6622 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, 

Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149. Before using 

any approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer or other source, 

use these actions if they are FAA-approved. 

Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State 

of Design Authority (or their delegated 

agent). You are required to assure the product 

is airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

has approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2007–0175, dated June 28, 2007; 

and Dassault Service Bulletin F50–483, dated 

June 6, 2007, including Erratum dated July 

2007, for related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

24, 2008. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–1985 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0123; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–056–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, and DC–8–43 

Airplanes; Model DC–8–51, DC–8–52, 

DC–8–53, and DC–8–55 Airplanes; 

Model DC–8F–54 and DC–8F–55 

Airplanes; Model DC–8–61, DC–8–62, 

and DC–8–63 Airplanes; Model DC–8–

61F, DC–8–62F, and DC–8–63F 

Airplanes; Model DC–8–71, DC–8–72, 

and DC–8–73 Airplanes; and Model 

DC–8–71F, DC–8–72F, and DC–8–73F 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to 

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–8 

airplanes. The existing AD currently 

requires, among other things, revision of 

an existing program of structural 

inspections. This proposed AD would 

require implementation of a program of 

structural inspections of baseline 

structure to detect and correct fatigue 

cracking in order to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of these 

airplanes as they approach the 

manufacturer’s original fatigue design 

life goal. This proposed AD results from 

a significant number of these airplanes 

approaching or exceeding the design 

service goal on which the initial type 

certification approval was predicated. 

We are proposing this AD to detect and 

correct fatigue cracking that could 

compromise the structural integrity of 

these airplanes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by March 21, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024). 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2008–0123; Directorate Identifier 

2007-NM–056-AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On January 11, 1993, we issued AD 

93–01–15, amendment 39–8469 (58 FR 

5576, January 22, 1993), for McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–8 airplanes. That AD 

requires structural inspections to detect 

fatigue cracking, reporting of the 

inspection results, and repair, as 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6623 

necessary, to ensure continued 

airworthiness as these airplanes 

approach the manufacturer’s original 

fatigue design life goal. That AD 

resulted from new data submitted by the 

manufacturer indicating that additional 

inspections and an expanded sample 

size are necessary to increase the 

confidence level of the statistical 

program to ensure timely detection of 

cracks in the principal structural 

elements (PSEs). We issued that AD to 

prevent fatigue cracking, which could 

result in a compromise of the structural 

integrity of these airplanes. 

Supplemental Inspection Documents 

(SIDs) ADs 

In the early 1980s, as part of our 

continuing work to maintain the 

structural integrity of older transport 

category airplanes, we concluded that 

the incidence of fatigue cracking may 

increase as these airplanes reach or 

exceed their design service goal (DSG). 

A significant number of these airplanes 

were approaching or had exceeded the 

DSG on which the initial type 

certification approval was predicated. In 

light of this, and as a result of increased 

utilization, longer operational lives, and 

the high levels of safety expected of the 

currently operated transport category 

airplanes, we determined that a 

supplemental structural inspection 

program (SSIP) was necessary to ensure 

a high level of structural integrity for all 

airplanes in the transport fleet. 

Issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 

As a follow-on from that 

determination, we issued AC No. 91–56, 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Program for Large Transport Category 

Airplanes,’’ dated May 6, 1981. That AC 

provides guidance material to 

manufacturers and operators for use in 

developing a continuing structural 

integrity program to ensure safe 

operation of older airplanes throughout 

their operational lives. This guidance 

material applies to transport airplanes 

that were certified under the fail-safe 

requirements of part 4b (‘‘Airplane 

Airworthiness, Transport Categories’’) of 

the Civil Air Regulations of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR 

part 25), and that have a maximum gross 

weight greater than 75,000 pounds. The 

procedures set forth in that AC are 

applicable to transport category 

airplanes operated under subpart D 

(‘‘Special Flight Operations’’) of part 91 

of the FAR (14 CFR part 91); part 121 

(‘‘Operating Requirements: Domestic, 

Flag, and Supplemental Operations’’); 

part 125 (‘‘Certification and Operations: 

Airplanes having a Seating Capacity of 

20 or More Passengers or a Maximum 

Payload of 6,000 Pounds or More’’); and 

part 135 (‘‘Operating Requirements: 

Commuter and On-Demand 

Operations’’) of the FAR (14 CFR parts 

121, 125, and 135). The objective of the 

SSIP was to establish inspection 

programs to ensure timely detection of 

fatigue cracking. 

