[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38220-38223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17606]



[[Page 38220]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NM-222-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-70 Series 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing 
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model 
DC-8-70 series airplanes, that currently requires repetitive 
inspections and repair or replacement, if necessary, of the generator 
power feeder cables, supporting brackets, and clamps at all the engine 
pylons. This action would require accomplishment of a terminating 
action for the repetitive inspections. This action also would require 
replacement of the support clamps of the generator power feeder cable 
on engine nacelles/pylons 1, 2, 3, and 4 with new support clamps. This 
proposal is prompted by the FAA's determination that further rulemaking 
is necessary. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to 
prevent a fire on the ground if a fuel leak exists in an engine pylon.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-222-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this 
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. 
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 
[email protected]. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must 
contain ``Docket No. 2001-NM-222-AD'' in the subject line and need not 
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached 
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or 
ASCII text.
    The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be 
obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data 
and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may 
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elvin Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer, 
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 
90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5344; fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as 
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number 
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All 
communications received on or before the closing date for comments, 
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the 
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Submit comments using the following format:
     Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a 
request to change the compliance time and a request to change the 
service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
     For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed 
AD is being requested.
     Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each 
request.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All 
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing 
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested 
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with 
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Number 2001-NM-222-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped 
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules 
Docket No. 2001-NM-222-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Background

    In July 1996, a Boeing Model 747 series airplane was involved in an 
accident. As part of re-examining all aspects of the service experience 
of the airplane involved in the accident, the FAA participated in 
design review and testing to determine possible sources of ignition in 
center fuel tanks. As part of the review, we examined fuel system 
wiring with regard to the possible effects that wire degradation may 
have on arc propagation.
    In 1997 in a parallel preceding, at the recommendation of the White 
House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, the FAA expanded its 
Aging Transport Program to include non-structural systems and assembled 
a team for evaluating these systems. This team performed visual 
inspections of certain transport category airplanes for which 20 years 
or more had passed since date of manufacture. In addition, the team 
gathered information from interviews with FAA Principal Maintenance 
Inspectors and meetings with representatives of airplane manufacturers. 
This evaluation revealed that the length of time in service is not the 
only cause of wire degradation; inadequate maintenance, contamination, 
improper repair, and mechanical damage are all contributing factors. 
From the compilation of this comprehensive information, we developed 
the Aging Transport Non-Structural Systems Plan to increase airplane 
safety by increasing knowledge of how non-structural systems degrade 
and how causes of degradation can be reduced.
    In 1998, an accident occurred off the coast of Nova Scotia 
involving a McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplane. 
Investigation indicates that a fire broke out in the cockpit and first 
class overhead area. Although the ignition source of the fire has not 
been determined, the FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of 
Model MD-11, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, and DC-9-80 series airplanes, is 
reviewing all aspects of the service history of those airplanes to 
identify potential unsafe conditions associated with wire degradation 
due to various contributing factors (e.g., inadequate maintenance, 
contamination, improper repair, and mechanical damage) and to take

[[Page 38221]]

appropriate corrective actions. We have issued a series of 
airworthiness directives (AD) that address unsafe conditions identified 
during that process. This process is continuing and we may consider 
additional rulemaking actions as further results of the review become 
available. The cause of the Nova Scotia MD-11 accident has not yet been 
determined.
    In 1999, the FAA Administrator established a formal advisory 
committee to facilitate the implementation of the Aging Transport Non-
Structural Systems Plan. This committee, the Aging Transport Systems 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC), is made up of representatives 
of airplane manufacturers, operators, user groups, aerospace and 
industry associations, and government agencies. As part of its mandate, 
ATSRAC will recommend rulemaking to increase transport category 
airplane safety in cases where solutions to safety problems connected 
to aging systems have been found and must be applied. Detailed analyses 
of certain transport category airplanes that have been removed from 
service, studies of service bulletins pertaining to certain wiring 
systems, and reviews of previously issued ADs requiring repetitive 
inspections of certain wiring systems, have resulted in valuable 
information on the cause and prevention of wire degradation due to 
various contributing factors (e.g., inadequate maintenance, 
contamination, improper repair, and mechanical damage).
    In summary, as a result of the investigations described above, the 
FAA has determined that corrective action may be necessary to minimize 
the potential hazards associated with wire degradation and related 
causal factors (e.g., inadequate maintenance, contamination, improper 
repair, and mechanical damage).

Previously Issued AD 88-11-03

    On May 3, 1988, the FAA issued AD 88-11-03, amendment 39-5922 (53 
FR 17018, May 13, 1988), applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-
8-70 series airplanes, to require repetitive inspections and repair or 
replacement, if necessary, of the generator power feeder cables, 
supporting brackets, and clamps at the engine pylons. That action was 
prompted by reports indicating that the generator power feeder cable 
was chafing against the clamp and support bracket, resulting in 
shorting to the clamp, bracket, and structure in an engine pylon area. 
The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent a fire on the 
ground if a fuel leak exists in an engine pylon.

Actions Since Issuance of AD 88-11-03

    Since the issuance of AD 88-11-03, the FAA has determined that 
long-term continued operational safety will be better assured by design 
changes to remove the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive 
inspections. Long-term inspections may not be providing the degree of 
safety assurance necessary for the transport airplane fleet. This, 
coupled with a better understanding of the human factors associated 
with numerous continual inspections, has led us to consider placing 
less emphasis on inspections and more emphasis on design improvements. 
Therefore, we now have determined that further rulemaking action is 
necessary to require a terminating action for the repetitive inspection 
and verification requirements of AD 88-11-03.
    In addition, the airplane manufacturer has informed the FAA of the 
possibility that support clamps of the generator power feeder cable in 
the forward pylon and engine nacelle areas could fail on airplanes 
subject to the requirements of AD 88-11-03. The cause has been 
attributed to the generator power feeder cable chafing against the 
support clamps and bracket. Such chafing, if not corrected, could 
result in electrical arcing and damage to the primary structure in the 
engine pylon area, which could result in a fire on the ground if a fuel 
leak exists in the engine pylon area.

Other Related Rulemaking

    This proposed AD is one of a series of actions identified as part 
of the ATSRAC program initiative to maintain continued operational 
safety of aging non-structural systems in transport category airplanes. 
The program is continuing and the FAA may consider additional 
rulemaking actions as further results of the review become available.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service 
Bulletin 24-72, dated January 14, 1992, which describes procedures for 
replacement of the support clamps of the generator power feeder cable 
on engine pylons 1, 2, 3, and 4 with new support clamps.
    The FAA also has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 
Service Bulletin 24-71, Revision 1, dated February 25, 1991. The 
service bulletin describes procedures for performing an inspection of 
the terminal connections of the generator power feeder cable for 
general condition and to verify that the ground studs are tight and 
that the nuts securing the cable terminals to the terminal strip are 
tightened to a torque of 120 to 130 inch-pound; tightening terminal 
connections, if necessary; and applying a coat of certain sealants.
    Accomplishment of the actions specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-8-
70 Service Bulletin 24-72 and McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service 
Bulletin 24-71 would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspection 
requirements of AD 88-11-03.
    In addition, the FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas 
DC-8-70 Service Bulletin 24-73, dated May 30, 1990, which describes 
procedures for replacement of the support clamps of the generator power 
feeder cable in the forward pylon on engine nacelles 1, 2, 3, and 4 
with new support clamps.
    Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins is 
intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule

    Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to 
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the 
proposed AD would supersede AD 88-11-03 to continue to require 
repetitive inspections and repair or replacement, if necessary, of the 
generator power feeder cables, supporting brackets, and clamps at the 
engine pylons. The proposed AD also would require accomplishment of the 
actions specified in the service bulletins described previously, some 
of which would terminate the repetitive inspections.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 108 Model DC-8-70 series airplanes of the 
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 98 
airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
    The inspection that is currently required by AD 88-11-03, and 
retained in this proposed AD, takes approximately 12 work hours per 
airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. 
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required 
actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $70,560, or $720 per 
airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The new replacement specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service 
Bulletin 24-72, dated January 14, 1992, that is proposed in this AD 
action would take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to 
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required 
parts would cost

