Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, 34233-34237 [E8-13579]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34233
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—CREDIT SERVICE BULLETINS—Continued
Airbus service bulletin
Revision level
Date
A340–55–4017 ..........
1 ...........................................................
February 12, 1997 ...............................
FAA AD Differences
Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/
or service information as follows: No
differences.
Other FAA AD Provisions
(g) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, ANM–116,
International Branch, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Tim Backman,
Aerospace Engineer, ANM–116, International
Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Ave., SW, Renton, Washington,
98057–3356, telephone (425) 227–2797; fax
(425) 227–1149. Before using any approved
AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your
local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
Corresponding paragraphs
(f)(4)(i) and (f)(4)(ii) of this AD.
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
Related Information
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness
Directive 2007–0278, dated November 5,
2007 [Corrected: November 8, 2007], and the
service bulletins in Table 3 of this AD, for
related information.
TABLE 3.—RELATED SERVICE BULLETINS
Airbus service bulletin
Revision level
A330–28–3082, including Appendix 01 .......................................................................................................
A330–28–3092, excluding Appendix 01 ......................................................................................................
A330–28–3101 .............................................................................................................................................
A330–55–3016 .............................................................................................................................................
A340–28–4073 .............................................................................................................................................
A340–28–4078 .............................................................................................................................................
A340–28–4097, including Appendix 01 .......................................................................................................
A340–28–4107, excluding Appendix 01 ......................................................................................................
A340–28–4118 .............................................................................................................................................
A340–55–4017 .............................................................................................................................................
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 10,
2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–13568 Filed 6–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2001–NM–237–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 767–200 and –300 Series
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking; reopening of
comment period.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document revises an
earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to certain Boeing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:08 Jun 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
Model 767–200 and –300 series
airplanes. That proposed rule would
have required replacing certain doormounted escape slides and slide-raft
assemblies with new slide-raft
assemblies; replacing certain escape
system latches with new latches; and
modifying or replacing certain
counterbalance assemblies with new
counterbalance assemblies; as
applicable. This new action revises the
proposed rule by extending the
compliance time, adding requirements
to install a longer firing cable and test
the valve of the inflation trigger system
of the slide-raft, and, for certain
airplanes, adding procedures to adjust
the door counter balance systems. The
actions specified by this new proposed
AD are intended to prevent the escape
slides and slide-rafts of the forward and
mid-cabin entry and service doors from
being too steep for evacuation in the
event that the airplane rotates onto the
aft fuselage into the extreme tip-back
condition. In the extreme tip-back
condition, the forward and mid-cabin
exits could result in steeper sliding
angles, which could cause injury to
passengers and crewmembers during an
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
04
01
01
02
02
01
03
01
02
02
Date
August 3, 2007.
December 14, 2005.
October 11, 2006.
March 16, 2007.
March 8, 2007.
January 25, 2007.
July 3, 2007.
December 14, 2005.
July 10, 2007.
March 16, 2007.
emergency evacuation. This action is
intended to address the identified
unsafe condition.
DATES: Comments must be received by
July 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in
triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–
237–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057–3356.
Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Comments may be submitted
via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments
may also be sent via the Internet using
the following address: 9-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent
via fax or the Internet must contain
‘‘Docket No. 2001–NM–237–AD’’ in the
subject line and need not be submitted
in triplicate. Comments sent via the
Internet as attached electronic files must
be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or
2000 or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in
the proposed rule may be obtained from
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
34234
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules
3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207.
This information may be examined at
the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keith Ladderud, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental
Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 917–6435; fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
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 action may be changed in light
of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following
format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue.
For example, discuss a request to
change the compliance time and a
request to change the service bulletin
reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific
change to the proposed AD is being
requested.
• Include justification (e.g., reasons or
data) for each request.
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 action
must submit a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to
Docket Number 2001–NM–237–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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:08 Jun 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.
2001–NM–237–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356.