Aging Aircraft Safety Act (AASA) 

In October 1991, Congress enacted 

Title IV of Public Law 102–143, the 

AASA of 1991, to address aging aircraft 

concerns. That Act instructed the FAA 

administrator to prescribe regulations 

that will ensure the continuing 

airworthiness of aging aircraft. 

FAA Responses To AASA 

On January 25, 2005, as one of the 

responses to the AASA, we issued the 

Aging Airplane Safety; Final Rule 

(AASFR) (70 FR 5518, February 2, 

2005). The AASFR applies to certain 

transport category, turbine powered 

airplanes with a type certificate issued 

after January 1, 1958 (including the 

airplanes that would be subject to this 

proposed AD), that are operated under 

14 CFR parts 121 or 129, with the 

exception of airplanes operated within 

the State of Alaska. Sections 121.370a 

and 129.16 of the AASFR require the 

maintenance programs of those 

airplanes to include damage tolerancebased inspections and procedures for 

structure that is susceptible to fatigue 

cracking that could contribute to a 

catastrophic failure. The inspections 

and procedures must take into account 

the adverse affects that RAMs may have 

on fatigue cracking and the inspection 

of the structure. The procedures are to 

be established and incorporated before 

December 20, 2010. Compliance with 

this proposed AD also would be 

compliance with some aspects of the 

AASFR. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Report No. 

L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document 

(SID),’’ Volume I, Revision 6, dated July 

2005 (hereafter ‘‘Revision 6’’). The 

purpose of Revision 6 is to define the 

mandatory inspection requirements for 

the PSEs and to provide specific nondestructive inspection (NDI) techniques 

and procedures for each PSE. Revision 

6 also revises the maintenance program 

by removing provisions for the sampling 

inspection program. However, Revision 

6 retains the program goal to inspect 

airplanes in advance of a certain 

threshold for the possibility of 

increasing that threshold and using 

service history to justify delaying 

inspections on the younger portion of 

the fleet. As with previous revisions, 

Revision 6 provides credit for 

inspections previously accomplished 

within the required intervals. Revision 6 

provides a description of PSEs, NDI 

locations, planning and reporting 

procedures, and certain criteria upon 

which the supplemental inspection 

program is based. 

We also have reviewed McDonnell 

Douglas Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 

Supplemental Inspection Document 

(SID),’’ Volume II, Revision 8, dated 

January 2005. This document describes 

specific non-destructive testing 

inspections of the SID, and has been 

approved as an acceptable alternative 

method of compliance with 

corresponding paragraphs of AD 93–01–

15. 

Accomplishing the actions specified 

in the service information described 

above is intended to 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. This proposed AD would 

retain certain requirements of AD 93–

01–15. This proposed AD also would 

require revision of the FAA-approved 

maintenance program. This proposed 

AD would require implementation of a 

structural inspection program of 

baseline structure to detect and correct 

fatigue cracking in order to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of airplanes as 

they approach the manufacturer’s 

original fatigue design life goal. For the 

purposes of this proposed AD, a PSE is 

defined as an element that contributes 

significantly to the carrying of flight, 

ground or pressurization loads, and the 

integrity of that element is essential in 

maintaining the overall structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

The following paragraphs summarize 

certain specific actions in this proposed 

AD: 

Paragraph (h) of the proposed AD 

would require a revision of the 

maintenance inspection program that 

provides for inspection(s) of the PSE in 

accordance with Boeing Report No. 

L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 Supplemental 

Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume I, 

Revision 6, dated July 2005. PSEs are 

also defined and specified in the SID. 

Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD 

would specify that the SID be 

implemented on a PSE-by-PSE basis 

before structure exceeds its 75% fatigue 

life threshold (3⁄4NTH) and its full fatigue 

life threshold (NTH). The threshold 

value is defined as the life of the 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
6624 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

structure measured in total landings, 

when the probability of failure reaches 

one in a billion. The DC–8 SID program 

is not a sampling program. Airplanes 

would be inspected once before 

reaching both PSE thresholds (once by 

3⁄4NTH and once by NTH). In order for the 

inspection to have value, no PSE would 

be inspected before half of the fatigue 

life threshold, 1⁄2NTH. The additional 3⁄4NTH threshold aids in advancing the 

threshold for some PSEs as explained in 

Section 4 of Volume I of the SID. 

