[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