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, 50906-50909 [E8-20085]

Download as PDF 50906 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 169 / Friday, August 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC–8 airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that currently requires, among other things, revision of an existing program of structural inspections. The original NPRM proposed to require implementation of a revised 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. The original NPRM resulted from a significant number of these airplanes approaching or exceeding the design service goal on which the initial type certification approval was predicated. This new action revises the original NPRM by reducing the inspection threshold for certain principal structural elements. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise the structural integrity of these airplanes. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by September 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:27 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 • 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 https:// 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: Dara Albouyeh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5222; 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 https:// 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. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Discussion We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD (the ‘‘original NPRM’’) to supersede AD 93– 01–15, amendment 39–8469 (58 FR 5576, January 22, 1993). The original NPRM applied to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC–8 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2008 (73 FR 6622). The original NPRM proposed to retain certain requirements of AD 93–01–15. The original NPRM also proposed to require a revision of the FAA-approved maintenance program. In addition, the original NPRM proposed to require implementation of a revised 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. Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, we have reviewed Boeing Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008 (hereafter ‘‘Revision 7’’). The procedures specified in Revision 7 are identical to those specified in Boeing Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume I, Revision 6, dated July 2005 (referred to in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain required actions). Revision 7 revises the inspection threshold for certain principal structural elements from landings to flight hours, which reduces the inspection threshold. Therefore, we have revised the supplemental NPRM to refer to Revision 7 as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain proposed actions. FAA’s Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM The change discussed above expands the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance There are about 194 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM 29AUP1 50907 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 169 / Friday, August 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. ESTIMATED COSTS Action Revision of maintenance inspection program (required by AD 93–01–15). Revision of maintenance program and inspections (new proposed actions). pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS Fleet cost $80 $43,520, per operator ........... 131 $739,840 250 per operator (17 U.S. operators). 80 $20,000 ................................. 131 340,000 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. 16:27 Aug 28, 2008 Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Cost per operator 544 per operator (17 U.S. operators). 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 Average labor rate per hour Work hours Jkt 214001 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 supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 (7) 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 September 23, 2008. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 93–01–15. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 TABLE 1—APPLICABILITY Model (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 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. DC–8–51, DC–8–52, DC–8–53, and DC– 8–55 airplanes. DC–8F–54 and DC–8F–55 airplanes. DC–8–61, DC–8–62, and DC–8–63 airplanes. DC–8–61F, DC–8–62F, and DC–8–63F airplanes. DC–8–71, DC–8–72, and DC–8–73 airplanes. DC–8–71F, DC–8–72F, and DC–8–73F airplanes. 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 (PSEs) 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 E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM 29AUP1 50908 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 169 / Friday, August 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS (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 7, dated March 2008. 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 7, dated March 2008, 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:27 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 (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 7, dated March 2008) 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 7, dated March 2008. 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 (p) of this AD. Accomplish the actions described in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD, at the times specified. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (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 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. (o) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series Supplemental E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM 29AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 169 / Friday, August 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume I, Revision 6, dated July 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, ATTN: Dara Albouyeh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5222; fax (562) 627–5210; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using 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 August 21, 2008. Kevin Hull, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8–20085 Filed 8–28–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary 29 CFR Part 2 RIN 1290–AA23 Requirements for DOL Agencies’ Assessment of Occupational Health Risks Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS AGENCY: SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Secretary of Labor’s authority at 5 U.S.C. section 301, the Department of Labor (Department or DOL) is proposing to compile its existing best practices related to risk assessment into a single, VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:27 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 easy to reference regulation, and to include two requirements to establish consistent procedures for conducting risk assessments that promote greater public input and awareness of the Department’s health rulemakings. DOL proposes to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting public information on relevant data when developing risk assessments for health standards regulating occupational exposure to toxic substances and hazardous chemicals, and to electronically post rulemaking documents and underlying studies used in a risk assessment. The proposed regulation implements recommendations of the 1997 Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management Report,1 and is consistent with Government-wide Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Information Quality Guidelines,2 current internal DOL Information Quality Guidelines,3 and the OMB/ Office of Science and Technology Policy 2007 Memorandum on Updated Principles for Risk Analysis.4 DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Submit comments to Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., S–2312, Washington, DC 20210, Attention: Risk Assessment Policy. Because of securityrelated concerns, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of submissions by United States Mail. You must take this into consideration when preparing to meet the deadline for submitting comments. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to 1 Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management, 2 Final Report 131–36 (1997). 2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/2005/ 011405_peer.pdf. 3 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Department of Labor (2002) (Appendix II), available at https://www.dol.gov/informationquality.htm. 4 OMB/OSTP Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Updated Principles for Risk Analysis (2007) M–07–24, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ memoranda/fy2007/m07-24.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 50909 https://www.regulations.gov, and available for public inspection in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., S–2312, Washington, DC 20210, including any personal information provided. Persons submitting comments electronically are encouraged not to submit paper copies. Docket: All comments will be available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours by contacting OASP at (202) 693–5959 (VOICE) (this is not a toll free number) or 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/TDD). You may also contact OASP at the address listed above. As noted above, the Department also will post all comments it receives on https:// www.regulations.gov. Copies of the proposed rule are available in alternative formats of large print and electronic file on computer disk, which may be obtained at the above-stated address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Franks, Office of Regulatory and Programmatic Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, (202) 693–5959. This is not a toll-free number. Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The Department’s Mission Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Federal Mine Safety and Health Act The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) is charged with ensuring safe and healthful working conditions for every working man and woman in the Nation. To that end, the Secretary has broad authority to promulgate health standards. In Section 6(b)(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) 5 and Section 101(a)(6) (A) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act),6 Congress required the Secretary to set health standards ‘‘on the basis of the best available evidence.’’ 7 The Acts also state that, ‘‘in addition to the attainment of the highest degree of health and safety protection for the employee, other considerations shall be the latest available scientific data in the field.’’ 8 In sum, the OSH Act and Mine Act 5 29 U.S.C. 655 (2000). U.S.C. 811 (2000). 7 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5) (2000), 30 U.S.C. 811(a)(6) (2000). 8 Id. 6 30 E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM 29AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50906-50909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20085]



[[Page 50906]]

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

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: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of 
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness 
directive (AD) that applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 
airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that 
currently requires, among other things, revision of an existing program 
of structural inspections. The original NPRM proposed to require 
implementation of a revised 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. The original NPRM 
resulted from a significant number of these airplanes approaching or 
exceeding the design service goal on which the initial type 
certification approval was predicated. This new action revises the 
original NPRM by reducing the inspection threshold for certain 
principal structural elements. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM 
to detect and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise the 
structural integrity of these airplanes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by September 
23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
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 https://
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: Dara Albouyeh, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; 
telephone (562) 627-5222; 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 https://
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

    We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 
(14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD 
(the ``original NPRM'') to supersede AD 93-01-15, amendment 39-8469 (58 
FR 5576, January 22, 1993). The original NPRM applied to all McDonnell 
Douglas Model DC-8 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the 
Federal Register on February 5, 2008 (73 FR 6622). The original NPRM 
proposed to retain certain requirements of AD 93-01-15. The original 
NPRM also proposed to require a revision of the FAA-approved 
maintenance program. In addition, the original NPRM proposed to require 
implementation of a revised 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.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, we have reviewed Boeing Report 
No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series Supplemental Inspection Document 
(SID),'' Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008 (hereafter ``Revision 
7''). The procedures specified in Revision 7 are identical to those 
specified in Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series Supplemental 
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated July 2005 
(referred to in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service 
information for accomplishing certain required actions). Revision 7 
revises the inspection threshold for certain principal structural 
elements from landings to flight hours, which reduces the inspection 
threshold. Therefore, we have revised the supplemental NPRM to refer to 
Revision 7 as the appropriate source of service information for 
accomplishing certain proposed actions.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    The change discussed above expands the scope of the original NPRM; 
therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the 
comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on 
this supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 194 airplanes of the affected design in the 
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the

[[Page 50907]]

estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Number of U.S.-
            Action                Work hours      Average labor      Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                  rate per hour      operator        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision of maintenance        544 per operator             $80  $43,520, per                131        $739,840
 inspection program (required   (17 U.S.                          operator.
 by AD 93-01-15).               operators).
Revision of maintenance        250 per operator              80  $20,000........             131         340,000
 program and inspections (new   (17 U.S.
 proposed actions).             operators).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 supplemental NPRM 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.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  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 September 
23, 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (PSEs) 
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

[[Page 50908]]

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 7, dated March 2008. 
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 7, dated March 2008, 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 (\3/4\NTH) 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 [Delta]NDI/2.
    (i) Perform an initial NDI no earlier than one-half of the 
threshold (\1/2\NTH) but before reaching three-quarters 
of the threshold (\3/4\NTH), or within 60 months after 
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) Repeat the NDI no earlier than \3/4\NTH 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 [Delta]NDI/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, [Delta]NDI/2.
    (2) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded three-quarters 
of the fatigue life threshold (\3/4\NTH), 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 [Delta]NDI/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 [Delta]NDI/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 7, 
dated March 2008) 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 \3/4\NTH 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 [Delta]NDI/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 
7, dated March 2008. 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 (p) 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 FAA-approved 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 
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.
    (o) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in 
accordance with Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series 
Supplemental

[[Page 50909]]

Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated July 2005, 
are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of 
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (p)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, ATTN: Dara Albouyeh, 
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles 
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 
California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5222; fax (562) 627-5210; 
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using 
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 August 21, 2008.
Kevin Hull,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-20085 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.