Inspection of each PSE should be done 

in accordance with the NDI procedures 

set forth in Volume II of the SID. 

For airplanes past the threshold NTH, 

the proposed AD would require that the 

PSE be inspected at repetitive intervals 

not to exceed DNDI/2 as specified in 

Section 4 of Volume I of the SID per the 

NDI procedure, which is specified in 

Volume II of the SID. The definition of 

DNDI/2 is half of the life for a crack to 

grow from a given NDI detectable crack 

size to instability. 

Paragraph (i) of this proposed AD also 

would require, for airplanes that have 

exceeded the NTH, that each PSE be 

inspected within 18 months after the 

effective date of this AD. The entire PSE 

must be inspected regardless of whether 

or not it has been repaired, altered, or 

modified. 

Paragraph (j) of this proposed AD 

would require that, if any PSE is 

repaired, altered, or modified, it must be 

considered a ‘‘discrepant finding.’’ A 

discrepant PSE indicates that it could 

not be completely inspected because the 

NDI procedure could not be 

accomplished due to differences on the 

airplane from the NDI reference 

standard (i.e., RAMs). For any 

discrepancy (e.g., a PSE cannot be 

inspected as specified in Volume II of 

the SID or does not match rework, 

repair, or modification description in 

Volume I of the SID), this proposed AD 

would require that the discrepancy be 

inspected in accordance with a method 

approved by the FAA. 

Paragraph (k) of this proposed AD 

would require that all negative or 

positive findings of the inspection done 

in paragraph (i) of the AD be reported 

to Boeing at the times specified, and per 

instructions contained in Section 4 of 

Volume I of the SID. 

Paragraph (l) of this proposed AD 

would require that any cracked 

structure detected during any inspection 

required by paragraph (i) of this 

proposed AD be repaired before further 

flight. Additionally, paragraph (l) of this 

AD would require accomplishment of 

the actions as specified in paragraphs 

(l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this proposed 

AD, at the times specified below. 

1. Within 18 months after repair, 

accomplish a damage tolerance 

assessment (DTA) that defines the 

threshold for inspection and submit the 

assessment for approval to the Manager, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA. 

2. Before reaching 75% of the 

threshold, submit the inspection 

methods and repetitive inspections 

intervals for the repair for approval by 

the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO. 

3. Before the threshold, the inspection 

method and repetitive inspection 

intervals are to be incorporated into the 

FAA-approved structural maintenance 

or inspection program for the airplane. 

For the purposes of this proposed AD, 

the FAA anticipates that submissions of 

the DTA of the repair, if acceptable, 

should be approved within six months 

after submission. 

Paragraph (m) of this proposed AD 

specifies the requirements of the 

inspection program for transferred 

airplanes. Before any airplane that is 

subject to this proposed AD can be 

added to an air carrier’s operations 

specifications, a program for the 

accomplishment of the inspections 

required by this proposed AD must be 

established. Paragraph (m) of the 

proposed AD would require 

accomplishment of the following: 

1. For airplanes that have been 

inspected per this proposed AD: The 

inspection of each PSE must be done by 

the new operator per the previous 

operator’s schedule and inspection 

method, or per the new operator’s 

schedule and inspection method, at 

whichever time would result in the 

earlier accomplishment date for that 

PSE inspection. The compliance time 

for accomplishment of this inspection 

must be measured from the last 

inspection done by the previous 

operator. After each inspection has been 

done once, each subsequent inspection 

must be done per the new operator’s 

schedule and inspection method. 

2. For airplanes that have not been 

inspected per this proposed AD: The 

inspection of each PSE must be done 

either before adding the airplane to the 

air carrier’s operations specification, or 

per a schedule and an inspection 

method approved by the FAA. After 

each inspection has been performed 

once, each subsequent inspection must 

be done per the new operator’s 

schedule. 

