[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