[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62615-62618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30058]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99-NM-162-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 and -
30F Series Airplanes, and Model MD-11 and -11F Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of 
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness 
directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 
and -30F series airplanes, and Model MD-11 and -11F series airplanes, 
that would have required that a determination be made of whether, and 
at what locations, metallized polyethyleneteraphthalate (MPET) 
insulation blankets are installed, and replacement of MPET insulation 
blankets with new insulation blankets. That proposal was prompted by 
reports of in-flight and ground fires on certain airplanes manufactured 
with insulation blankets covered with MPET, which may contribute to the 
spread of a fire when ignition occurs from small ignition sources such 
as electrical arcing or sparking. This new action revises the proposed 
rule by expanding the applicability of the proposed rule to include 
additional airplanes. The actions specified by this new proposed AD are 
intended to ensure that insulation blankets constructed of MPET are 
removed from the fuselage. Such insulation blankets could propagate a 
small fire that is the result of an otherwise harmless electrical arc 
and could lead to a much larger fire.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 13, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-162-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.
    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: 
Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). 
This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Stacho, Aerospace Engineer, 
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount 
Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5334; 
fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 62616]]

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 notice may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    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 notice must submit a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Number 99-NM-162-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and 
returned to the commenter.
    Comments submitted to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1999 (64 FR 43966), do 
not need to be re-submitted and will be considered along with any 
comments received to the supplemental NPRM.

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. 99-NM-162-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056.

Discussion

    A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to 
certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 and -30F series airplanes, and 
Model MD-11 and -11F series airplanes, was published as a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on August 12, 1999 
(64 FR 677631). That NPRM would have required that a determination be 
made of whether, and at what locations, metallized 
polyethyleneteraphthalate (MPET) insulation blankets are installed, and 
replacement of MPET insulation blankets with new insulation blankets. 
That NPRM was prompted by reports of in-flight and ground fires on 
certain airplanes manufactured with insulation blankets covered with 
MPET, which may contribute to the spread of a fire when ignition occurs 
from small ignition sources such as electrical arcing or sparking. That 
condition, if not corrected, could propagate a small fire that is the 
result of an otherwise harmless electrical arc and could lead to a much 
larger fire.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Proposal

    The applicability of the NPRM was based on the FAA's understanding 
that, as part of the transition from manufacturing McDonnell Douglas 
Model DC-10-30 and -330F series airplanes to Model MD-11 series 
airplanes, only the last few Model DC-10-30 and -330F series airplanes 
(manufacturer's fuselage numbers 440 through 446 inclusive) that were 
manufactured had MPET insulation blankets installed. (MPET was the 
original approved material for the insulation blankets installed on 
Model MD-11 and -311F series airplanes.)
    Since the issuance of that NPRM, investigations [conducted by FAA, 
Boeing, operators, and the United States Air Force (USAF)] revealed 
that MPET insulation blankets have been installed on Model DC-10-30 and 
-330F series airplanes [including KC-10A (military) series airplanes] 
as early as May 1981. The majority of these airplanes that were 
manufactured from 1981 through 1987 were KC-10A (military) series 
airplanes. However, it is not possible to determine the exact 
manufacturer's fuselage numbers of these airplanes. Based on the date 
that the MPET covering material was first approved by the manufacturer 
and the time that was necessary to produce blankets for insulation, the 
FAA has determined that Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F series airplanes 
manufactured after May 1981 (i.e., manufacturer's fuselage numbers 359 
through 439 inclusive) could have MPET insulation blankets installed. 
The FAA finds that the subject model airplanes having serial numbers 
359 through 439 inclusive, are subject to the addressed unsafe 
condition.
    Therefore, the FAA has revised the applicability statement of the 
supplemental NPRM from ``* * * manufacturer's fuselage numbers 440 
through 632 inclusive; certificated in any category'' to ``* * * 
manufacturer's fuselage numbers 359 through 632 inclusive; certificated 
in any category.''

