, 
of the SID.)
    (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 an NDI for fatigue cracking no earlier than 
one-half of the threshold (\1/2\Nth) but prior to 
reaching three-quarters of the threshold (\3/4\Nth), or 
within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever 
occurs later. Inspect again prior to reaching the threshold 
(Nth), but no earlier than (\3/4\Nth). 
Thereafter, after passing the threshold (Nth), repeat the 
inspection for that PSE at intervals not to exceed [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 have been repaired, 
altered, or modified) 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 per a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles 
ACO, FAA.
    (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, measured from the last non-discrepant 
inspection finding, per a method approved by the Manager of the Los 
Angeles ACO.

Reporting Requirements

    (l) All negative, positive, or discrepant (discrepant finding 
examples are described in paragraph (k) of this AD) findings of the 
inspections accomplished under paragraph (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 an FAA-approved method. 
Accomplish 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 to the Manager of the 
Los Angeles ACO.
    (2) Prior to reaching 75% of the threshold as determined in 
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, submit the inspection methods and 
repetitive inspection intervals for the repair for approval by the 
Manager of the Los Angeles ACO.
    (3) Prior to the threshold as determined in paragraph (j)(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 2: 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 3: 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 per paragraph 
(n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes that have been inspected per this AD, the 
inspection of each PSE must be accomplished by the new operator per 
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 per the new operator's 
schedule and inspection method.
    (2) For airplanes that have not been inspected per this AD, the 
inspection of each PSE required by this AD must be

[[Page 46462]]

accomplished either prior to adding the airplane to the air 
carrier's operations specification, or per 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 per the new operator's schedule.

Inspections Accomplished Before the Effective Date of This AD

    (o) Inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of this 
AD per Boeing Report No. L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection 
Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 4, dated June 1993, or Revision 
5, dated October 1994; Volume II, Revision 6, dated October 1997, or 
Revision 7, dated August 2002; and 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 (i) and (m) of this 
AD for repairs subject to that document.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (q) The Manager, Los Angles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (r) AMOCs approved previously per AD 95-23-09, amendment 39-
9429, are approved as AMOCs with the actions required by paragraph 
(j) of this AD.


    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 23, 2004.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 04-17592 Filed 8-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P