19348 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–93–AD; Amendment

39–9193; AD 95–08–04]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–80 Series

Airplanes and Model MD–88 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Model DC–9–80

series airplanes and Model MD–88

airplanes, that requires an inspection to

detect damage, burn marks, or

discoloration at certain electrical plugs

and receptacles of the sidewall lighting

in the passenger cabin, and correction of

discrepancies. This amendment would

also require modification of the

electrical connectors, which, when

accomplished, would terminate the

inspection requirement. This

amendment is prompted by reports of

failures of the electrical connectors in

the sidewall fluorescent lighting, which

resulted in smoke or lighting

interruption in the passenger cabin. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent failures of the

electrical connectors, which could

result in poor socket/pin contact,

excessive heat, electrical arcing, and

subsequently, connector burn through

and smoke in the passenger cabin.

DATES: Effective on May 18, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 18,

1995.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from McDonnell Douglas Corporation,

P.O. Box 1771, Long Beach, California

90801–1771, Attention: Business Unit

Manager, Technical Administrative

Support, Dept. L51, M.C. 2–98. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elvin K. Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712;

telephone (310) 627–5344; fax (310)

627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Model DC–

9–80 series airplanes and Model MD–88

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on September 14, 1994 (59 FR

47103). That action proposed to require

a visual inspection to detect damage,

burn marks, or black or brown

discoloration at certain electrical plugs

and receptacles of the sidewall lighting

in the passenger cabin, and correction of

discrepancies. It also proposed to

require the eventual modification of the

electrical connectors of the sidewall

lighting, which, when accomplished,

would terminate the inspection

requirement.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

One commenter supports the

proposed rule.

One commenter requests that, prior to

issuing a final rule, the FAA investigate

the possibility of problems (i.e.,

overheated connectors, smoke in the

cabin, etc.) resurfacing at another

connector location. The commenter

bases this request upon service history

following accomplishment of the

requirements of AD 91–10–08,

amendment 39–6990 (55 FR 51427,

December 14, 1990). AD 91–10–08

requires modification of the sidewall

lighting system on these same airplanes

to preclude overheated connectors,

smoke in the cabin, etc., which is

similar to the modification described in

the proposal (reference McDonnell

Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 33–99,

dated May 24, 1994). This commenter

points out that, since accomplishing the

modification required by AD 91–10–08,

the same problems (i.e., overheated

connectors, smoke in the cabin, etc.)

have resurfaced at the sidewall lighting

connectors located ‘‘downstream’’ at the

bag bins. Therefore, the commenter

assumes these problems will resurface

either at the new disconnects being

installed in accordance with the

proposal, or at the cabin lighting ballast

connectors.

The FAA has re-evaluated the

modification required by this AD, and

reviewed other relevant data currently

available. The FAA finds no basis to

support the commenter’s suggestion that

this problem could resurface at another

connection location in the airplane.

However, the FAA may consider further

rulemaking action if service history

indicates that the modification required

by this AD produces questionable

results.

Another commenter requests that the

proposed modification be revised to

retrofit a 115 volt electronic ballast

system, instead of removing the existing

230 volt system and installing separate

wire splice-connectors or hard splice at

the 230 VAC (400 Hz) power wires. The

commenter considers this suggested

method to be superior to the proposed

modification for addressing failures of

the electrical connectors in the sidewall

fluorescent lighting. The commenter

states that failures in this system were

fixed previously in a similar manner

(reference AD 91–10–08), but at a

different location. The commenter

suggests that failures in this system

could occur again, but in another

location. The commenter states that the

root cause of this problem is the high

energy level required by the current

magnetic ballasts for the sidewall lights.

The FAA does not concur that the

rule should be revised to include this

suggested action since sufficient data

were not provided. As indicated

previously, the FAA finds no basis at

this time to support any suggestion that

this problem could resurface at another

connection location in the airplane, or

that the proposed modification is

inappropriate. However, the FAA also

recognizes that alternative methods of

compliance with the intent of this rule

may also exist; a provision for the

approval of such methods is contained

in paragraph (c) of the final rule.

One commenter requests that the

proposal be revised to require

improvement of the existing connector,

rather than the proposed action that

would break out the 230 volt wire from

the bundle and make a second

connection to alleviate the problem in

the existing connector. Again, the FAA

does not concur with this suggestion

since sufficient justification and service

data was not presented. The FAA has

determined that the existing current

technology adequately addresses the

identified unsafe condition by

minimizing the possibility of failure of

the electrical connectors. However,

under provisions of paragraph (c) of the

final rule, operators may apply for the

approval of an alternative method of

compliance, such as use of a different

connector, if sufficient data are

presented to the FAA that would justify

such approval.

Two commenters request that the

applicability of the proposal be limited.

One of these commenters requests that

the applicability be limited to ‘‘* * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 19349

Model MD–88 airplanes equipped with

magnetic ballasts.’’ This commenter

suggests that McDonnell Douglas MD–

80 Service Bulletin 33–99, dated May

24, 1994, referenced in the proposal as

the appropriate source of service

information, is not the optimal solution

to the sidewall connector problem. This

commenter, in conjunction with

McDonnell Douglas and Page

Aerospace, has successfully completed

testing of the Page electronic ballast,

which has been approved as an

equivalent level of safety to the

modification described in Service

Bulletin 33–99. The other commenter

requests that the applicability of the

proposal be limited to ‘‘* * * Model

MD–88 airplanes equipped with interbin electrical connectors described (or

similar to those described) in

McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service

Bulletin 33–99, dated May 24, 1994.’’

This commenter suggests that the

effectivity listing of Service Bulletin 33–

99 does not accurately reflect the fleet

configuration.

The FAA does not concur with these

commenters’ request to limit the

applicability of the proposal. The FAA

does not consider it appropriate to

include various provisions in an AD

applicable to a single operator’s unique

configuration of an affected airplane.

Paragraph (c) of this AD provides for the

approval of an alternative method of

compliance to address these types of

unique configurations.

Two commenters question the FAA’s

cost and work hour estimate in the

preamble of the proposal. One

commenter has determined that it

would take approximately 100 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed requirements. This commenter

also states that McDonnell Douglas is

not supplying required parts at no cost

to the operators, as stated in the

proposal, but is charging $1,870 per kit.

Another commenter suggests that 75

work hours per airplane would be more

appropriate than the 50 work hours

stated in the proposal. After considering

the data presented by these commenters,

the FAA finds it necessary to revise its

previous estimates. The FAA concurs

that 75 work hours is closer to the actual

number of labor hours necessary for

accomplishing the required actions. The

FAA also has verified with the

manufacturer that the required parts

will cost operators $1,870 per kit. In

light of this, the economic impact

information, below, has been revised to

indicate the higher number of work

hours and the price of required parts.

Additionally, the FAA has recently

reviewed the figures it has used over the

past several years in calculating the

economic impact of AD activity. In

order to account for various inflationary

costs in the airline industry, the FAA

has determined that it is necessary to

increase the labor rate used in these

calculations from $55 per work hour to

$60 per work hour. The economic

impact information, below, has been

revised to reflect this increase in the

specified hourly labor rate.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been added to this final rule to clarify

this long-standing requirement.

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the change

previously described. The FAA has

determined that this change will neither

increase the economic burden on any

operator nor increase the scope of the

AD.

There are approximately 907

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–80

series airplanes and Model MD–88

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

490 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 75 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

will cost approximately $1,870 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $3,121,300,

or $6,370 per airplane.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

95–08–04 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment

39–9193. Docket 94–NM–93–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9–81 (MD–81),

DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and

DC–9–87 (MD–87) series airplanes; and

Model MD–88 airplanes; as listed in

McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin

33–99, dated May 24, 1994; 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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (c) to request approval
19350 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent poor socket/pin contact,

excessive heat, electrical arcing, and

subsequently, connector burn through and

smoke in the passenger cabin, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, perform a visual inspection

to detect damage, burn marks, or black or

brown discoloration caused by electrical

arcing at electrical plugs, having part number

(P/N) MS3126F–15P, and receptacles, having

P/N MS3124E–15S, of the sidewall lighting

in the passenger cabin, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin

33–99, dated May 24, 1994.

(1) If no discrepancies are found, no further

action is required by this paragraph.

(2) If any discrepancy is found, prior to

further flight, replace the damaged

connectors, pins, sockets, or wire with new

parts, in accordance with the service bulletin.

(b) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, modify the electrical

connectors of the sidewall lighting in the

passenger cabin in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 33–99,

dated May 24, 1994. Accomplishment of this

modification constitutes terminating action

for the requirements 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.

(e) The inspection, replacement, and

modification shall be done in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service

Bulletin 33–99, dated May 24, 1994. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, P.O. Box

1771, Long Beach, California 90801–1771,

Attention: Business Unit Manager, Technical

Administrative Support, Dept. L51, M.C. 2–

98. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California;

or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

May 18, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 5,

1995.

S. R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–8829 Filed 4–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–220–AD; Amendment

39–9195; AD 95–08–06]

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Corporate Jets Models DH/BH/HS/BAe

125–1A to –700A Series Airplanes; BAe

125–800A Airplanes; and Hawker 800

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Raytheon

Corporate Jets Models DH/BH/HS/BAe

125–1A to –700A series, BAe 125–800A,

and Hawker 800 series airplanes, that

requires replacement of the existing

standby static inverter with an inverter

that incorporates a circuit board

assembly sealed with a conformal

coating. This amendment is prompted

by reports of failure of the standby static

inverter caused by electrical shorting

from moisture condensing on the

printed circuit boards (PCB), due to

aberrations in the PCB conformal

coating. The actions specified by this

AD are intended to prevent malfunction

of the standby static inverter due to

exposure to moisture caused by

inadequate insulation coating of the

circuit board assembly. Malfunction or

failure of the standby static inverter,

when its use is necessary, could result

in the loss of electric power for certain

equipment critical to safety of flight.

DATES: Effective May 18, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 18,

1995.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Raytheon Corporate Jets, Inc., 3

Bishops Square, St. Albans Road West,

Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL109NE,

United Kingdom. This information may

be examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2148; fax (206) 227–1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Raytheon

Corporate Jets Models DH/BH/HS/BAe

125–1A to –700A series airplanes, BAe

125–800A airplanes, and Hawker 800

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on January 18, 1995 (60 FR

3592). That action proposed to require

replacement of the existing standby

static inverters with a printed circuit

board assembly that is properly sealed

with a conformal coating.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were submitted in response

to the proposal or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

For clarification purposes, the FAA

has revised the references to the DH/

BH/HS/BAe 125 models throughout this

rule to add the model designator ‘‘A’’ to

the series numbers. Models DH/BH/HS/

BAe 125–1A through –700A are the

models that are type certificated for

operation in the United States and,

accordingly, affected by this AD action.

• After careful review of the available

data, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the clarifying

change previously described. The FAA

has determined that this change will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

The FAA estimates that 450 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 4

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$410 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$292,500, or $650 per airplane.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of