Discussion
A proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
part 39) to add an airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to certain
Boeing Model 767–200 and –300 series
airplanes, was published as a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register on November 25, 2003
(68 FR 66026). That NPRM would have
required replacing certain doormounted escape slides and slide-raft
assemblies with new slide-raft
assemblies; replacing certain escape
system latches with new latches; and
modifying or replacing certain
counterbalance assemblies with new
counterbalance assemblies; as
applicable. That NPRM was prompted
by reports indicating that the original
analysis of the highest sill heights for
the forward and mid-cabin entry and
service doors is no longer valid on
certain Boeing Model 737–200 and –300
series airplanes. That condition, if not
corrected, could result in injury to
passengers and crewmembers during an
emergency evacuation.
Actions Since Issuance of Previous
Proposal
Since the issuance of that NPRM, we
have received three reports of
uncommanded deployments of the
door-mounted escape slide inside the
passenger cabin. The uncommanded
inflation caused damage to a lavatory,
ceiling panels, and doors. It has been
determined that variability in packing
the slide can result in excessive tension
on the firing cable. Therefore, certain
affected airplanes must have a longer
firing cable installed, and the inflation
trigger system must be tested. To
accommodate this change, Boeing has
issued the following service bulletins:
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–
25A0266, Revision 2, dated September
27, 2007. We referred to Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767–25–0266, dated
September 14, 2000, as the appropriate
source of service information for
accomplishing the required actions in
the original NPRM. In addition to the
existing actions, Revision 2 of the
service bulletin specifies procedures to
adjust the door counterbalance systems
for Group 1 and 2 airplanes (procedures
were added in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767–25A0266, Revision 1,
dated December 4, 2006). Revision 2 of
the service bulletin also specifies that
more work is necessary on airplanes
changed in accordance with the
procedures specified in the original
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
release of the service bulletin. Revision
2 also includes a reference to the
procedures in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767–25A0395, Revision 1, adds
instructions for adjusting the door
counterbalance system for certain
airplanes, and corrects certain part
numbers (P/Ns), among other changes.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–
25A0395, Revision 1, dated January 25,
2007. This service bulletin describes
procedures for determining if a slide-raft
with supplier P/N 5A3294–1, 5A3294–
2, 5A3295–1, or 5A3295–3 (Boeing P/N
S416T214–3, S416T214–4, S416T214–2,
and S416T214–1, respectively), is
installed. If those P/Ns are not installed,
the service bulletin specifies that no
further action is necessary. If any of
those P/Ns are installed, the service
bulletin provides procedures for
lengthening the firing cable and testing
the valve of the inflation trigger system
of the escape slide-raft.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–
25A0395, Revision 1, refers to Goodrich
Service Bulletin 5A3294/5A3295–25–
362, dated July 25, 2006, as an
additional source of service information
for lengthening the firing cable and
testing the valve of the inflation trigger
system of the escape slide-raft.
Comments
Due consideration has been given to
the comments received in response to
the original NPRM:
Support for the Original NPRM
Airline Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) concurs with the
corrective actions in the original NPRM.
Support for Replacement Parts
Goodrich Aircraft Interior Products
states that it is prepared to support the
need for replacement parts within the
compliance time specified in the
original NPRM.
Request To Clarify the Unsafe
Condition
Boeing requests a change to the
wording of the unsafe condition in the
Summary and Discussion sections of the
NPRM. Boeing states that the existing
slide-rafts are not ‘‘too short to reach the
ground’’ as stated in the NPRM, but that
the extreme tip-back condition results in
a steeper sliding angle than the original
design intent. Boeing requests that we
instead specify, among other suggested
wording, that ‘‘In the extreme tip-back
condition, the forward and mid-cabin
exits on one side of the airplane could
result in steeper sliding angles. * * *’’
We partially agree with the requested
changes. We disagree with using the
words ‘‘one side of the airplane’’
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules
because they imply that passengers and
crewmembers could safely evacuate
from the side of the airplane with the
lower sliding angles. Damage associated
with a landing gear failure on the lower
side of the airplane could cause
passengers and crewmembers to
perceive that only the side of the
airplane with the sliding angle that is
‘‘too steep for evacuation’’ would be
available for emergency evacuation. In
addition, this type of failure could
render the exits on the lower, damaged
side to be unusable and/or unsafe. We
agree with the other requested changes
because they clarify the unsafe
condition. We have revised the
Summary section accordingly. However,
we have not revised the Discussion
section since that section of the
preamble does not reappear in the same
form in the supplemental NPRM.
