[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48576-48579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NM-343-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-
12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, DC-8-43, DC-
8F-54, and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; and DC-8-50, DC-8-60, DC-8-60F, DC-8-70, 
and DC-8-70F 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 airplane 
models. For certain airplanes, this proposal would require a one-time 
test to determine the material of the upper inboard spar cap of the 
wing, or a one-time inspection to determine if the slant panel cap has 
been repaired previously. For most airplanes, this proposal also would 
require a one-time inspection for corrosion of the slant panel cap of 
the wing leading edge assembly, and follow-on actions. This action is 
necessary to prevent stress corrosion cracking in the forward tang of 
the upper inboard spar cap of the wing, which could result in 
structural damage to adjacent components of the wing and consequent 
reduced structural integrity of the airplane. This action is intended 
to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 29, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-343-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this 
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. 
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 
[email protected]. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must 
contain ``Docket No. 2001-NM-343-AD'' in the subject line and need not 
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached 
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or 
ASCII text.
    The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data 
and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may 
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Mowery, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; 
telephone 562-627-5322; fax (562) 627-5210.

[[Page 48577]]


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 action may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Submit comments using the following format:
    [sbull] Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a 
request to change the compliance time and a request to change the 
service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
    [sbull] For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed 
AD is being requested.
    [sbull] Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each 
request.
    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 action must submit a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Number 2001-NM-343-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. 2001-NM-343-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    The FAA has received reports indicating that cracking has been 
found in the forward tang of the upper inboard spar cap of the wing on 
certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-70 series airplanes. The cracking 
has been found on airplanes that have accumulated approximately 18,000 
total flight hours. The cracking occurred between the fuselage and wing 
station Xfs=67.500 on the left and right sides of the airplane, and has 
been attributed to stress corrosion. This condition, if not corrected, 
could result in structural damage to adjacent components of the wing 
and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995. That 
service bulletin describes procedures for performing test or 
inspections between stations Xcw=69.500 and Xfs=67.500, and repairs or 
modifications if necessary, on three airplane groups, as follows:
    [sbull] For airplanes in Group 1, the service bulletin describes 
procedures for a one-time eddy current conductivity test of the upper 
inboard spar cap of the wing to determine the type of material. For an 
upper inboard spar cap of certain material, the service bulletin 
specifies accomplishing a modification of the slant panel cap of the 
wing leading edge assembly per a figure in a certain chapter of the 
structural repair manual (SRM). For airplanes in Group 1, the service 
bulletin does not describe procedures for modification of the wing spar 
cap. (The procedures in the SRM involve performing a general visual 
inspection for corrosion, removing any evidence of corrosion, 
installing fillers, and installing an external rework doubler, as 
applicable.) For an upper inboard spar cap of certain other material, 
the service bulletin describes procedures for a visual inspection for 
corrosion or a previous repair of the slant panel cap of the wing 
leading edge assembly. The service bulletin describes procedures for a 
modification as a follow-on action for this inspection. That 
modification involves removing any corrosion, repairing the slant panel 
cap of the leading edge assembly or replacing it with a new slant panel 
cap, modifying the front spar stiffeners and upper spar cap, and 
installing doublers on the wing upper surface.
    [sbull] For airplanes in Group 2, the service bulletin describes 
procedures identical to those for Group 1 airplanes, except that no 
conductivity test is necessary, and a previously installed repair must 
be removed before modifying the front spar stiffeners and upper spar 
cap.
    [sbull] For airplanes in Group 3, the service bulletin describes 
procedures for a visual inspection for corrosion of the slant panel cap 
of the wing leading edge assembly, and a modification that involves 
modifying the front spar stiffeners, and replacing the slant panel cap 
with a new improved cap if necessary.
    Accomplishment of the applicable actions specified in the service 
bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe 
condition.

Explanation of Related AD

    We have previously issued AD 90-16-05, amendment 39-6614 (55 FR 
31818, August 6, 1990), which applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 
series airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC K1579, 
Revision A, dated March 1, 1990. McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 
K1579, Revision A, specifies accomplishment of certain inspections and 
structural modifications in accordance with various service bulletins, 
including McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-72, Revision 2, 
dated July 16, 1971; and McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-34, 
Revision 3, dated December 29, 1970. Accomplishment of the actions in 
this proposed AD would constitute compliance with the inspections 
required by paragraph A. of AD 90-16-05, as it pertains to those 
service bulletins.

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

Clarification of Inspection Type

    The service bulletin identifies the inspection for corrosion or 
previous repair, as applicable, as a ``visual inspection.'' However, we 
find that the procedures described in the service bulletin constitute a 
detailed inspection. A definition of this type of inspection is 
included in Note 1 of this AD.

Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Information

    As stated previously, McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 
R03, Revision 03, refers to a certain figure in a certain chapter of 
the SRM as a source for additional information for a follow-on 
modification of the slant panel cap. Where that referenced figure 
specifies to contact the manufacturer for appropriate action, this 
proposed AD would require the repair of those conditions to be 
accomplished per a method approved by the FAA, or per data meeting the 
type certification basis

[[Page 48578]]

of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering 
Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such 
findings.
    Also, while McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, 
Revision 03, states that, for airplanes listed in Group 3 of the 
service bulletin, modification of the front spar stiffeners may be 
deferred until DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-30 is accomplished, this 
proposed AD would not allow such a deferral. We find that the proposed 
4-year compliance time represents an appropriate interval of time for 
affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the Proposed AD

    On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 
(67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness 
directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to 
altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of 
compliance (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in part 
39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each 
individual AD.