Accomplishment of these actions will 

ensure that: (1) An Operator’s newly 

acquired airplanes comply with its SSIP 

before being operated; and (2) frequently 

transferred airplanes are not permitted 

to operate without accomplishment of 

the inspections defined in the SID. 

Paragraph (n) of this proposed AD 

specifies that repairs and inspection/ 

replacement programs done before the 

effective date in accordance with 

McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 

91K0262, ‘‘DC–8 Aging Aircraft Repair 

Assessment Program Document,’’

Revision 1, dated October 2000; are 

acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of paragraphs (g) and (l) of 

this proposed AD. 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the SID 

The SID specifies to contact the 

manufacturer for instructions on how to 

repair certain conditions, but this 

proposed AD would require repairing 

those conditions in one of the following 

ways: 

• Using a method that we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Delegation Option Authorization 

Organization whom we have authorized 

to make those findings. 

Change to Existing AD 

This proposed AD would retain all 

requirements of AD 93–01–15. Since AD 

93–01–15 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 

93–01–15 

Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD 

paragraph (b) ............ paragraph (f). 

paragraph (c) ............ paragraph (g). 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 194 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this proposed AD. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6625 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Average labor 

rate per hour 

Cost per 

perator 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Revision of maintenance inspection program (required by AD 93–01–15).544 per operator (17 

U.S. operators).

$80 $43,520 131 $739,840 

Revision of maintenance program and inspections (new proposed actions).250 per operator (17 

U.S. operators).

80 20,000 131 340,000 

The number of inspection work hours, 

as indicated above, is presented as if the 

accomplishment of the actions in this 

proposed AD is to be conducted as 

‘‘stand alone’’ actions. However, in 

actual practice, these actions for the 

most part will be done coincidentally or 

in combination with normally 

scheduled airplane inspections and 

other maintenance program tasks. 

Therefore, the actual number of 

necessary additional inspection work 

hours will be minimal in many 

instances. Additionally, any costs 

associated with special airplane 

scheduling will be minimal. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

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 and placed it in the 

AD docket. 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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by removing amendment 39–8469 (58 

FR 5576, January 22, 1993) and adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA–2008–

0123; Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–

056–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by March 21, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 93–01–15. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell 

Douglas airplanes identified in Table 1 of this 

AD, certificated in any category. 

TABLE 1.—APPLICABILITY

Model 

(1) DC–8–11, DC–8–12, DC–8–21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, DC–8–33, DC–8–41, DC–8–42, and DC–8–43 airplanes. 

(2) DC–8–51, DC–8–52, DC–8–53, and DC–8–55 airplanes. 

(3) DC–8F–54 and DC–8F–55 airplanes. 

(4) DC–8–61, DC–8–62, and DC–8–63 airplanes. 

(5) DC–8–61F, DC–8–62F, and DC–8–63F airplanes. 

(6) DC–8–71, DC–8–72, and DC–8–73 airplanes. 

(7) DC–8–71F, DC–8–72F, and DC–8–73F airplanes. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
6626 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a significant 

number of these airplanes approaching or 

exceeding the design service goal on which 

the initial type certification approval was 

predicated. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and correct fatigue cracking that could 

compromise the structural integrity of these 

airplanes. 

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. 

Certain Requirements of AD 93–01–15 

Revise the FAA-Approved Maintenance 

Inspection Program 

(f) Within 6 months after February 26, 1993 

(the effective date of AD 93–01–15), 

incorporate a revision of the FAA-approved 

maintenance inspection program that 

provides no less than the required inspection 

of the Principal Structural Elements (PSE’s) 

defined in Sections 2 and 3 of Volume I of 

McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26–011, 

‘‘DC–8 Supplemental Inspection Document 

(SID),’’ dated March 1991, in accordance 

with Section 2 of Volume III–91, dated April 

1991, of that document. The non-destructive 

inspection techniques set forth in Sections 2 

and 3 of Volume II, dated March 1991, of that 

SID provide acceptable methods for 

accomplishing the inspections required by 

this AD. All inspection results, negative or 

positive, must be reported to McDonnell 

Douglas, in accordance with the instructions 

of Section 2 of Volume III–91 of the SID. 

Information collection requirements 

contained in this regulation have been 

approved by the OMB under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned 

OMB Control Number 2120–0056. 