Instead, the Discussion section in the
supplemental NPRM restates the
wording of the original NPRM for
reference.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Requests To Revise Cost Impact Section
Goodrich Aircraft Interior Products,
All Nippon Airways (ANA), Boeing, and
Air Transport Association (ATA), on
behalf of its member American Airlines,
all request that we revise the Cost
Impact section of the NPRM. All
commenters state that the costs shown
in the NPRM are incomplete and should
be revised.
We agree with the commenters. The
Cost Impact section of the NPRM did
not include the cost of the slide-rafts.
We have revised the Cost Impact section
of the supplemental NPRM to include
those costs.
Requests To Extend Compliance Time
Boeing, ANA, and Air New Zealand
request that we extend the compliance
time. The commenters suggest
extending the compliance time from the
proposed 5 years to between 8 and 15
years. The commenters make their
requests to extend the compliance time
for numerous reasons, including:
• The proposed rule has a high
economic impact on the operators, with
small benefit to safety. Data are missing
from the Cost Impact section of the
proposed rule.
• The established replacement
program (useful service life) of the lifelimited slides and slide rafts is 15 years.
• There have been no reports of
airplanes tipping back beyond the
certified sill height.
• The exit slides and slide-rafts on
the opposite side of the airplane would
remain within the certified sill heights
and corresponding sliding angles due to
the roll of the airplane associated with
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:08 Jun 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
the extreme tip-back condition. The
existing slides are not too short to reach
the ground (as stated in the proposed
rule).
• The slide and slide-raft
manufacturer will likely have trouble
producing the number of slides and
slide-raft units necessary to modify
every affected airplane in the worldwide
fleet.
• We need to take into consideration
low-cycle, high-hour operations.
We partially agree with the
commenters’ statements. Given the
combination of an updated Cost Impact
estimate for this supplemental NPRM
(see ‘‘Request To Revise Cost Impact
Section’’ above), and the risk of
exposure to the situation addressed in
this supplemental NPRM, we
acknowledge that there is merit in
revising the compliance time. It is our
intent to allow operators to offset,
partially, the costs associated with the
supplemental NPRM by integrating the
compliance time somewhat with the
costs associated with normal slide
replacement. Therefore, we have
changed paragraph (a) of this
supplemental NPRM to propose a
compliance time of within 72 months
after the effective date of the AD.
We have also considered the other
reasons commenters gave for extending
the compliance time, as discussed
below.
• We have determined that an
interval based on the ‘‘useful service
life’’ of the slides, which is 15 years,
would not address the unsafe condition
in a timely manner.
• We do not agree that having no
reported incidents of airplanes tipping
back beyond the certified sill heights is
sufficient justification for extending the
proposed compliance time. While the
specific condition addressed in this
supplemental NPRM has not been
encountered in service, we have
received reports of similar, but less
severe, accidents and incidents that
could have been more severe given
slightly different conditions.
• We do not agree that the exit slides
and slide-rafts on the opposite side of
the airplane would remain within the
certified sill heights and provide a
means of safe exit. The gear failure may
be associated with or may have caused
other damage that would not only raise
the exit heights on the far side of the
airplane, but also could render the exits
on the near side of the airplane unsafe
and/or unusable.
• The slide manufacturer has
indicated that it is prepared to support
operators with sufficient supplies of
replacement slides and slide-rafts for
the worldwide fleet within the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34235
compliance time specified in this
supplemental NPRM.
Therefore, although we have extended
the compliance time for other reasons,
we do not agree that these comments
give adequate justification for extending
the compliance time any further.
Requests To Withdraw Proposed Rule
ANA, and ATA on behalf of its
member American Airlines, suggest that
we withdraw the proposed rule because
it represents a significant cost and
addresses a scenario that is a remote
possibility and, therefore, should not be
considered an unsafe condition.
