[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 107 (Monday, June 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13629]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 6, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 89-NM-205-AD]

 

Airworthiness Directives; Aerospatiale Model ATR 42, et al.; 
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
that proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to various 
smaller transport category airplanes certificated for operation with a 
main deck Class B cargo compartment. That action would have required 
either the conversion of all main deck Class B cargo compartments to 
the Class C configuration; or the use of flame penetration-resistant 
containers with smoke detection and fire extinguishing systems to carry 
all cargo; or the accomplishment of certain operational and equipment 
changes and design modifications to maximize cargo fire detection and 
control. Since the issuance of the NPRM, the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) has received new data and is undertaking 
alternative rulemaking action. Accordingly, the proposed rule is 
withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Quam, Aerospace Engineer, 
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206) 
227-2145; fax (206) 227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations to add a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to various smaller transport category airplanes certificated 
for operation with a main deck Class B cargo compartment, was published 
in the Federal Register on September 5, 1990 (55 FR 36284). The 
proposed rule would have required either the conversion of all main 
deck Class B cargo compartments to a Class C configuration; or the use 
of flame penetration-resistant containers with smoke detection and fire 
extinguishing systems to carry all cargo; or the accomplishment of 
certain operational and equipment changes and design modifications to 
maximize cargo fire detection and control. That action was prompted by 
a report of an uncontained fire in a main deck cargo compartment on a 
transport category airplane. The proposed actions were intended to 
prevent an uncontrolled cargo fire that could cause extensive damage to 
the systems and structure of the airplane.
    Since the issuance of that NPRM, the FAA has received additional 
data and has initiated other rulemaking activity, which has caused it 
to reconsider its previous position on this rulemaking action.
    The FAA received over 128 comments and suggestions to the proposal, 
including ones from affected operators, aircraft manufacturers, 
industry representatives, and civil aviation authorities from around 
the world. The general nature of almost all of the comments received 
was in disagreement with the issuance of the proposed rule.
    One commenter requests that further action on this AD be postponed 
until the proposed actions have been carefully coordinated with the 
aviation authorities of the countries controlling the type certificates 
of the applicable aircraft. The FAA notes that, during the development 
of this proposal, it apprised foreign civil airworthiness authorities 
(FCAA) of the planned actions. The FAA has given due consideration to 
the comments and recommendations that were received from each of these 
FCAA's.
    Many commenters question the justification for the proposed rule 
and request that it be withdrawn. Five commenters question the FAA's 
method of requiring change via an AD. Several commenters consider that 
the proposed rule fails to meet the regulatory requirements of 
Sec. 39.1 (``Airworthiness Directives; Applicability'') of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.1); these commenters contend that the 
FAA has not established that the unsafe condition is likely to exist or 
develop on the affected airplanes. One commenter points out that a 
review of the FAA's Service Difficulty Reports (SDR) failed to disclose 
any problem with regard to detection, access to, or control of smoke or 
fires in baggage compartments of airplanes of the type and size 
affected by the proposal. One of these commenters points out that there 
is no service history to suggest that compartments of this size [under 
400 cubic feet] have been or are likely to be a fire hazard. Four 
commenters consider that the FAA's intent in proposing the AD should 
instead be addressed either as a change to affected operators' 
Operation Specifications or as a change to part 121 (``Certification 
and Operations: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Air Carriers and 
commercial Operators of Large Aircraft'') of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR part 121).
    The FAA agrees with certain observations made by these commenters. 
The FAA has conducted a review the SDR's as well as the United Kingdom 
Civil Airworthiness Authority's (CAA) World Airline Accident Summary 
and found no reports of incidents or accidents caused by fire in the 
Class B cargo compartment of transport airplanes addressed by this 
notice. The historical data that was reviewed indicates only that there 
has not been a cargo compartment fire in the size of airplanes 
specified in the notice. However, the lack of incidents of fire does 
not establish that the Class B compartment, as defined in the existing 
certification regulations, has appropriate safeguards if a fire were to 
occur. It is this aspect that the proposed rule was meant to address.
    Some commenters state that the smaller cargo compartments of the 
airplanes affected by this proposed AD are different from the larger 
compartments on the airplanes that are affected by AD 93-07-15, 
amendment 39-8547 (58 FR 21243, April 20, 1993), since those 
compartments contain pallets and/or containers. One commenter states 
that the smaller cargo compartments used in commuter service have not 
been established to be similar, from the standpoint of safety, to main 
deck Class B compartments of larger transports; therefore, any action 
to address fire safety should concentrate on large ``Combi'' cargo 
compartments, as in AD 93-07-15. Another commenter considers that the 
fire detection problems that may exist on jumbo-jet airplanes do not 
have any relevance for smaller airplanes. Another commenter states that 
the hazard of carrying large pallets/containers in increasingly large 
``Combi'' compartments is the issue to be addressed, not the size of 
the compartment itself.
