64506 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Difference Between the Proposed AD 

and Service Information 

The Accomplishment Instructions of 

the referenced service bulletin describe 

procedures for reporting inspection 

findings to the manufacturer. This 

proposed AD would not require this. 

Clarification of Inspection Terminology 

In this proposed AD, the ‘‘detailed 

visual inspection’’ specified in the 

Airbus service bulletin is referred to as 

a ‘‘detailed inspection.’’ We have 

included the definition for a detailed 

inspection in a note in this proposed 

AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

This proposed AD would affect about 

25 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

proposed actions would take about 2 

work hours per airplane, at an average 

labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based 

on these figures, the estimated cost of 

the proposed AD for U.S. operators is 

$3,250, or $130 per airplane. 

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.

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2004–19542; 

Directorate Identifier 2003–NM–282–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

must receive comments on this AD action by 

December 6, 2004. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability: (c) This AD applies to Airbus 

Model A300 B4–622R airplanes, serial 

numbers 0797 and 0836; and Model A300 

F4–622R airplanes, serial numbers 0805 

through 0828 inclusive; certificated in any 

category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports that 

lower guide fittings for the forward doors 

were found installed in the wrong positions 

at frames 14 and 16A. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent difficulty opening the forward 

doors, which could impede an emergency 

evacuation and result in injury to passengers 

or crewmembers. 

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. 

Inspection and Corrective Action 

(f) Within 600 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD, do a one-time 

detailed inspection to determine if lower 

guide fittings for the forward doors are 

installed in the correct positions, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–

53–6140, Revision 01, dated November 24, 

2003. 

(1) If the lower guide fittings are installed 

in the correct positions: No further action is 

required by this AD. 

(2) If any lower guide fitting is not installed 

in the correct position: Before further flight, 

re-install the lower guide fitting in the correct 

position, or replace the lower guide fitting 

with a new, improved guide fitting, as 

applicable, in accordance with the service 

bulletin. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

Actions Accomplished in Accordance With 

Previous Issue of Service Bulletin 

(g) Inspections and corrective actions 

accomplished before the effective date of this 

AD in accordance with Airbus Service 

Bulletin A300–53–6140, dated June 12, 2003, 

are considered acceptable for compliance 

with the corresponding action specified in 

this AD. 

No Reporting Requirement 

(h) The Accomplishment Instructions of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6140, 

Revision 01, dated November 24, 2003, 

describe procedures for reporting inspection 

findings to the manufacturer. This AD does 

not require this. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested in accordance with 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(j) French airworthiness directive 2003–

292(B), dated August 6, 2003, also addresses 

the subject of this AD.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

27, 2004. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24731 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19530; Directorate 

Identifier 2002–NM–274–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 727 Series 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 Boeing Model 

727 series airplanes. That AD currently 

requires repetitive detailed inspections 

to detect cracking, corrosion, and 

existing stop-drilled repairs of cracking 

in the upper chord of the rear spar of the 

wing, and repair if necessary. This 

proposed AD would require new 

repetitive inspections to detect cracks, 

corrosion, minor surface defects, and 

existing stop-drilled repairs of cracks in 

the upper and lower chords of the front 

and rear spars of the wing; and repair if 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64507

necessary. This proposed AD is 

prompted by our determination that 

further rulemaking action is necessary 

to require additional actions specified in 

the referenced service bulletin. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent structural 

failure of the wing and fuel leaks in the 

airplane due to stress corrosion cracking 

of the wing spar chords.

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 20, 

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, P.O. Box 

3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

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:

Daniel F. Kutz, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6456; fax (425) 917–6590.

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–

2004–19530; Directorate Identifier 

2002–NM–274–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 20, 2002, we issued AD 

2002–24–05, amendment 39–12970 (67 

FR 71808, December 3, 2002) (a final 

rule correction was published in the 

Federal Register on January 2, 2003 (68 

FR 10)), for certain Boeing Model 727 

series airplanes. That AD requires 

repetitive detailed inspections to detect 

cracking, corrosion, and existing stopdrilled repair of cracking in the upper 

chord of the rear spar of the wing, and 

repair if necessary. That AD was 

prompted by reports of spanwise stress 

corrosion cracking of the upper chord of 

the rear spar of the wing between wing 

buttock line (WBL) 70.5 and the wing 

tip. Investigation revealed that some 

cracks were up to 14 inches long. 