American Airlines explains that, with
one main landing gear out, the engine
would remain attached at ‘‘very low
speeds’’ that are associated with taxiing,
and would not shear off due to the
weight of the airplane, as explained in
the ‘‘Discussion’’ section of the
proposed rule. American Airlines also
explains that the extreme tip-back
condition would occur only at extreme
aft center-of-gravity (CG) conditions and
that there is a low probability of this
scenario resulting in a ‘‘time limited’’
(90-second) evacuation. American
Airlines further states that there is a low
probability of encountering the extreme
tip-back position, based on no such
occurrences having been encountered
over the course of the fleet’s high
number of flight cycles.
We do not agree with the commenters’
requests to withdraw the original
NPRM. We consider this to be an unsafe
condition for the reasons already given
in the original NPRM and for the
following reasons.
While we have received information
from the airplane manufacturer that
indicates that engines could not
necessarily shear off the airplane at
speeds experienced during taxi, takeoff,
landing, or even under some emergency
landing situations, further information
from the manufacturer indicates that the
CG associated with this condition is
well within the current accepted
operating parameters and is not an
extreme condition. However, operators
may consider CG restrictions and may
make proposals for alternative methods
of compliance (AMOC) consideration
under the provisions of paragraph (d) of
the supplemental NPRM. We will
consider requests for approval of an
AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the proposal would
provide an acceptable level of safety.
In addition, although the specific
conditions addressed in the proposed
rule have not been encountered in
service, we have received reports of
partial tip-back during accidents/
incidents that could have resulted in
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
34236
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules
extreme tip-back given slightly different
conditions, making this type of event
foreseeable. During at least one of these
partial tip-back events, the slides were
deployed to facilitate evacuation. We do
not agree that the low probability of
encountering such a foreseeable event is
justification to withdraw the original
NPRM.
Request To Limit the Applicability of
the Original NPRM
UPS and ABX Air request that we
revise the applicability of the original
NPRM. UPS requests that we remove
certain Model 767–300F series airplanes
from the applicability of the proposed
rule because they have a different egress
system. ABX Air requests that the
applicability of the proposed rule be
limited to those airplanes that are
required to be equipped with the
affected escape slides. For example, the
Model 767–300F (freighter) and Model
767–200 or 767–300 series airplanes
that have been modified from a
passenger configuration to a cargo
configuration are not subject to the
unsafe condition addressed by the
proposed rule.
We agree that airplanes that are not
required to be equipped with slides and
slide-rafts are not subject to this unsafe
condition. The applicability statement
of the original NPRM currently includes
only Model 767–200 and 767–300 series
airplanes and does not include Model
767–300F series airplanes; therefore, no
change to the supplemental NPRM is
necessary to exclude these airplanes
from the applicability. However, we
have revised the applicability statement
of the supplemental NPRM to state that
only Boeing Model 767–200 and –300
series airplanes that are equipped with
door-mounted escape slide systems are
affected.
Request To Remove Paragraph (b) of
the Original NPRM
ABX Air recommends that we remove
paragraph (b) of the original NPRM
because the second sentence in the
proposed rule, ‘‘Compliance: Required
as indicated, unless accomplished
previously,’’ already gives operators
credit for accomplishing the actions
before the effective date of the AD.
We agree with the request to remove
paragraph (b) of the original NPRM.
Paragraph (b) was intended to give
operators credit for accomplishing
actions in accordance with an earlier
version of the referenced service
bulletin. However, in this case, there is
no earlier version of the service bulletin,
and paragraph (b) was included
inadvertently in the original NPRM. We
have revised the supplemental NPRM
accordingly.
Removal of Table 1 of the Original
NPRM
We have removed Table 1 of the
original NPRM. That table contains
information about specific replacement
procedures in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767–25–0266 that are necessary
for each airplane group. We find that
information is readily available in any
revision of the service bulletin and
therefore not necessary to include in the
supplemental NPRM.
Conclusion
Certain changes described above
expand the scope of the original NPRM.
As a result, we have determined that it
is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional
opportunity for the public to comment
on this supplemental NPRM.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 745
airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that
261 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this supplemental NPRM.
The work hours and required parts per
airplane vary according to the
configuration group to which the
affected airplane belongs. The average
labor rate is $80 per work hour. The
‘‘Cost Impact Per Airplane
Configuration Group’’ table shows the
estimated costs.