Conclusion

    Since this change expands the scope of the originally proposed 
rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment 
period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct 
effects 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, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this 
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
    The FAA conducted a Preliminary Cost Analysis and Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to determine the regulatory impacts of 
this and one other proposed AD to operators of all 781 U.S.-registered 
McDonnell Douglas airplanes that have thermal/acoustical insulation 
blankets covered with a film of MPET. This analysis is included in 
Rules Docket No.'s 99-NM-162-AD and 99-NM-161-AD. The FAA has 
determined that 61 Model MD-11 and -11F series airplanes and 73 Model 
DC-10-30 and -30F series airplanes operated by 10 entities would be 
affected by this proposed AD.
    Three entities operate Model MD-11 and -11F series airplanes, and 4 
entities operate both Model MD-11 and -11F series airplanes and Model 
DC-10-30 and -30F series airplanes.
    The Preliminary Cost Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, completed by the FAA and included in the Rules Docket, 
estimates that the affected airplanes could be retrofitted with 
thermal/acoustic insulation blankets covered with film that exhibit no 
flame propagation when tested in accordance with the requirements of 
ASTM E648 or FAA-approved equivalent. Testing conducted by the FAA 
indicates that there are films that are currently in use that meet the 
test standard required by this proposed AD. These include certain 
polyvinylfluoride films that weigh no more than the materials they 
would replace. The FAA has identified three categories of costs 
associated with the retrofit: (1) Material costs of the blankets; (2) 
labor costs to remove existing blankets, install new blankets, and 
reinstall wiring, panels, floors, and other items; and (3) net lost 
revenues, or out of service costs. Over the four-year compliance 
period, material costs would total $6.7 million,

[[Page 62617]]

labor costs would be $83.0 million, and net lost revenues would be 
$13.7 million. Total costs would be $103.4 million, or $87.4 million 
discounted to present value at seven percent.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 establishes ``as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, 
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the sale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation. To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the 
Agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    Two entities affected by the proposed AD are considered small. This 
entity has revenues in excess of $100 million. Two entities are not 
considered a substantial number of small entities by Small Business 
Administration criteria. Pursuant to the RFA, 5 U.S. C. 605(b), the FAA 
certifies that this proposed AD would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The provisions of this proposed AD would have little or no impact 
on trade for U.S. firms doing business in foreign countries and foreign 
firms doing business in the United States.
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal 
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment 
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency 
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. 
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A 
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any 
provision in a Federal agency regulation that would impose an 
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one 
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the 
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides 
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a 
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development 
of regulatory proposals.
    This proposed AD does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or 
private sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

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 adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 99-NM-162-AD.

    Applicability: Model DC-10-30 and -30F series airplanes, and 
Model MD-11 and -11F series airplanes; manufacturer's fuselage 
numbers 359 through 632 inclusive; 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 (e) 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 ensure that insulation blankets constructed of metallized 
polyethyleneteraphthalate (MPET) are removed from the fuselage, 
accomplish the following:

Inspection

    (a) Within 4 years after the effective date of this AD, 
determine whether, and at what locations, insulation blankets 
constructed of MPET are installed. This determination shall be made 
in a manner approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

    Note 2: Insulation blankets that are stamped with ``DMS 2072, 
Type 2, Class 1, Grade A'' or ``DMS 1996, Type 1'' are constructed 
of MPET.

Corrective Actions

    (b) For insulation blankets that are determined not to be 
constructed of MPET, no further action is required by this AD.
    (c) For insulation blankets that are determined to be 
constructed of MPET, within 4 years after the effective date of this 
AD, replace the MPET insulation blankets with new insulation 
blankets. The replacement procedures shall be done in accordance 
with the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service 
Bulletin DC10-25-368, dated October 31, 1997 (for Model DC-10-30 and 
-30F series airplanes); or McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD11-
25-200, Revision 01, dated March 20, 1998 (for Model MD-11 and -11F 
series airplanes); as applicable. The replacement insulation 
blankets must be constructed of materials tested in accordance with 
Standard Test Method American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM) E648 and approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

    Note 3: Although this paragraph allows up to 4 years for the 
required replacement, the FAA anticipates that operators will comply 
at the earliest practicable maintenance opportunity.
    Note 4: Only one of the two metallized Tedlar covers specified 
in the service bulletins has been shown to have successfully passed 
the testing of the ASTM flammability standard and is considered 
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (c) of 
this AD.

Spares

    (d) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install 
an MPET insulation blanket on any airplane.

[[Page 62618]]

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (e) 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, Transport Airplane Directorate. 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 5: 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

    (f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 
sections 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 November 10, 1999.
D.L. Riggin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-30058 Filed 11-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U