[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20013-20016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9341]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94-NM-91-AD; Amendment 39-9200; AD 95-08-11]


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes 
Equipped With Off-Wing Escape Slides

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes, that requires 
replacement of the currently installed door opening actuators of the 
emergency off-wing escape system with new, improved actuators. This 
amendment is prompted by reports indicating that the requirements of a 
previously issued AD do not adequately preclude leakage from these 
actuators. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent 
failure of the escape slide to deploy due to failure of the door 
opening/snubbing actuator, which could delay and possibly jeopardize 
successful emergency evacuation of an airplane.

DATES: Effective May 24, 1995.
    The incorporation by reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-
0216, dated February 3, 1994, as listed in regulations, is approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register as of May 24, 1995.
    The incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed 
in the regulations was approved previously by the Director of the 
Federal Register as of November 25, 1992 (57 FR 47987, October 21, 
1992).

ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be 
obtained from OEA Aerospace, Inc., P.O. Box KK, Highway 12, Explosive 
Technology Road, Fairfield, California 94533-0659; and Boeing 
Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207. 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: Jayson Claar, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle 
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-2784; fax (206) 227-1181.

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 Boeing Model 767 series 
airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 1994 (59 
FR 44672). That action proposed to require replacement of the currently 
installed door opening actuators of the emergency off-wing escape 
system on Model 767 series airplanes with new, improved actuators.
    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
the comments received.