COST IMPACT PER AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION GROUP
Airplane configuration group
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1
2
3
4
5
U.S.-registered
airplanes
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
208
12
41
0
0
Based on the figures in the ‘‘Cost
Impact Per Airplane Configuration
Group’’ table, the cost impact of this
supplemental NPRM on U.S. operators
is estimated to be $52,164,138.
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. The cost
impact figures discussed in AD
rulemaking actions represent only the
time necessary to perform the specific
actions actually required by the AD.
These figures typically do not include
incidental costs, such as the time
required to gain access and close up,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:08 Jun 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
Work hours
Kit cost
6
12
11
11
17
$1,236
2,472
98,858
34,012
35,248
planning time, or time necessitated by
other administrative actions.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
Section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701,
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Slide cost
$174,400
354,264
174,400
174,400
354,264
Cost per
airplane
$176,116
357,696
274,138
209,292
390,872
Fleet cost, by
configuration
group
$36,632,128
4,292,352
11,239,658
0
0
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein
would not have a substantial direct
effect 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,
it is determined that this proposal
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
34237
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules
would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
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.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by
adding the following new airworthiness
directive:
Boeing: Docket 2001–NM–237–AD.
Applicability: Model 767–200 and –300
series airplanes, line numbers 1 through 793
inclusive, certificated in any category;
equipped with door-mounted escape slide
systems.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless
accomplished previously.
To prevent the escape slides and slide-rafts
of the forward and mid-cabin entry and
service doors from being too steep for
evacuation in the event that the airplane
rotates onto the aft fuselage into the extreme
tip-back condition, accomplish the following:
Replacement of Slide-Rafts
(a) Within 72 months after the effective
date of this AD, replace the applicable sliderafts at the applicable door or doors, and do
all other applicable actions including, but not
limited to, changing the latches, and
replacing or modifying the counterbalance
assemblies, by accomplishing all applicable
actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions in Boeing Service Bulletin 767–
25A0266, Revision 2, dated September 27,
2007.
Modification of the Firing Cable
(b) Within 72 months after the effective
date of this AD, do a general visual
inspection of the slide-raft(s) to determine if
supplier part number (P/N) 5A3294–1,
5A3294–2, 5A3295–1, or 5A3295–3 is
installed (Boeing P/N S416T214–3,
S416T214–4, S416T214–2, and S416T214–1,
respectively). Do the inspection in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767–25A0395, Revision 1, dated January 25,
2007. A review of airplane maintenance
records is acceptable in lieu of this
inspection if the P/N of the slide-raft can be
conclusively determined from that review.
(1) If no affected P/N is installed, no
further action is required by this paragraph.
(2) If any affected P/N is installed, before
further flight, lengthen the firing cable and
test the valve of the inflation trigger system
of the escape slide-raft in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767–25A0395,
Revision 1, dated January 25, 2007.
Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–
25A0395, Revision 1, refers to Goodrich
Service Bulletin 5A3294/5A3295–25–362,
dated July 25, 2006, as an additional source
of service information for lengthening the
firing cable and testing the valve of the
inflation trigger system of the escape slideraft.
Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously
(c) Actions done before the effective date
of this AD in accordance with the service
bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD are
acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.
TABLE 1.—PREVIOUS REVISIONS OF SERVICE BULLETINS
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
Revision level
767–25A0266 ........................................................................
767–25A0395 ........................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................
Original .................................................................................
Alternative Methods of Compliance
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
(d)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of
compliance or a different compliance time
for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 5,
2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–13579 Filed 6–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:08 Jun 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–149405–07]
RIN 1545–BH32
Alternative Simplified Credit under
Section 41(c)(5)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
by cross-reference to temporary
regulations and notice of public hearing.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations
section in this issue of the Federal
Register, the IRS is issuing temporary
regulations relating to the election and
calculation of the alternative simplified
credit under section 41(c)(5) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Date
December 4, 2006.
August 31, 2006.
