[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8374-8377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4109]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-163-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Transport Category Airplanes Equipped
With Day-Ray Products, Inc., Fluorescent Light Ballasts
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 any transport
[[Page 8375]]
category airplane that is equipped with certain Day-Ray fluorescent
light ballasts installed in the upper and/or lower cabin sidewall, that
would have required a visual inspection to determine the type of
fluorescent light ballasts installed in the cabin sidewall, and either
the replacement of suspect ballasts or the installation of a protective
cover over the ballast. That proposal was prompted by reports of smoke,
fumes, and/or electrical fire emitting from the baggage bin of the aft
passenger compartment due to the failure of the fluorescent light
ballasts. This new action revises the proposed rule by removing the
option to install a protective cover over the ballast. The actions
specified by this new proposed AD are intended to prevent the potential
for a fire in the passenger compartment resulting from failure of the
fluorescent light ballast of the cabin sidewall.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 16, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-163-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 The Boeing Company, Douglas Products 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 FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Kirk Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (562) 627-5345; 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 96-NM-163-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. 96-NM-163-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 any
transport category airplane that is equipped with certain Day-Ray
fluorescent light ballasts installed in the upper and/or lower cabin
sidewall, was published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in
the Federal Register on October 7, 1996 (61 FR 52394). That NPRM would
have required a visual inspection to determine the type of fluorescent
light ballasts installed in the cabin sidewall, and either the
replacement of suspect ballasts or the installation of a protective
cover over the ballast. That NPRM was prompted by reports of smoke,
fumes, and/or electrical fire emitting from the baggage bin of the aft
passenger compartment due to the failure of the fluorescent light
ballasts. That condition, if not corrected, could result in the
potential for a fire in the passenger compartment resulting from
failure of the fluorescent light ballast of the cabin sidewall.
Actions Since Issuance of Previous Proposal
Since the issuance of that NPRM, the FAA has received a report of
smoke and fire emitting from the overhead ceiling panel in the
passenger cabin on a McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 series airplane.
Investigation revealed that a fluorescent light ballast failed and
produced electrical arcing, which caused fire damage to the upper
insulation blanket and outboard ceiling panel at station 1022. The
fluorescent light ballast had been modified, as required by AD 96-11-
13, amendment 39-9638 (61 FR 27251, May 31, 1996).
The modification specified in AD 96-11-13 includes installation of
a protective aluminum cover that was designed to prevent the interior
of the airplane from exposure to flame. However, the aluminum cover of
the fluorescent light ballast involved in the incident had two holes
burnt through it. The FAA has determined that installation of a
protective cover over the light ballast [as required by paragraph
(a)(2) of the originally proposed NPRM] does not adequately preclude
smoke/fire in the passenger compartment. Therefore, the FAA has removed
that requirement [paragraph (a)(2) of the originally proposed NPRM]
from this supplemental NPRM. The FAA also has removed reference to the
protective cover from paragraph (b) of this supplemental NPRM.
Comments Received
Due consideration has been given to the comments received in
response to the NPRM.
Request To Revise Descriptive Language
One commenter requests that the fourth sentence of the first
paragraph of the Discussion section of the NPRM be revised to read as
follows: ``Investigation revealed that the design of certain
fluorescent light ballast assemblies, as installed on the incident
airplanes, allows moisture condensation to enter into the ballast case
during altitude changes. The effects of such moisture subsequently
contaminate the printed circuit card, which can result in a short
circuit. This failure mode in the subject Day-Ray Products ballasts may
result in the rupture of the ballast phenolic case and emit fire.'' The
commenter states that immersion testing conducted by McDonnell Douglas
on ballast designs of different manufacturers (in addition to Day-Ray
Products) has demonstrated that a fluorescent light ballast, when
subject to ingestion of moisture as a result of
[[Page 8376]]
changes in altitude, is susceptible to failure. The critical issue is
whether the ballast case design will contain the failure and allow for
a fail-safe mode.
The commenter also requests that the first sentence of the second
paragraph of the Discussion section of the NPRM be deleted, and that
the phrase ``suspect light ballasts'' in the beginning of the second
sentence be changed to ``subject light ballasts.'' The commenter states
that the subject ballasts are the same as those addressed in AD 96-11-
13.
In addition, the commenter requests that the phrase ``installing
improved ballasts'' be removed from the first sentence of the first
paragraph of the Explanation of Relevant Service Information section of
the NPRM, and that the phrase ``or installing protective covers that
are manufactured by Day-Ray Products'' be added to the end of that
sentence.
Further, the commenter requests that the phrase ``any Day-Ray
Products light ballast'' be revised to ``the subject light ballast'' in
the first sentence in paragraph one of the Explanation of Requirements
of Proposed Rule section of the preamble of the NPRM.
The FAA acknowledges that the commenter's suggested wording is more
accurate. However, since the Discussion, Explanation of Relevant
Service Information, and Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
sections are not restated in this supplemental NPRM, no change to the
supplemental NPRM is necessary.