Response to Comments

    One commenter supports the proposed rule.
    One commenter requests that the name and address for obtaining 
service information from OEA Aerospace, Inc., be corrected. The FAA 
concurs. Since the issuance of the proposal, OEA has changed its name 
from OEA, Inc., to [[Page 20014]] OEA Aerospace, Inc., and has 
relocated from Colorado to California. Therefore, the ADDRESSES section 
and paragraph (g) of the final rule have been revised accordingly.
    One commenter requests that all references in the proposal to the 
escape system for Model 747 series airplanes be revised to ``the door 
opening thrusters of the two-piece off-wing escape ramp and slide 
system.'' The commenter notes that this change in nomenclature would 
clearly differentiate the escape system installed on Model 747 series 
airplanes from those installed on Model 767 series airplanes. The FAA 
does not concur. Since this rule is applicable only to Model 767 series 
airplanes, the FAA finds that the broad, generic references to the 
escape systems cannot and has not created confusion for the operators. 
Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary.
    One commenter requests that the description of the unsafe condition 
be edited to specify that the unsafe condition would exist during 
certain flight configurations or during certain failure modes. The 
commenter states that the description should include the fact that only 
one door opening/snubbing actuator is necessary to open the door when 
the airplane is at a level altitude, and that two door opening/snubbing 
actuators are necessary to open the slide compartment door on the 
upward facing side when the airplane is at an adverse roll. The FAA 
does not concur that a revision to the description is necessary. 
According to Sec. 39.1 (``Airworthiness Directives'') of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.1), the issuance of an AD is based on 
the finding that an unsafe condition exists or is likely to develop in 
aircraft of a particular type design. While the FAA's intent is to 
describe as specifically as possible the addressed unsafe condition 
that has prompted an AD, the FAA considers that it would be virtually 
impossible to list every potential flight configuration or failure mode 
for when the unsafe condition may exist or occur. To do so would add 
little value, and would make for an especially long, complex, and 
cumbersome regulation.
    Two commenters request that the proposed compliance time of 2 years 
to accomplish the replacement of door opening actuators with new, 
improved actuators be extended to 4 years. One of the commenters 
asserts that safety of the fleet would be ensured in the interim with 
the repetitive inspections (weighing program) currently required by AD 
92-16-17, amendment 39-8327 (57 FR 47987, October 21, 1992), which are 
restated in proposed paragraph (a). The other commenter notes that the 
suggested 4-year compliance time would allow operators to amortize 
these costs over a longer period of time, which would significantly 
minimize the economic impact of having to purchase and install the new 
actuators. Two other commenters point to a potential parts availability 
problem due to the large number of airplanes that will be affected by 
the proposed rule.
    The FAA does not concur with these commenters' request. In 
developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA 
considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing 
the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's recommendation as 
to an appropriate compliance time, the availability of required parts, 
and the practical aspect of replacing the actuators within a maximum 
interval of time allowable for all affected airplanes to continue to 
operate without compromising safety. The FAA has been advised that 
replacement actuators are readily available; therefore, obtaining them 
within the proposed compliance time should not pose a problem for any 
affected operator. Further, the FAA took into account the 2-year 
compliance time recommended by the manufacturer, as well as the number 
of days required for the rulemaking process; in consideration of these 
factors, the FAA finds that 2 years after the effective date of this 
final rule is consistent with the time recommended by the manufacturer. 
However, under the provisions of paragraph (e) of the final rule, the 
FAA may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data 
are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an 
acceptable level of safety.
    Two commenters request that the proposed requirement of paragraph 
(c) to replace the actuators be optional rather than mandatory. These 
commenters state that safety of the fleet could be ensured in the 
interim with the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (a) of 
the proposal. The FAA does not concur. Paragraph (a) merely restates 
the requirements of AD 92-16-17, which proved to be unreliable in 
accurately determining the fluid level in the actuators. Therefore, the 
FAA has determined that these fluid-filled actuators must be replaced 
with new, improved actuators that are gas-filled.
    One commenter requests that proposed paragraph (d) be revised to 
correct a typographical error in the reference to the Boeing part 
number. (The OEA part number was correctly referenced in the proposal. 
The Boeing part number was provided only for purposes of cross-
referencing the OEA part number. It is only this cross-referenced 
Boeing part number that contained a typographical error.) The FAA 
concurs. Paragraph (d) of the final rule has been revised accordingly 
to correct this typographical error.
    One commenter requests that the reference to airplanes in proposed 
paragraph (d) be revised to specify that the old oil-filled actuators 
may not be installed on Model 767 series airplanes equipped with off-
wing emergency escape systems. The FAA does not concur. Since the rule 
is applicable to Boeing Model 767 series airplanes equipped with off-
wing escape slides, the reference to airplanes clearly refers to Boeing 
Model 767 series airplanes equipped with off-wing escape slides. 
Repeating the applicability statement for this paragraph of the final 
rule would only be redundant and would not add to the clarity of the 
rule. Conversely, repeating the applicability for this paragraph may 
introduce confusion by leading the reader to deduce that the remaining 
paragraphs are applicable to other models or configurations.
    Two commenters request that the cost of the proposed replacement 
action be partially borne by Boeing and partially by OEA. These 
commenters point to the faulty design of the OEA actuators that caused 
the initial problem (oil leakage from the actuators). Therefore, these 
commenters contend that OEA should assume partial financial 
responsibility for its faulty design, and that Boeing should assume 
partial financial responsibility for this problem since it chose to use 
these actuators on its airplanes.
    The FAA cannot concur with this request. According to Sec. 39.1 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.1), the issuance of an AD 
is based on the finding that an unsafe condition exists or is likely to 
develop in aircraft of a particular type design. The FAA has the 
authority to issue an AD when it is found that an unsafe condition is 
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. 
In accordance with Sec. 39.3 (14 CFR 39.3), operators whose products 
are subject to an AD must operate those products in accordance with the 
requirements of that AD. While the subject of this AD relates to a 
problem with the escape slides, this AD eliminates the unsafe condition 
by requiring replacement of the door opening actuators with new, 
improved actuators. The AD is the appropriate vehicle for mandating 
such actions. The FAA's authority in part 39 does not extend to whether 
or how those costs are negotiated. However, operators may negotiate the 
costs [[Page 20015]] associated with accomplishing those actions with 
manufacturer.

Other Changes to the Final Rule

    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 changes previously 
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither 
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of 
the AD.

