Examining the Docket \n\n\tYou may examine the airworthiness directive (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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. \n\nDiscussion \n\n\tThe FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain 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; Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes; and Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2005 (70 FR 36070). That NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the torque tube assembly for the rudder pedal for cracking; an inspection of the torque tube assembly to determine the thickness of the torque tube wall, if necessary; and replacing the rudder torque tube with a new or serviceable rudder torque tube, if necessary. \n\nComments \n\n\tWe provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. \n\nRequest To Revise Service Bulletin References \n\n\tOne commenter, the manufacturer, requests that we delete reference to Appendix B from paragraph (f) of the NPRM and delete reference to Appendix A from paragraph (g) of the NPRM. The commenter states that these revisions are consistent with the intent of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-27A236; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-27A083, both dated February 17, 2005, and eliminate any potential confusion operators might have with the NPRM. \n\n\tWe agree with the request. We acknowledge that referencing both Appendices A and B in both paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD might be confusing to operators. The service bulletins reference Appendix A for inspecting the rudder pedal torque tube assembly for cracks (required by paragraph (f) of this AD) and reference Appendix B for inspecting the rudder pedal torque tube to determine the thickness of the tube wall (required by paragraph (g) of this AD). Since the service bulletins reference the applicable appendix in the accomplishment instructions, we do not need to cite them in this AD. Therefore, we have deleted reference to both Appendix A and Appendix B from both paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD. \n\nRequest To Revise the Format of the NPRM \n\n\tThe same commenter requests that we make the following editorial changes to the NPRM: \n\n\tMove the compliance time from paragraph (f) to paragraph (e) of the NPRM. \n\n\tDelete the compliance time from paragraph (g) of the NPRM. \n\n\tClarify that the special detailed eddy current inspection is a "one-time'' inspection of the "rudderpedal torque tube assembly'' for "existing'' cracks. \n\n\tClarify that the special detailed ultrasonic inspection of the rudder pedal torque tube assembly is for "minimum wall thickness.'' \n\n\tClarify that the unsafe condition "* * * could result in "partial'' loss of rudder control and nose wheel steering * * *.'' \n\tState that replacement of the rudder torque tube, if necessary, is meant to "insure the integrity of the system.'' \n\n\tThe commenter states that these revisions are consistent with the intent of the referenced Boeing service bulletins, and would eliminate any potential confusion operators might have with the NPRM. \n\n\tWe partially agree. We have revised the Summary and paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD to specify that the inspections are of the "rudder pedal torque tube assembly.'' We disagree with moving the compliance time to paragraph (e) of this AD; the intent of that paragraph is to give credit for actions previously accomplished before issuance of this AD, so itwould be inappropriate to include compliance times in that paragraph. We infer that the commenter requests to delete the compliance time from paragraph (g) of the NPRM because the commenter believes it is not necessary to include that information in the AD. We do not agree, since according to the service bulletins the inspection in paragraph (g) of this AD is an on-condition action that must be accomplished if no cracking is found during the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD. This AD must state a compliance time for performing the on-condition inspection. \n\n\tWe also disagree with adding a phrase stating that the on-condition replacement "* * * will insure the integrity of the system.'' The purpose of the SUMMARY section is to identify the required actions of an AD and the unsafe condition they are intended to address; it would be inappropriate to include any other information in this section. We have determined that the other revisions that the commenter suggests do not change the meaning of the AD in any substantive way. Therefore, no other change to this AD is necessary. \n\nRequest To Revise "Cost of Compliance'' \n\n\tThe same commenter requests that we revise the estimated work hours in the NPRM for replacing the rudder pedal torque tube. The commenter states that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-27A236 estimates that the proposed replacement would take 96 total work hours for 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. The commenter also states that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-27A083 estimates that the proposed replacement would take 18 hours for Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. These estimates include time for gaining access, removing and replacing the torque tube, adjusting (for Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes), and closing access. \n\n\tWe disagree. The estimated work hours in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Furthermore, replacement of the rudder pedal torque tube is an "on-condition'' action. Typically, the "Cost of Compliance'' is limited only to the cost of actions actually required by the rule. It does not consider the costs of "on-condition'' actions because, regardless of AD direction, those actions would be required to correct an unsafe condition identified in an airplane and ensure operation of that airplane in an airworthy condition, as required by the Federal Aviation Regulations. Therefore, no change is necessary to this AD in this regard. \n\nRequest To Extend Compliance Time \n\n\tOne commenter requests that we extend the compliance time of the inspection from 6 months to 12 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenter states that 6 months is not enough time to inspect all of its 130 airplanes affected by the NPRM. \n\n\tWe do not agree, since the commenter has provided no technical justification for extending the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, the practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspection within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators, and the recommendation of the manufacturer. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. \n\nExplanation of Changes Made to This AD \n\n\tWe have revised the "Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)'' paragraph in this AD to clarify the delegation authority for Authorized Representatives for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization. \n\n\tWe have also revised this AD to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. \n\nConclusion \n\n\tWe have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, 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. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\tThere are about 960 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 366 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection takes about 16 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspection for U.S. operators is $380,640, or $1,040 per airplane.For 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: The replacement if necessary takes about 16 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts cost about $12,892 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the replacement if necessary is $13,932 per airplane. \n\n\tFor Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes: The replacement if necessary takes about 5 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts cost about $12,892 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the replacement if necessary is $13,217 per airplane. \n\nAuthority for This Rulemaking \n\n\tTitle 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. \n\n\tWe 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. \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\tWe 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 ofgovernment. \n\n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: \n\n\t(1) Is not a "significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; \n\n\t(2) Is not a "significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and \n\n\t(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. \n\n\tWe prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. \n\nAdoption of the Amendment \n\nAccordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: \n\nPART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES \n\n1. The authority citation for part 39continues to read as follows: \n\n\tAuthority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. \n\nSec. 39.13 (Amended) \n\n2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):