[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60134-60136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28849]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 60134]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98-NM-135-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 Series 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness 
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model 
DC-8 series airplanes. For certain airplanes, this proposal would 
require inspection(s) to detect cracks of the doorjamb corners and 
follow-on actions. For certain other airplanes, this proposal would 
require installation of a preventative modification; an inspection to 
detect cracks at the corners of the doorjambs of the passenger and 
service doors; and follow-on actions. This proposal is prompted by 
reports indicating that fatigue cracks were found in the fuselage skin 
and doublers at the corners of the doorjambs of the passenger and 
service doors. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to 
detect and correct such fatigue cracking, which could result in rapid 
decompression of the fuselage and consequent reduced structural 
integrity of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 20, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 98-NM-135-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this 
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.
    The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be 
obtained from The Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach 
Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, 
Attention: Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-L51 
(2-60). This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg DiLibero, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los 
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5231; fax (562) 
627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as 
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number 
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All 
communications received on or before the closing date for comments, 
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the 
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All 
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing 
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested 
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with 
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Number 98-NM-135-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and 
returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules 
Docket No. 98-NM-135-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    The FAA has received reports of fatigue cracks in the fuselage skin 
and doublers at the corners of the doorjambs of the passenger and 
service doors on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 series airplanes. These 
cracks were discovered during inspections conducted as part of the 
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID) program, required by AD 93-01-
15, amendment 39-8469 (58 FR 5576, January 22, 1993). Investigation 
revealed that such cracking was caused by fatigue related stress. 
Fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin or doublers at the corners of the 
doorjambs of the lower cargo doors, if not detected and corrected in a 
timely manner, could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and 
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC8-53-075, dated August 17, 1995. For certain airplanes, the 
service bulletin describes procedures for various inspection(s) to 
detect cracks of the doorjamb corners and follow-on actions. The 
follow-on actions include either performing repetitive inspections or 
installing a preventative modification, and repairing cracks, if 
necessary. For certain other airplanes, the service bulletin describes 
procedures for installation of a preventative modification; an 
inspection to detect cracks at the corners of the doorjambs of the 
passenger and service doors; and follow-on actions similar to those 
described above. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service 
bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe 
condition.

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 accomplishment of the actions

[[Page 60135]]

specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as 
discussed below.

Difference Between the Relevant Service Information and the 
Proposed AD

    Operators should note that, although the service bulletin specifies 
that the manufacturer must be contacted for disposition of certain 
conditions, this proposal would require the repair of those conditions 
to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
    For Group 3 airplanes, the service bulletin describes procedures 
for accomplishing a preventative modification, an inspection of the 
corners of the doorjamb of the passenger and service doors, and follow-
on actions (i.e., repetitive inspections or contact manufacturer for 
disposition instructions for cracked doors, as applicable). ``Group 3 
airplanes'' in the service bulletin is defined as aircraft with Douglas 
approved permanent repairs other than those outlined in the Structural 
Repair Manual or SR0850021. The service bulletin recommends that 
operators contact Douglas Aircraft Company two years prior to the 
accumulation of 17,000 total landings after accomplishment of the 
permanent repair, and that the inspection be conducted after 
accomplishment of the preventative modification. However, the proposed 
AD would require a revision of the FAA-approved maintenance or 
inspection program to include an inspection program for the doorjamb 
corners identified in the service bulletin. The proposed compliance for 
this revision is within 6 years following accomplishment of the 
permanent repair or 3 years after the effective date of this AD, 
whichever occurs later. The new inspection program shall be approved by 
the FAA.
    After review of the average utilization rates for U.S. operators of 
Model DC-8 series airplanes, the FAA has determined that a compliance 
time of prior to the accumulation of 17,000 landings would not provide 
an acceptable level of safety. In developing an appropriate compliance 
time for this action, the FAA considered the safety implications, parts 
availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely 
accomplishment of the revision of the FAA-approved maintenance or 
inspection program. In consideration of these items, as well as the 
thresholds established in the repair assessment program (RAP), the FAA 
has determined that the proposed compliance time represents an 
appropriate interval of time wherein the requirements of the proposed 
AD can be accomplished during scheduled maintenance intervals for the 
majority of affected operators, and an acceptable level of safety can 
be maintained.
    Operators also should note that, although the service bulletin 
specifies that the result of inspections be reported to the 
manufacturer, this proposal would not require a reporting requirement.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 294 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 251 airplanes of U.S. registry 
would be affected by this proposed AD.
    Should an operator be required to accomplish the proposed 
inspection(s), it would take 48 (Group 1 airplanes) and 74 (all other 
groups of airplanes) work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an 
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the 
cost impact of the inspection(s) proposed by this AD on U.S. operators 
is estimated to be $2,880 (Group 1 airplanes) and $4,440 (all other 
groups of airplanes) per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    Should an operator be required or elect to accomplish the proposed 
preventative modification, it would take approximately 1,440 work hours 
per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work 
hour. Required parts would cost approximately $2,000 per airplane. 
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the preventative 
modification proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be 
$88,400 per airplane.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions 
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements 
of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions 
in the future if this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this 
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed 
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, 
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under 
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft 
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the 
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules 
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as 
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 98-NM-135-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-8 series airplanes, as listed in 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-53-075, dated August 17, 
1995; certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the 
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the 
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, 
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of 
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an 
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of 
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of 
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition 
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been 
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to 
address it.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To detect and correct fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin and 
doublers at the corners of the doorjambs of the passenger and 
service doors, which could result in rapid decompression of the 
fuselage and consequent reduced structural integrity of the 
airplane, accomplish the following:

    Note 2: Where there are differences between the service bulletin 
and the AD, the AD prevails.

    Note 3: The words ``repair'' and ``modify/modification'' in this 
AD and in the

[[Page 60136]]

referenced service bulletin are used interchangeably.

    Note 4: This AD is related to AD 93-01-15, amendment 39-8469, 
and will affect Principal Structural Elements (PSE) 53.08.038, 
53.08.039, 53.08.040, and 53.08.041 of the DC-8 Supplemental 
Inspection Document (SID), Report L26-011, Volume I, Revision 3, 
dated March 1991.

    (a) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC8-53-075, dated August 17, 1995: Within 2,000 
landings or 3 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever 
occurs first, perform the applicable inspection(s) to detect cracks 
of the doorjamb corners in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (1) If no crack is detected during any inspection required by 
paragraph (a) of this AD, repeat the applicable inspection(s) 
required by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at intervals 
specified for Group 1 airplanes in paragraph 1.E. of the service 
bulletin; or accomplish the preventative modification in accordance 
with the service bulletin. Accomplishment of the preventative 
modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive 
inspection requirements of this paragraph.
    (2) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by 
paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair in 
accordance with the service bulletin, except as provided by 
paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (b) Within 17,000 landings following accomplishment of the 
modification/repair required by either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 
this AD, perform an inspection to detect cracks of the doorjamb 
corners, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-
53-075, dated August 17, 1995.
    (1) If no crack is detected, repeat the inspection thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 4,400 landings.
    (2) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair in 
accordance with the service bulletin, except as provided by 
paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (c) For airplanes identified as Group 2 in McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC8-53-075, dated August 17, 1995: Within 2,000 
landings or 3 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever 
occurs first, accomplish the preventative modification in accordance 
with the service bulletin. Within 17,000 landings following 
accomplishment of the preventative modification, perform an 
inspection to detect cracks of the doorjamb corners, in accordance 
with the service bulletin.
    (1) If no crack is detected during any inspection required by 
paragraph (c) of this AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 4,400 landings.
    (2) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by 
paragraph (c) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in 
accordance the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph (f) 
of this AD.
    (d) For airplanes identified as Group 3 in McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC8-53-075, dated August 17, 1995: Within 6 years 
following accomplishment of the permanent repair or within 3 years 
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, revise 
the FAA-approved maintenance or inspection program to include an 
inspection program for the doorjamb corners identified in the 
service bulletin. The new inspection program shall be approved by 
the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate.

    Note 5: Requests for approval of inspection procedures of the 
permanent repairs that are proposed for inclusion in the FAA-
approved maintenance or inspection program, as required by this AD, 
should include a damage tolerance assessment.

    (e) For airplanes identified as Group 4 in McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC8-53-075, dated August 17, 1995: Within 17,000 
landings following accomplishment of the modification specified in 
the service bulletin, perform an inspection to detect cracks of the 
doorjamb corners, in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (i) If no crack is detected during any inspection required 
paragraph (e) of this AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at 
intervals not to exceed 4,400 landings.
    (ii) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by 
paragraph (e) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair in 
accordance with the service bulletin, except as provided by 
paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (f) Where McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-53-075, dated 
August 17, 1995, specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted 
for disposition of certain repair conditions, this AD requires the 
repair of those conditions to be accomplished in accordance with a 
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the 
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. Operators shall 
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal 
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the 
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

    Note 6: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

    (h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where 
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 29, 1999.
D.L. Riggin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-28849 Filed 11-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P