Corrective Action 

(g) Cracked structure detected during the 

inspections required by paragraph (f) of this 

AD must be repaired before further flight, in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate. 

New Requirements of This AD 

Revision of the Maintenance Inspection 

Program 

(h) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, incorporate a revision of the 

FAA-approved maintenance inspection 

program that provides for inspection(s) of the 

PSEs, in accordance with Boeing Report No. 

L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series Supplemental 

Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume I, 

Revision 6, dated July 2005. Incorporation of 

this revision ends the requirements of 

paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD. 

Non-Destructive Inspections (NDIs) 

(i) For all PSEs listed in Section 2 of 

Boeing Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),’’

Volume I, Revision 6, dated July 2005, 

perform an NDI for fatigue cracking of each 

PSE, in accordance with the NDI procedures 

specified in Section 2 of McDonnell Douglas 

Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 Supplemental 

Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume II, 

Revision 8, dated January 2005, at the times 

specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of 

this AD, as applicable. 

(1) For airplanes that have less than three 

quarters of the fatigue life threshold (3⁄4NTH) 

as of the effective date of this AD: Perform 

the NDI for fatigue cracking at the times 

specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) 

of this AD. After reaching the threshold 

(NTH), repeat the inspection for that PSE at 

intervals not to exceed DNDI/2. 

(i) Perform an initial NDI no earlier than 

one-half of the threshold (1⁄2NTH) but before 

reaching three-quarters of the threshold 

(3⁄4NTH), or within 60 months after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later. 

(ii) Repeat the NDI no earlier than 3⁄4NTH

but before reaching the threshold (NTH), or 

within 18 months after the inspection 

required by paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD, 

whichever occurs later. 

Note 1: The DC–8 SID and this AD refer to 

the repetitive inspection interval as DNDI/2. 

However, the headings of the tables in 

Section 4 of Volume I of the DC–8 SID refer 

to the repetitive inspection interval of NDI/ 

2. The values listed under NDI/2 in the tables 

in Section 4 of Volume I of the DC–8 SID are 

the repetitive inspection intervals, DNDI/2. 

(2) For airplanes that have reached or 

exceeded three-quarters of the fatigue life 

threshold (3⁄4NTH), but less than the threshold 

(NTH), as of the effective date of this AD: 

Perform an NDI before reaching the threshold 

(NTH), or within 18 months after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later. 

Thereafter, after passing the threshold (NTH), 

repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals 

not to exceed DNDI/2. 

(3) For airplanes that have reached or 

exceeded the fatigue life threshold (NTH) as 

of the effective date of this AD: Perform an 

NDI within 18 months after the effective date 

of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection 

for that PSE at intervals not to exceed DNDI/ 

2. 

Discrepant Findings 

(j) If any discrepancy (e.g., differences on 

the airplane from the NDI reference standard, 

such as PSEs that cannot be inspected as 

specified in McDonnell Douglas Report No. 

L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 Supplemental Inspection 

Document (SID),’’ Volume II, Revision 8, 

dated January 2005, or do not match rework, 

repair, or modification descriptions in Boeing 

Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),’’

Volume I, Revision 6, dated July 2005) is 

detected during any inspection required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD, do the action 

specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this 

AD, as applicable. 

(1) If a discrepancy is detected during any 

inspection done before 3/4NTH or NTH: The 

area of the PSE affected by the discrepancy 

must be inspected before NTH or within 18 

months after the discovery of the 

discrepancy, whichever occurs later, in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, Los Angeles ACO. 

(2) If a discrepancy is detected during any 

inspection done after NTH: The area of the 

PSE affected by the discrepancy must be 

inspected before the accumulation of an 

additional DNDI/2 or within 18 months after 

the discovery of the discrepancy, whichever 

occurs later, in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. 

Reporting Requirements 

(k) All negative or positive findings of the 

inspections done in accordance with 

paragraph (i) of this AD must be reported to 

Boeing at the times specified in, and in 

accordance with, the instructions contained 

in Section 4 of Boeing Report No. L26–011, 

‘‘DC–8 All Series Supplemental Inspection 

Document (SID),’’ Volume I, Revision 6, 

dated July 2005. Information collection 

requirements contained in this regulation 

have been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056. 