Request To Revise Cost Estimate
One commenter notes that the work hours for the proposed inspection
and replacement presented in the Cost Impact section of the preamble of
the NPRM is too low. The commenter states that the proposed inspection
will require 25 work hours per airplane, and that the replacement will
require 50 work hours per airplane. The FAA concurs that the number of
work hours required is higher than previously approximated; the
economic impact information, below, has been revised to specify the
higher amount.
Request To Delete Installation of Protective Cover Requirement
One commenter requests that the FAA remove the option of installing
a protective cover over the light ballast, as required by paragraph
(a)(2) of the originally proposed NPRM. The commenter contends that the
protective cover will cause the ballast to overheat and shorten life
expectancy of the ballast. The FAA concurs. As discussed previously,
the FAA has removed paragraph (a)(2) of the originally proposed NPRM
from this supplemental NPRM.
Conclusion
Since these changes expand 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.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 2,500 transport category airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,800
airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
To accomplish the proposed inspection, it would take approximately
25 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $60 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection
proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,500 per
airplane.
To replace the light ballasts would require approximately 50 work
hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Required parts would average approximately $8,550 per airplane, which
represents a cost of $150 per ballast and an average of 57 ballasts per
airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement
proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $11,550 per
airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements
of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions
in the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
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.
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 adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Transport Category Airplanes: Docket 96-NM-163-AD.
Applicability: Airplanes equipped with Day-Ray Products, Inc.,
cabin sidewall fluorescent light ballasts having part numbers listed
in Table 1 of this AD; including, but not limited to, McDonnell
Douglas Model DC-9, DC-9-80, MD-88, DC-10, and C-9 (military) series
airplanes, and Boeing Model 707, 727, and 737 series airplanes;
certificated in any category.
Table 1.--Fluorescent Light Ballasts Subject to This AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Part No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Ray.......................... 69-10, 69-10-1, 69-68, 69-68-1, 69-
69, 69-69-1, 70-94, 70-94-1, 83-12,
83-12-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (c) 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.
[[Page 8377]]
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent the potential for a fire in the passenger compartment
resulting from failure of the fluorescent light ballast of the cabin
sidewall, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
perform a one-time visual inspection to determine the type of
fluorescent light ballasts installed in the upper and lower cabin
sidewall. If any ballast installed has a part number that is listed
in Table 1 of this AD, prior to further flight, remove the Day-Ray
light ballast and replace it with a light ballast manufactured by
Bruce Industries, in accordance with the applicable service
bulletin(s) listed in Table 2 of this AD.
Table 2.--Service Bulletins Containing Instructions for Accomplishing
the Requirements of This AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service bulletin No. and date Affected airplanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDonnell Douglas, DC-9 Model DC-9-30, -40, and -50 series
Service Bulletin DC9-33-103, airplanes listed in effectivity of
May 30, 1996. service bulletin.
McDonnell Douglas, MD-80 Model DC-9-80 series and Model MD-88
Service Bulletin MD80-33A107, airplanes listed in effectivity of
Revision R01, August 30, 1996. service bulletin.
McDonnell Douglas, DC-10 Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, and -40 series
Service Bulletin DC10-33-073, and KC-10A airplanes listed in
June 18, 1996. effectivity of service bulletin.
Heath Tecna, Alert Service McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 (MD-80)
Bulletin ESCI-33-A2, Revision series airplanes retrofitted with Heath
1, July 24, 1996. Tecna Contemporary Deep Rack Interior
(CDRI) and Heath Tecna Extended Special
Concept Interior (ESCI or ESCI III).
Heath Tecna, Alert Service McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 series
Bulletin MarkI-33-A2, airplanes retrofitted with Heath Tecna
Revision 1, July 24, 1996. Mark I interior.
Heath Tecna, Alert Service Boeing Model 707 series airplanes
Bulletin MarkI-33-A3, retrofitted with the Heath Tecna Mark I
Revision 1, July 24, 1996. interior.
Heath Tecna, Alert Service Boeing Model 727 series airplanes
Bulletin MarkI-33-A4, retrofitted with the Heath Tecna Mark I
Revision 1, July 24, 1996. interior.
Heath Tecna, Alert Service Boeing Model 737 series airplanes
Bulletin MarkI-33-A5, retrofitted with the Heath Tecna Mark I
Revision 1, July 24, 1996. interior.
Heath Tecna, Service Bulletin Boeing Model 727 series airplanes
Spmk-33-A1, Revision 1, July retrofitted with the Heath Tecna
24, 1996. Spacemaker II or Spacemaker IIa
interior.
Heath Tecna, Service Bulletin Boeing Model 737 series airplanes
Spmk-33-A2, Revision 1, July retrofitted with the Heath Tecna
24, 1996. Spacemaker II or Spacemaker IIa
interior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
in the upper or lower cabin sidewall of any airplane a Day-Ray
fluorescent light ballast having a part number listed in Table 1 of
this AD.
(c) 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 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) 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 February 11, 1998.
Gilbert L. Thompson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-4109 Filed 2-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