Internal Revenue Code (ASC). The
regulations implement changes to the
credit for increasing research activities
under section 41 made by the Tax Relief
and Health Care Act of 2006 and will
affect certain taxpayers claiming the
section 41 credit. The text of those
regulations also serves as the text of
these proposed regulations. This
document also provides notice of a
public hearing on these proposed
regulations.
Written or electronic comments
must be received by September 15,
2008. Outlines of topics to be discussed
at the public hearing scheduled for
September 25, 2008, must be received
by September 4, 2008.
DATES:
Send submissions to:
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–149405–07), room
5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box
7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 17, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34233-34237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13579]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2001-NM-237-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200 and -300 Series
Airplanes
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 certain Boeing Model 767-200 and -300
series airplanes. That proposed rule would have required replacing
certain door-mounted escape slides and slide-raft assemblies with new
slide-raft assemblies; replacing certain escape system latches with new
latches; and modifying or replacing certain counterbalance assemblies
with new counterbalance assemblies; as applicable. This new action
revises the proposed rule by extending the compliance time, adding
requirements to install a longer firing cable and test the valve of the
inflation trigger system of the slide-raft, and, for certain airplanes,
adding procedures to adjust the door counter balance systems. The
actions specified by this new proposed AD are intended to prevent the
escape slides and slide-rafts of the forward and mid-cabin entry and
service doors from being too steep for evacuation in the event that the
airplane rotates onto the aft fuselage into the extreme tip-back
condition. In the extreme tip-back condition, the forward and mid-cabin
exits could result in steeper sliding angles, which could cause injury
to passengers and crewmembers during an emergency evacuation. This
action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-237-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232.
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must
contain ``Docket No. 2001-NM-237-AD'' in the subject line and need not
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or
ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box
[[Page 34234]]
3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Ladderud, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6435; fax (425) 917-6590.
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 action may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a
request to change the compliance time and a request to change the
service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed
AD is being requested.
Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each
request.
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 action must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 2001-NM-237-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. 2001-NM-237-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356.
Discussion
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to
certain Boeing Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, was published
as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on
November 25, 2003 (68 FR 66026). That NPRM would have required
replacing certain door-mounted escape slides and slide-raft assemblies
with new slide-raft assemblies; replacing certain escape system latches
with new latches; and modifying or replacing certain counterbalance
assemblies with new counterbalance assemblies; as applicable. That NPRM
was prompted by reports indicating that the original analysis of the
highest sill heights for the forward and mid-cabin entry and service
doors is no longer valid on certain Boeing Model 737-200 and -300
series airplanes. That condition, if not corrected, could result in
injury to passengers and crewmembers during an emergency evacuation.
Actions Since Issuance of Previous Proposal
Since the issuance of that NPRM, we have received three reports of
uncommanded deployments of the door-mounted escape slide inside the
passenger cabin. The uncommanded inflation caused damage to a lavatory,
ceiling panels, and doors. It has been determined that variability in
packing the slide can result in excessive tension on the firing cable.
Therefore, certain affected airplanes must have a longer firing cable
installed, and the inflation trigger system must be tested. To
accommodate this change, Boeing has issued the following service
bulletins:
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0266, Revision 2,
dated September 27, 2007. We referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767-25-0266, dated September 14, 2000, as the appropriate source of
service information for accomplishing the required actions in the
original NPRM. In addition to the existing actions, Revision 2 of the
service bulletin specifies procedures to adjust the door counterbalance
systems for Group 1 and 2 airplanes (procedures were added in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0266, Revision 1, dated December 4,
2006). Revision 2 of the service bulletin also specifies that more work
is necessary on airplanes changed in accordance with the procedures
specified in the original release of the service bulletin. Revision 2
also includes a reference to the procedures in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-25A0395, Revision 1, adds instructions for adjusting the
door counterbalance system for certain airplanes, and corrects certain
part numbers (P/Ns), among other changes.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0395, Revision 1,
dated January 25, 2007. This service bulletin describes procedures for
determining if a slide-raft with supplier P/N 5A3294-1, 5A3294-2,
5A3295-1, or 5A3295-3 (Boeing P/N S416T214-3, S416T214-4, S416T214-2,
and S416T214-1, respectively), is installed. If those P/Ns are not
installed, the service bulletin specifies that no further action is
necessary. If any of those P/Ns are installed, the service bulletin
provides procedures for lengthening the firing cable and testing the
valve of the inflation trigger system of the escape slide-raft.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0395, Revision 1, refers to
Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3294/5A3295-25-362, dated July 25, 2006, as
an additional source of service information for lengthening the firing
cable and testing the valve of the inflation trigger system of the
escape slide-raft.