Change to Labor Rate Estimate

    We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several 
years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various 
inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to 
increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work 
hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects 
this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 303 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 229 airplanes of U.S. registry 
would be affected by this proposed AD.
    For airplanes in Group 1, the electrical conductivity test would 
take approximately 1 work hour per airplane, at the average labor rate 
of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this 
proposed inspection is estimated to be $65 per airplane.
    For airplanes subject to the inspection for corrosion or previous 
repairs, as applicable, and the modification, these actions would take 
between 110 and 416 work hours per airplane, at the average labor rate 
of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost between $4,554 and 
$19,687. Based on these figures, the cost impact of these proposed 
actions is estimated to be between $11,704 and $46,727 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 proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact 
figures discussed 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.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations proposed herein 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. Therefore, it 
is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 13132.
    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 2001-NM-343-AD.
    Applicability: Model DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-
32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, DC-8-43, DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, 
DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, DC-8F-55, DC-8-61, DC-8-62, DC-8-63, DC-8-61F, 
DC-8-62F, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-72, DC-8-73, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, 
and DC-8-73F airplanes; certificated in any category; as listed in 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, 
dated October 2, 1995.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent stress corrosion cracking in the forward tang of the 
upper inboard spar cap of the wing, which could result in structural 
damage to adjacent components of the wing and consequent reduced 
structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:

Group 1 Airplanes: Inspection and Follow-On Actions

    (a) For airplanes in Group 1 as defined by McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995: 
Within 4 years after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-
time eddy current conductivity test of the upper inboard spar cap of 
the wing to determine the type of material, per the Accomplishment 
Instructions of the service bulletin.
    (1) If the test reveals that the upper inboard spar cap is made 
from 7075-T73 material (as defined in the service bulletin), before 
further flight, perform a detailed inspection for corrosion and 
modify the slant panel cap of the wing leading edge assembly per the 
figure and chapter of the structural repair manual (SRM) specified 
in the service bulletin, per the Accomplishment Instructions of the 
service bulletin. It is not necessary to modify the wing spar cap. 
The modification of the slant panel cap involves removing any 
evidence of corrosion, installing fillers, and installing an 
external rework doubler, as applicable. For conditions in which the 
referenced SRM figure specifies to contact the manufacturer for 
appropriate action: Before further flight, repair per a method 
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type certification basis of the 
airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering 
Representative (DER) who has been authorized by the Manager, Los 
Angeles ACO, to make such findings. For a repair method to be 
approved, the approval must specifically reference this AD.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is 
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific 
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, 
failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally 
supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity 
deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, 
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

[[Page 48579]]

cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.''

    (2) If the test reveals that the upper inboard spar cap is made 
from 7079-T6 material, before further flight, perform a detailed 
inspection to find corrosion or a previous repair of the slant panel 
cap of the wing leading edge assembly, and accomplish the 
modification specified in the service bulletin, per the 
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. The 
modification involves removing any corrosion and repairing the slant 
panel cap of the leading edge assembly, or replacing the slant panel 
cap with a new improved slant panel cap, as applicable; modifying 
the front spar stiffeners and upper spar cap; and installing 
doublers on the wing upper surface.

Group 2 Airplanes: Inspection and Modification

    (b) For airplanes in Group 2 as defined by McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995: 
Within 4 years after the effective date of this AD, perform a 
detailed inspection to find corrosion or a previous repair of the 
slant panel cap of the wing leading edge assembly, and accomplish 
the modification specified in the service bulletin, per the 
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. The 
modification involves removing any corrosion and repairing the slant 
panel cap of the leading edge assembly, or replacing it with a new 
improved slant panel cap, as applicable; removing any previously 
installed repair; modifying the front spar stiffeners and upper spar 
cap; and installing doublers on the wing upper surface.

Group 3 Airplanes: Inspection and Modification

    (c) For airplanes in Group 3 as defined by McDonnell Douglas 
Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 R03, Revision 03, dated October 2, 1995: 
Within 4 years after the effective date of this AD, perform a 
detailed inspection to find corrosion of the slant panel cap of the 
wing leading edge assembly, and accomplish the modification 
specified in the service bulletin, per the Accomplishment 
Instructions of the service bulletin. The modification involves 
modifying the front spar stiffeners, and replacing the slant panel 
cap with a new improved cap, as applicable.

    Note 2: Although McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-072 
R03, Revision 03, states that, for airplanes listed in Group 3 of 
the service bulletin, modification of the front spar stiffeners may 
be deferred until DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-30 is accomplished, this 
AD does not allow such a deferral.

Certain Actions Constitute Compliance With AD 90-16-05

    (d) Accomplishment of the action(s) required by this AD 
constitutes compliance with the inspections required by paragraph A. 
of AD 90-16-05, as it pertains to McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
DC8-57-72, Revision 2, dated July 16, 1971; and McDonnell Douglas 
DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-34, Revision 3, dated December 29, 1970. 
Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD does not terminate 
the remaining requirements of AD 90-16-05 as it applies to other 
service bulletins; operators are required to continue to inspect 
and/or modify per the other service bulletins listed in that AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (e)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is authorized to approve 
alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) for this AD.
    (2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by a 
Boeing Company DER who has been authorized by the Manager, Los 
Angeles ACO, to make such findings.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2003.
Neil D. Schalekamp,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-20715 Filed 8-13-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P