[[Page 38222]]

approximately $675 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost 
impact of this replacement proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is 
estimated to be $83,790, or $855 per airplane.
    The new inspection and application of sealants specified in 
McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service Bulletin 24-71, Revision 1, dated 
February 25, 1991, that are proposed in this AD action would take 
approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average 
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost 
impact of the inspection and application of sealants proposed by this 
AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $29,400, or $300 per airplane.
    The new replacement specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service 
Bulletin 24-73, dated May 30, 1990, that is proposed in this AD action 
would take approximately 16 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at 
an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost 
approximately $715 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost 
impact of the proposed requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is 
estimated to be $164,150, or $1,675 per airplane.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions 
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed 
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish 
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost 
impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the 
time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the 
AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as 
the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time 
necessitated by other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

    The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct 
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it 
is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 13132.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed 
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, 
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under 
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft 
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the 
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules 
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as 
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-5922 (53 FR 
17018, May 13, 1988), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
to read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2001-NM-222-AD. Supersedes AD 88-11-03, 
Amendment 39-5922.

    Applicability: All Model DC-8-70 series airplanes, certificated 
in any category.

    Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the 
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the 
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, 
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of 
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an 
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of 
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of 
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition 
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been 
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to 
address it.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished 
previously.
    To prevent a fire on the ground if a fuel leak exists in an 
engine pylon, accomplish the following:

Restatement of Requirements of AD 88-11-03

Repetitive Inspections, Verification, and Corrective Actions, If 
Necessary

    (a) Within 30 days after June 3, 1988 (the effective date of AD 
88-11-03, amendment 39-5922), unless previously accomplished within 
the last 3,500 flight hours, inspect the generator power feeder 
cables, support brackets, and clamps between bulkhead feed-through 
at station YN=278.500 and terminal strip S3-7000 at engine pylons 1, 
2, 3, and 4, for evidence of arcing, burning, chafing, damage, or 
cable droop, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of 
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin A24-72, dated April 6, 1988.
    (1) If no evidence of arcing, burning, chafing, damage, or 
drooping exists, proceed to paragraph (a)(3) of this AD.
    (2) If any evidence of arcing, burning, chafing, damage, or 
drooping exists, prior to further flight, repair or replace parts, 
as required, in accordance with the service bulletin.
    (3) Verify that the nuts securing cable terminals to terminal 
strip S3-7000 are tightened to a torque of 120 to 130 inch-pounds.

Repetitive Inspection Interval

    (b) Repeat the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this AD 
at intervals not to exceed 3,500 flight hours.

New Actions Required by This AD

Terminating Actions for Repetitive Inspections and Verification

    (c) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, replace 
the support clamps of the generator power feeder cable on engine 
pylons 1, 2, 3, and 4 with new support clamps, in accordance with 
McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service Bulletin 24-72, dated January 14, 
1992. The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD 
must be done prior to or in conjunction with the requirements of 
this paragraph.
    (d) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, do the 
actions specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this AD in 
accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service Bulletin 24-71, 
Revision 1, dated February 25, 1991. The requirements of paragraph 
(a)(3) of this AD must be done prior to or in conjunction with the 
requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the terminal strip of the 
terminal connections of the generator power feeder cable for general 
condition (i.e., loose connections) and to verify that the ground 
studs are tight and that the nuts securing the cable terminals to 
the terminal strip are tightened to a torque of 120 to 130 inch-
pound, in accordance with the service bulletin. If any terminal 
connection is loose, not tight, or torqued improperly, prior to 
further flight, tighten terminal connection in accordance with the 
service bulletin.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection 
is defined as ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior 
area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, 
or irregularity. This level of inspection is made under normally 
available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, 
flashlight, or drop-light, and may require removal or opening of 
access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be 
required to gain proximity to the area being checked.''

    (2) Apply a coat of certain sealants per Figure 1 of the service 
bulletin.
    (e) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (c) and 
(d) of this AD

[[Page 38223]]

constitute terminating action for the requirements of paragraphs (a) 
and (b) of this AD.

Replacement of Certain Support Clamps

    (f) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, replace 
the support clamps of the generator power feeder cable in the 
forward pylon on engine nacelles 1, 2, 3, and 4 with new support 
clamps, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service 
Bulletin 24-73, dated May 30, 1990.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the 
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an 
appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add 
comments and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

    Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

    (h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 
Secs. 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the 
requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 9, 2001.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-17606 Filed 7-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U