Furthermore, one of the cracks was 

almost long enough to jeopardize the 

residual strength capability of the upper 

chord of the rear spar. We issued that 

AD to prevent structural failure of the 

wing and fuel leaks in the airplane due 

to stress corrosion cracking of the wing 

spar chords. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

In the preamble of AD 2002–24–05, 

we indicated that the actions required 

by that AD were considered ‘‘interim 

action,’’ and that further rulemaking 

action was being considered to require 

additional actions specified in the 

referenced service bulletin (i.e., Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0145, 

Revision 2, dated October 24, 2002). We 

have now determined that further 

rulemaking action is indeed necessary, 

and this proposed AD follows from that 

determination. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 727–57A0145, Revision 

2, dated October 24, 2002. The service 

bulletin describes procedures for 

performing various inspections to detect 

cracks, corrosion, minor surface defects, 

and previously stop-drilled repairs in 

the upper and lower chords of the front 

and rear spars of the wings; and repair 

if necessary. The service bulletin also 

describes procedures for applying a wet 

layer of BMS 3–23 organic corrosion 

inhibiting compound or Boeing 

equivalent after any inspection or 

repair. We have determined that 

accomplishment of the actions specified 

in the service information will 

adequately address the unsafe 

condition. 

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 2002–24–05 to require 

accomplishment of all actions specified 

64508 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

in the service bulletin described 

previously, except as described below. 

Differences Between the Service 

Bulletin and the Proposed AD 

Operators should note that, although 

the service bulletin specifies that the 

manufacturer may be contacted for 

disposition of certain repair conditions, 

this proposed AD would require that 

those conditions be done in accordance 

with a method approved by the FAA, or 

in accordance with data meeting the 

type certification basis of the airplane 

approved by a Boeing Company 

Designated Engineering Representative 

who has been authorized by the FAA to 

make such findings. 

Clarification of Inspection Terminology 

In this proposed AD, the ‘‘detailed 

visual inspection’’ specified in the 

Boeing service bulletin is referred to as 

a ‘‘detailed inspection.’’ We have 

included the definition for a detailed 

inspection in a note in the proposed AD.

Change to Existing AD 

This proposed AD would retain 

certain requirements of AD 2002–24–05. 

Since that AD 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

Requirement in AD 

2002–24–05

Corresponding

requirement in this

proposed AD 

Paragraph (a) ............ Paragraph (g). 

Paragraph (a)(1) ....... Paragraph (g). 

Paragraph (a)(2) ....... Paragraph (k). 

Paragraph (a)(3) ....... Paragraph (i). 

Paragraph (a)(4) ....... Paragraph (j). 

Costs of Compliance 

This Proposed AD would affect about 

1,426 Model 727 series airplanes 

worldwide. This Proposed AD would 

affect about 946 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. 

For Group 1 airplanes identified in 

the service bulletin, the actions (Part 1 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

the service bulletin) that are required by 

AD 2002–24–05 and retained in this 

Proposed AD take about 8 work hours 

per airplane, at an average labor rate of 

$65 per work hour. Based on these 

figures, the estimated cost of the 

currently required actions is $520 per 

airplane. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with the new actions proposed 

by this AD. The average labor rate is $65 

per work hour.

ESTIMATED COSTS

For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as— Actions in— Work hours— 

Per airplane 

cost, per inspection 

cycle— 

Group 1 ............................................ Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin ............ 30 $1,950

Group 1 ............................................ Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin ............ 21 1,365

Group 1 ............................................ Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin ............ 68 4,420

Group 1 ............................................ Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin ............ 8 520

Group 1 ............................................ Part 9 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin ............ 30 1,950

Group 2 ............................................ Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin ............ 52 3,380

Group 2 ............................................ Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin ............ 110 7,150

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.

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing amendment 39–12970 (67 FR 

71808, December 3, 2002) and adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2004–19530; 

Directorate Identifier 2002–NM–274–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

must receive comments on this airworthiness 

directive (AD) action by December 20, 2004. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2002–24–05, 

amendment 39–12970. 

Applicability: (c) This AD applies to 

Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727–100, –100C, 

–200, and –200F series airplanes, line 

numbers 1 through 1832 inclusive; 

certificated in any category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by our 

determination that further rulemaking action 

is necessary to require additional actions 

specified in the referenced service bulletin. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent structural 

failure of the wing and fuel leaks in the 

airplane due to stress corrosion cracking of 

the wing spar chords. 