Economic Impact

    There are approximately 460 Model 767 series airplanes of the 
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 173 
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
    The inspections and modification currently required by AD 92-16-17, 
and retained in this AD, take approximately 12 work hours per airplane 
to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required 
parts will cost approximately $510 per airplane. Based on these 
figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated 
to be $212,790, or $1,230 per airplane.
    The replacement will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane 
at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost 
approximately $6,400 per airplane. Based on these figures, the total 
cost impact of the replacement on U.S. operators is estimated to be 
$1,127,960, or $6,520 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.
    A full cost-benefit analysis has not been accomplished for this 
proposed AD. As a matter of law, in order to be airworthy, an aircraft 
must conform to its type design and be in a condition for safe 
operation. The type design is approved only after the FAA makes a 
determination that it complies with all applicable airworthiness 
requirements. In adopting and maintaining those requirements, the FAA 
has already made the determination that they establish a level of 
safety that is cost-beneficial. When the FAA, as in this AD action, 
makes a finding of an unsafe condition, this means that this cost-
beneficial level of safety is no longer being achieved and that the 
required actions are necessary to restore that level of safety. Because 
this level of safety has already been determined to be cost-beneficial, 
a full cost-benefit analysis for this AD action would be redundant and 
unnecessary.

Regulatory Impact

    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.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

95-08-11  Boeing: Amendment 39-9200. Docket 94-NM-91-AD.

    Applicability: Model 767 series airplanes equipped with off-wing 
escape slides, 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 (e) to request approval 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 failure of the escape slide to deploy, which could 
delay and possibly jeopardize successful emergency evacuation of an 
airplane, accomplish the following:
    (a) Within 18 months after November 25, 1992 (the effective date 
of AD 92-16-17, amendment 39-8327), inspect the off-wing escape 
slide door opening/snubbing actuators in accordance with OEA Service 
Bulletin 3092100-25-002, dated July 26, 1991. Repeat this inspection 
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20 months until the 
replacement required by paragraph (c) of this AD is accomplished. 
For operators that have previously accomplished this inspection in 
accordance with AD 92-16-17: This paragraph requires that the next 
scheduled inspection be performed within 20 months after the last 
inspection performed in [[Page 20016]] accordance with paragraph 
(b)(1) of AD 92-16-17.
    (b) Within 18 months after November 25, 1992 (the effective date 
of AD 92-16-17, amendment 39-8327), inspect and modify the escape 
slide compartment door latching mechanism in accordance with Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0174, dated August 15, 1991. 
Accomplishment of the actions required by this paragraph prior to 
the effective date of this AD terminates the actions required by 
paragraph (b)(2) of AD 92-16-17.
    (c) Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, replace 
the currently installed door opening actuator of the emergency off-
wing escape system with a new, improved actuator, in accordance with 
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0216, dated February 3, 1994. 
Accomplishment of this replacement terminates the repetitive 
inspection requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
    (d) As of 2 years after the effective date of this AD, only door 
opening actuators of the emergency off-wing escape system having OEA 
part number 5262100 (Boeing part number S416T208-12) shall be 
installed on any airplane.
    (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, Seattle 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, Seattle ACO.

    Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Seattle ACO.

    (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.
    (g) The replacement shall be done in accordance with Boeing 
Service Bulletin 767-25-0216, dated February 3, 1994. This 
incorporation by reference is approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 
51. The inspections and modification shall be done in accordance 
with OEA Service Bulletin 3092100-25-002, dated July 26, 1991, and 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0174, dated August 15, 1991; as 
applicable. The incorporation by reference of these documents was 
approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of November 25, 
1992 (57 FR 47987, October 21, 1992). Copies may be obtained from 
OEA Aerospace, Inc., P.O. Box KK, Highway 12, Explosive Technology 
Road, Fairfield, California 94533-0659; and Boeing Commercial 
Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 
Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 
Washington, DC.
    (h) This amendment becomes effective on May 24, 1995.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10, 1995.
S.R. Miller,
 Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-9341 Filed 4-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U