    The FAA disagrees that the smaller cargo compartments are not 
similar, with regard to fire safety, to the larger compartments 
containing pallets or containers. On the smaller transport airplanes, 
cargo and luggage are loaded in a manner such that smoke detection and 
access may be inhibited if the fire is deep-seated (buried in the 
cargo), much the same as in a container or pallet on a larger transport 
airplane. Further, the FAA has observed, and one commenter to the 
notice admitted, that in many instances, some operators of the smaller 
transport airplanes load the airplane's cargo compartments in such a 
manner that there is no place to displace the cargo within the 
compartment in order to get at a fire. This presents a two-fold hazard:
    1. The fire cannot be accessed and continues to burn; and
    2. If cargo is removed from the cargo compartment, passengers could 
be exposed to fire, toxic smoke, and fumes; this situation is unsafe 
and contrary to the concept and rule requirements of the Class B cargo 
compartment.
    Four commenters provide information concerning the economic effects 
of the proposed AD. One of these commenters, an operator, states that 
it has had a long-term investment in its combi operations; however, if 
the rule is issued, any further ``Combi'' operations would be cost-
prohibitive for this operator. This would force the operator to raise 
passenger ticket prices, and resort to less frequent all-passenger or 
all-cargo flights. Another commenter states that the proposed 
requirements of the rule would have a devastating effect on service to 
remote communities that have no alternative means of transport 
available. Another commenter states that it would cost up to $200,000 
per airplane to accomplish the requirement to convert the cargo 
compartment to a Class C configuration; this would be a great economic 
burden for small operators. Another commenter estimated that the 
requirements of the proposed rule would cost 10% of its annual gross 
revenues.
    In light of these comments and other information provided, the FAA 
must continue to consider the following aspects relevant to this 
rulemaking action:
    1. A service history indicating that there has not been a fire in 
the Class B cargo compartments of the size of aircraft addressed by the 
proposed rule; and
    2. Cargo loading practices on the smaller transport category 
airplanes that may inhibit smoke detection and negate access 
requirements of the Class B cargo compartment.
    Because of the potentially catastrophic consequences of fire in 
Class B cargo compartments and the impossibility of eliminating the 
potential for such fires, the FAA cannot conclude that the existing 
Class B compartments do not present an unsafe condition. However, this 
condition is a result of flaws in the underlying design standards for 
these compartments, and correcting those flaws may have significant 
economic and operational consequences. For these reasons, the FAA has 
concluded that issuance of an AD to address this condition is not 
warranted at this time.
    The FAA now considers that a change to part 25 (``Airworthiness 
Standards: Transport Category Airplanes'') of the FAR (14 CFR part 25) 
and to the relevant operating regulations of the FAR to address these 
issues is more appropriate and will allow further public participation 
in the rulemaking process.
    In 1989, just prior to the time that the notice was published, a 
subgroup of the Department of Transportation Task Force on FAA Reform 
recommended that a Standing Advisory Committee for Rulemaking be 
established. The Secretary of Transportation approved this 
recommendation, and the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) 
was chartered in 1991. The purpose of the committee is to provide 
advice and recommendations to the FAA concerning the full range of the 
FAA's rulemaking activity with respect to safety-related issues. The 
expected benefits of ARAC are to take advantage of the industry 
technical expertise and experience, to resolve controversies in an open 
forum, to resolve issues before formal rulemaking, and to broaden 
public participation in the process.
    The FAA has asked ARAC to consider 70 rulemaking issues, one of 
which is rulemaking relative to the Class B cargo compartment. A 
``Class B Cargo Compartment Harmonization Working Group'' was 
established recently to formulate and harmonize an international 
position on amended requirements for the Class B cargo compartment as 
installed on transport category airplanes. In its deliberations, ARAC 
currently is considering the safety issues related to the Class B cargo 
compartment, appropriate rule requirements, necessary rule changes, 
estimated costs, and comments and advice from the aviation industry.
    In light of this other on-going rulemaking activity, the FAA hereby 
withdraws the proposed AD.
    Withdrawal of this notice of proposed rulemaking constitutes only 
such action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another 
notice in the future, nor does it commit the agency to any course of 
action in the future.
    Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, 
it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore, is not covered 
under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket 89-NM-205-
AD, published in the Federal Register on September 5, 1990 (55 FR 
36284), is withdrawn.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 31, 1994.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 94-13629 Filed 6-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U