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. 

Service Bulletin References 

(f) The term ‘‘the service bulletin,’’ as used 

in this AD, means Boeing Alert Service 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64509

Bulletin 727–57A0145, Revision 2, dated 

October 24, 2002. 

Inspection Requirements of AD 2002–24–05, 

Amendment 39–12970

Inspection 

(g) For airplanes specified as ‘‘Group 1’’

airplanes in the service bulletin: Within 20 

years after the date of manufacture or within 

90 days after December 18, 2002 (the 

effective date of AD 2002–24–05, amendment 

39–12970), whichever occurs later, perform 

an external detailed inspection for cracking, 

corrosion, and existing stop-drilled repairs of 

cracking in the upper chord on the rear spar 

from Wing Butt Line (WBL) 70.5 through 

WBL 249.3, per the service bulletin, 

Paragraph 3.B, ‘‘Work Instructions,’’ Part 1. 

Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals 

not to exceed 2 years.

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is ‘‘an intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

New Actions Required by This AD 

Inspections Specified in Parts 2 Through 6, 

and 8 and 9 of the Service Bulletin 

(h) Accomplish the applicable 

inspection(s) specified in paragraphs (h)(1) 

through (h)(7) of this AD at the later of the 

applicable times specified in the 

‘‘Threshold’’ and ‘‘Grace Period’’ columns in 

Table 1 of this AD, and repeat the 

inspection(s) at the time specified in the 

‘‘Repetitive Interval’’ column of Table 1 of 

this AD. Accomplishment of the inspection 

required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD 

terminates the repetitive inspection 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

TABLE 1.—COMPLIANCE TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS SPECIFIED IN PARTS 2 THROUGH 6, AND 8 AND 9 OF SERVICE BULLETIN

For airplanes identified in the service 

bulletin as—

Threshold— Grace period— Repetitive

interval— Do—

(1) Group 1 ............ Before 20 years since the date of 

issuance of the original Airworthiness Certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original Export Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever 

occurs first.

Within 1 year after 

the effective 

date of this AD.

None ..................... A high frequency eddy current (HFEC) 

inspection and detailed inspection 

of the upper chord of the rear spar 

from WBL 70.5 to wing tip for 

cracks, corrosion, minor surface defects, and existing stop-drilled repairs of cracking, in accordance 

with paragraph 3.B., Work Instructions, Part 2, of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the service bulletin. 

(2) Group 1 ............ Before 20 years since the date of 

issuance of the original Airworthiness Certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original Export Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever 

occurs first.

Within 2 years 

after the effective date of this 

AD.

At intervals not to 

exceed 2 years.

A detailed inspection of the upper and 

lower chords of the front spar and 

the lower chord of the rear spar 

from WBL 70.5 to the wing tip for 

cracks, corrosion, minor surface defects, and existing stop-drilled repairs of cracking (initial inspection 

only), in accordance with paragraph 

3.B., Work Instructions, Part 3, of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

the service bulletin. 

(3) Group 1 ............ Before 20 years since the date of 

issuance of the original Airworthiness Certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original Export Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever 

occurs first.

Within 4 years 

after the effective date of this 

AD.

At intervals not to 

exceed 4 years.

An HFEC inspection of the upper and 

lower chords of the front spar and 

the lower chord of the rear spar 

from WBL 70.5 to the wing tip for 

cracks, corrosion, minor surface defects, and existing stop-drilled repairs of cracking (initial inspection 

only), in accordance with paragraph 

3.B., Work Instructions, Part 4, of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

the service bulletin. 

(4) Group 1 ............ Within 2 years after doing the actions 

required by paragraph (h)(1) of this 

AD.

None ..................... At intervals not to 

exceed 2 years.

A detailed inspection of the upper 

chord of the rear spar from WBL 

70.5 to the wing tip for cracks, corrosion, minor surface defects, and 

existing stop-drilled repairs of cracking (initial inspection only), in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Work 

Instructions, Part 8, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin. 

(5) Group 1 ............ Within 4 years after doing the actions 

required by paragraph (h)(1) of this 

AD.

None ..................... At intervals not to 

exceed 4 years.

An HFEC inspection of the upper 

chord of the rear spar from WBL 

70.5 to the wing tip for cracks, corrosion, minor surface defects, and 

existing stop-drilled repairs of cracking (initial inspection only), in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Work 

Instructions, Part 9, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin. 