Corrective Actions 

(l) Any cracked structure of a PSE detected 

during any inspection required by paragraph 

(i) of this AD must be repaired before further 

flight using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (o) of this AD. Accomplish the 

actions described in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), 

and (l)(3) of this AD, at the times specified. 

(1) Within 18 months after repair, do a 

damage tolerance assessment (DTA) that 

defines the threshold for inspection of the 

repair and submit the assessment for 

approval. 

(2) Before reaching 75% of the repair 

threshold as determined in paragraph (l)(1) of 

this AD, submit the inspection methods and 

repetitive inspection intervals for the repair 

for approval. 

(3) Before the repair threshold, as 

determined in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, 

incorporate the inspection method and 

repetitive inspection intervals into the FAAapproved structural maintenance or 

inspection program for the airplane. 

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, we 

anticipate that submissions of the DTA of the 

repair, if acceptable, should be approved 

within 6 months after submission. 

Note 3: FAA Order 8110.54, ‘‘Instructions 

for Continued Airworthiness,’’ dated July 1, 

2005, provides additional guidance about the 

approval of repairs to PSEs. 

Inspection for Transferred Airplanes 

(m) Before any airplane that has exceeded 

the fatigue life threshold (NTH) can be added 

to an air carrier’s operations specifications, a 

program for the accomplishment of the 

inspections required by this AD must be 

established as specified in paragraph (m)(1) 

or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable. 

(1) For airplanes that have been inspected 

in accordance with this AD: The inspection 

of each PSE must be done by the new 

operator in accordance with the previous 

operator’s schedule and inspection method, 

or the new operator’s schedule and 

inspection method, at whichever time would 

result in the earlier accomplishment date for 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6627 

that PSE inspection. The compliance time for 

accomplishing this inspection must be 

measured from the last inspection done by 

the previous operator. After each inspection 

has been done once, each subsequent 

inspection must be done in accordance with 

the new operator’s schedule and inspection 

method. 

(2) For airplanes that have not been 

inspected in accordance with this AD: The 

inspection of each PSE required by this AD 

must be done either before adding the 

airplane to the air carrier’s operations 

specification, or in accordance with a 

schedule and an inspection method approved 

by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. After each 

inspection has been done once, each 

subsequent inspection must be done in 

accordance with the new operator’s schedule. 

Acceptable for Compliance 

(n) McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 

91K0262, ‘‘DC–8 Aging Aircraft Repair 

Assessment Program Document,’’ Revision 1, 

dated October 2000, provides inspection/ 

replacement programs for certain repairs to 

the fuselage pressure shell. Accomplishing 

these repairs and inspection/replacement 

programs before the effective date of this AD 

is considered acceptable for compliance with 

the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (l) of 

this AD for repairs subject to that document. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(o)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested in accordance with the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(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 an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and 14 

CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 93–01–15 are approved 

as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions 

of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

24, 2008. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–1989 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0120; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–327–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream 

Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G150 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

Possible chafing between [the] electrical 

feeder cable connected to contactor 123P/2 

and ground point 803GND, installed within 

the left DC power box, discovered during 

routine receiving inspection. This condition 

may exist on boxes installed on in-service 

aircraft. If this chafing condition is left 

unattended, an electrical short may develop, 

leading to disconnection of the battery and 

battery bus from the electrical system of the 

aircraft, [which could result in] overheating, 

arcing, smoke and fire. 

The proposed AD would require actions 

that are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by March 6, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2677; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2008–0120; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–327–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel 

(CAAI), which is the aviation authority 

for Israel, has issued Israeli 

Airworthiness Directive 24–07–10–11, 

dated October 31, 2007 (referred to after 

this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

Possible chafing between [the] electrical 

feeder cable connected to contactor 123P/2 

and ground point 803GND, installed within 

the left DC power box, discovered during 

routine receiving inspection. This condition 

may exist on boxes installed on in-service 

aircraft. If this chafing condition is left 

unattended, an electrical short may develop, 

leading to disconnection of the battery and 

battery bus from the electrical system of the 

aircraft, [which could result in] overheating, 

arcing, smoke and fire. 

The corrective action includes 

inspecting for chafing and arcing 

damage of the feeder cable terminal lug 

and ground point, contacting Gulfstream 

for repair if any damage is found, and 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS