99-20940. Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 and MD- 90-30 Series Airplanes, and Model MD-88 Airplanes  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 155 (Thursday, August 12, 1999)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 43966-43969]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-20940]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    
    Federal Aviation Administration
    
    14 CFR Part 39
    
    [Docket No. 99-NM-161-AD]
    RIN 2120-AA64
    
    
    Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 and MD-
    90-30 Series Airplanes, and Model MD-88 Airplanes
    
    AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
    
    ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness 
    directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model 
    DC-9-80 and MD-90-30 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes. This 
    proposal would require 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. This proposal is 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. The actions specified by the 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 September 27, 1999.
    
    ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
    Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, 
    Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-161-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
    Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this 
    location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
    
    [[Page 43967]]
    
    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:
    
    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-161-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. 99-NM-161-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
    98055-4056.
    
    Discussion
    
        The FAA has received reports of a number of in-flight and ground 
    fires on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 and MD-11 series airplanes 
    manufactured with insulation blankets covered with metallized 
    polyethyleneteraphthalate (MPET) (also known as metallized Mylar). 
    Investigation has revealed that MPET covered insulation blankets may 
    contribute to the spread of a fire when ignition occurs from small 
    ignition sources such as electrical arcing or sparking. The results of 
    extensive flammability testing, conducted by the manufacturer and the 
    FAA, revealed that this type of insulation material will propagate a 
    fire.
        There are other materials on insulation blankets that exhibit 
    similar flammability characteristics if ignited. However, these 
    materials are much more difficult to ignite than MPET.
        Insulation blankets constructed of MPET installed throughout the 
    fuselage, 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.
        The subject insulation blankets on certain McDonnell Douglas Model 
    MD-90-30 and DC-10 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes are 
    identical to those on the affected Model DC-9-80 and MD-11 series 
    airplanes. Therefore, all of these airplanes may be subject to the same 
    unsafe condition. The FAA is issuing a separate rulemaking action 
    [notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Rules Docket No. 99-NM-162-AD] 
    to address McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11 series airplanes.
    
    Other Relevant Investigations and Rulemaking
    
        The FAA is continuing to investigate various wiring problems on 
    McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80, MD-90-30, DC-10, and MD-11 series 
    airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes. The FAA may consider additional 
    rulemaking actions to address any identified unsafe condition. The FAA 
    will take into account the impact of those actions on U.S. operators to 
    minimize the duplication of aircraft downtime associated with 
    accomplishing the actions of this proposed AD.
    
    Explanation of Relevant Service Information
    
        The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service 
    Bulletin MD-90-25-015, Revision 01, dated November 5, 1997 (for Model 
    MD-90-30 series airplanes), and McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 
    MD80-25-355, Revision 01, dated November 5, 1997 (for Model DC-9-80 
    series airplanes and Model MD-88 airplanes). The service bulletins 
    describe procedures for replacement of MPET covered insulation blankets 
    with new blankets fabricated with metallized Tedlar or equivalent 
    blanket material. Accomplishment of the replacement procedures 
    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 require accomplishment of the actions specified in 
    the service bulletins described previously, except as discussed below.
    
    Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletins
    
        The referenced service bulletins describe procedures for 
    replacement of MPET covered insulation blankets with certain metallized 
    Tedlar or equivalent blanket material, which meet the current FAA 
    flammability standards (i.e., Bunsen burner test). However, this 
    proposed AD requires replacement with insulation blankets that are 
    constructed of materials tested in accordance with Standard Test Method 
    American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E648 and approved by 
    the FAA. The FAA finds that the current flammability standards are not 
    able to distinguish between different types of insulation covering 
    material in their flame spread properties from small ignition sources. 
    ASTM E648 provides a test that will differentiate flame spread 
    properties of different metallized Tedlars. Only one of the two 
    insulation blanket film materials specified in the service bulletins 
    has successfully passed the testing of the ASTM flammability standard 
    and has been found to be an acceptable replacement material for the 
    MPET covered insulation blankets. Other film material, such as certain 
    polyimide and fluoropolymer composites, also have been successfully 
    tested to ASTM E648 and could be found to be acceptable for compliance 
    with the requirements of this proposed AD if presented to the FAA for 
    approval. These materials are not listed in the service bulletins 
    described previously.
    
    [[Page 43968]]
    
        Operators should note that this proposed AD would require 
    replacement of MPET insulation blankets within 4 years after the 
    effective date of this AD. The service bulletins recommend that this 
    action should be accomplished ``at the earliest practical maintenance 
    period.'' Maintenance periods vary between operators and may involve 
    maintenance on an entire airplane or only portions of an airplane. As a 
    result, in developing an appropriate compliance time for this and other 
    proposed AD's, the FAA must adopt a time period that will apply to all 
    operators and airplanes. In establishing a compliance time for this 
    proposed AD, the FAA balanced the urgency associated with addressing 
    the subject unsafe condition against the need to ensure that operators 
    are provided sufficient time to perform a safe replacement of the 
    insulation. Because of the close proximity of the insulation to wiring 
    and other fixtures of various critical airplane systems, it is 
    imperative that operators be given the necessary time to ensure safe 
    replacement. Therefore, the FAA has determined that a 4-year compliance 
    time is appropriate in that it allows the proposed replacement to be 
    accomplished within an interval of time that encompasses normal 
    scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators, thereby, 
    allowing safe replacement. In order to meet the deadline, the FAA 
    expects early planning and anticipates that operators will have to take 
    advantage of every heavy maintenance opportunity.
        Operators also should note that the effectivity listing of the 
    referenced service bulletins differs from the applicability of the 
    proposed AD. The applicability of the proposed AD affects airplanes 
    manufactured with MPET insulation blankets. The effectivity listing of 
    the service bulletins not only includes airplanes manufactured with 
    MPET insulation blankets, but airplanes equipped with other materials 
    that are much more difficult to ignite than MPET (as discussed 
    previously). The FAA has determined that only airplanes manufactured 
    with MPET insulation blankets are subject to the identified unsafe 
    condition. Therefore, paragraph (a) of the proposed AD would require 
    that a determination be made of whether, and at what locations, MPET 
    insulation blankets are installed, and the proposal would require 
    corrective action only with respect to those blankets. The proposal 
    would require that this determination be made in a manner approved by 
    the manager of the LAACO. Blankets that are stamped with ``DMS 2072, 
    Type 2, Class 1, Grade A'' or ``DMS 1996, Type 1'' are constructed of 
    MPET. On some blankets, because of their age or wear, it may not be 
    possible to identify these stamps. Boeing is currently developing 
    instructions for how to determine whether such blankets are constructed 
    of MPET. These instructions, if approved, may be referenced as 
    additional service information in any final rule resulting from this 
    rulemaking. In addition, if additional airplane models manufactured 
    with MPET insulation blankets are identified, the FAA may consider 
    additional rulemaking actions to address the identified unsafe 
    condition.
    
    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 699 U.S.-registered 
    McDonnell Douglas airplanes that have thermal/acoustical insulation 
    blankets covered with a film of MPET. This analysis is included in the 
    Rules Docket No.'s 99-NM-161-AD and 99-NM-162-AD. The FAA has 
    determined that 612 Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and 22 Model MD-90-
    30 series airplanes operated by 16 entities would be affected by this 
    proposed AD. Thirteen of these entities operate N-registered Model DC-
    9-80 series airplanes, three entities operate Model MD-90-30 series 
    airplanes, and two entities operate both Model DC-9-80 series airplanes 
    and Model MD-90-30 series airplanes.
        The Preliminary Cost Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
    Analysis, completed by the FAA and included in this 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 be $17.2 million, labor costs would be 
    $214.1 million, and net lost revenues would be $13.3 million. Total 
    costs would be $244.6 million, or $207.0 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.
        Three of the operators affected by the proposed AD are considered 
    small, that is, they employ fewer than 1,500 people. One of these 
    operators is a private corporation and the FAA is unable to ascertain 
    any financial information about it. The other two entities have 
    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.
    
    [[Page 43969]]
    
        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-161-AD.
        Applicability: Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 
    (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87) series airplanes; Model MD-90-30 series 
    airplanes; and MD-88 airplanes; manufacturer's fuselage numbers 1011 
    through 2241 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 MD-90-25-015, Revision 01, dated November 5, 1997 (for 
    Model MD-90-30 series airplanes); or McDonnell Douglas Service 
    Bulletin MD80-25-355, Revision 01, dated November 5, 1997 (for Model 
    DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model MD-88 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.
    
    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 ACO. 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 August 9, 1999.
    D. L. Riggin,
    Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
    Service.
    [FR Doc. 99-20940 Filed 8-11-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
08/12/1999
Department:
Federal Aviation Administration
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
Document Number:
99-20940
Dates:
Comments must be received by September 27, 1999.
Pages:
43966-43969 (4 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 99-NM-161-AD
RINs:
2120-AA64: Airworthiness Directives
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2120-AA64/airworthiness-directives
PDF File:
99-20940.pdf
CFR: (1)
14 CFR 39.13