64510 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—COMPLIANCE TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS SPECIFIED IN PARTS 2 THROUGH 6, AND 8 AND 9 OF SERVICE

BULLETIN—Continued

For airplanes identified in the service 

bulletin as—

Threshold— Grace period— Repetitive

interval— Do—

(6) Group 2 ............ Before 20 years since the date of 

issuance of the original Airworthiness Certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original Export Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever 

occurs first.

Within 2 years 

after the effective date of this 

AD.

At intervals not to 

exceed 2 years.

An exterior detailed inspection of the 

upper and lower chords of the front 

and rear spars from WBL 70.5 to 

the wing tip for cracks, corrosion, 

minor surface defects, and existing 

stop-drilled repairs of cracking (initial inspection only), in accordance 

with paragraph 3.B., Work Instructions, Part 5, of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the service bulletin. 

(7) Group 2 ............ Before 20 years since the date of 

issuance of the original Airworthiness Certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original Export Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever 

occurs first.

Within 4 years 

after the effective date of this 

AD.

At intervals not to 

exceed 4 years.

An HFEC inspection of the upper and 

lower chords of the front and rear 

spars from WBL 70.5 to the wing tip 

for cracks, corrosion, minor surface 

defects, and existing stop-drilled repairs of cracking (initial inspection 

only), in accordance with paragraph 

3.B., Work Instructions, Part 6, of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

the service bulletin. 

Corrective Actions 

(i) If any crack, corrosion, or minor surface 

defect is detected during any inspection 

required by this AD, before further flight, do 

the applicable corrective actions in 

accordance with Part 7 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin, except as provided by paragraph (j) 

of this AD. 

(j) If any crack or corrosion is detected 

during any inspection required by this AD 

that exceeds the limits specified in the 

service bulletin, and the bulletin specifies to 

contact Boeing for appropriate Action: Before 

further flight, repair in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or 

in accordance with data meeting the type 

certification basis of the airplane approved 

by a Boeing Company Designated 

Engineering Representative who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make such findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the approval must specifically 

reference this AD. 

(k) If any existing stop-drilled repair of 

previous cracking is detected during any 

inspection required by this AD, before further 

flight, permanently repair crack in 

accordance with paragraph 3.B., Work 

Instructions, Part 7, paragraph 2., ‘‘Crack 

Repair’’ of the Accomplishment Instructions 

of the service bulletin. 

(l) Before further flight following any 

inspection or repair required by this AD, 

apply a wet layer of BMS 3–23 organic 

corrosion inhibiting compound or Boeing 

equivalent, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(m)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Alternative methods of compliance, 

approved previously in accordance with AD 

2002–24–05, amendment 39–12970, are 

approved as alternative methods of 

compliance with this AD. 

(3) 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 Designated Engineering 

Representative who has been authorized by 

the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such 

findings. For a repair method to be approved, 

the approval must specifically reference this 

AD.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

26, 2004. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24730 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19541; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–129–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–8 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–8 

airplanes. This proposed AD would 

require an inspection of the pushrod 

assemblies for the left and right elevator 

control tabs to determine if the pushrod 

assemblies are made of aluminum or 

steel, replacing any assembly made of 

aluminum with an assembly made of 

steel or modifying existing steel 

assemblies, and other specified actions. 

This proposed AD would also require an 

inspection of the crank assemblies for 

the inboard and outboard geared tabs of 

the elevator to determine if the crank 

assemblies are made of aluminum or 

steel, replacing any assembly made of 

aluminum with an assembly made of 

steel, and other specified actions. This 

proposed AD is prompted by an 

accident involving a DC–8 airplane. The 

probable cause of the accident was a 

loss of pitch control resulting from the 

disconnection of the pushrod for the 

right elevator control tab. The pushrod 

dropped down and jammed in front of 

the control tab crank, causing a large 

deflection of the control tab. We are 

proposing this AD to minimize the 

possibility of a control tab offset. A 

control tab offset could cause elevator 

deflection, an elevator airplane-nose-up 

condition, and reduced controllability 

of the airplane. This proposed AD is 

also prompted by a report that the 

elevator on a McDonnell Douglas Model 

DC–8 airplane did not respond to 

command inputs from the flightcrew. 

We are also proposing this AD to 

minimize the possibility of crank