[Federal Register: August 14, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 157)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48576-48579]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14au03-20]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. 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