Comments
Due consideration has been given to the comments received in
response to the original NPRM:
Support for the Original NPRM
Airline Pilots Association, International (ALPA) concurs with the
corrective actions in the original NPRM.
Support for Replacement Parts
Goodrich Aircraft Interior Products states that it is prepared to
support the need for replacement parts within the compliance time
specified in the original NPRM.
Request To Clarify the Unsafe Condition
Boeing requests a change to the wording of the unsafe condition in
the Summary and Discussion sections of the NPRM. Boeing states that the
existing slide-rafts are not ``too short to reach the ground'' as
stated in the NPRM, but that the extreme tip-back condition results in
a steeper sliding angle than the original design intent. Boeing
requests that we instead specify, among other suggested wording, that
``In the extreme tip-back condition, the forward and mid-cabin exits on
one side of the airplane could result in steeper sliding angles. * *
*''
We partially agree with the requested changes. We disagree with
using the words ``one side of the airplane''
[[Page 34235]]
because they imply that passengers and crewmembers could safely
evacuate from the side of the airplane with the lower sliding angles.
Damage associated with a landing gear failure on the lower side of the
airplane could cause passengers and crewmembers to perceive that only
the side of the airplane with the sliding angle that is ``too steep for
evacuation'' would be available for emergency evacuation. In addition,
this type of failure could render the exits on the lower, damaged side
to be unusable and/or unsafe. We agree with the other requested changes
because they clarify the unsafe condition. We have revised the Summary
section accordingly. However, we have not revised the Discussion
section since that section of the preamble does not reappear in the
same form in the supplemental NPRM. Instead, the Discussion section in
the supplemental NPRM restates the wording of the original NPRM for
reference.
Requests To Revise Cost Impact Section
Goodrich Aircraft Interior Products, All Nippon Airways (ANA),
Boeing, and Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member
American Airlines, all request that we revise the Cost Impact section
of the NPRM. All commenters state that the costs shown in the NPRM are
incomplete and should be revised.
We agree with the commenters. The Cost Impact section of the NPRM
did not include the cost of the slide-rafts. We have revised the Cost
Impact section of the supplemental NPRM to include those costs.
Requests To Extend Compliance Time
Boeing, ANA, and Air New Zealand request that we extend the
compliance time. The commenters suggest extending the compliance time
from the proposed 5 years to between 8 and 15 years. The commenters
make their requests to extend the compliance time for numerous reasons,
including:
The proposed rule has a high economic impact on the
operators, with small benefit to safety. Data are missing from the Cost
Impact section of the proposed rule.
The established replacement program (useful service life)
of the life-limited slides and slide rafts is 15 years.
There have been no reports of airplanes tipping back
beyond the certified sill height.
The exit slides and slide-rafts on the opposite side of
the airplane would remain within the certified sill heights and
corresponding sliding angles due to the roll of the airplane associated
with the extreme tip-back condition. The existing slides are not too
short to reach the ground (as stated in the proposed rule).
The slide and slide-raft manufacturer will likely have
trouble producing the number of slides and slide-raft units necessary
to modify every affected airplane in the worldwide fleet.
We need to take into consideration low-cycle, high-hour
operations.
We partially agree with the commenters' statements. Given the
combination of an updated Cost Impact estimate for this supplemental
NPRM (see ``Request To Revise Cost Impact Section'' above), and the
risk of exposure to the situation addressed in this supplemental NPRM,
we acknowledge that there is merit in revising the compliance time. It
is our intent to allow operators to offset, partially, the costs
associated with the supplemental NPRM by integrating the compliance
time somewhat with the costs associated with normal slide replacement.
Therefore, we have changed paragraph (a) of this supplemental NPRM to
propose a compliance time of within 72 months after the effective date
of the AD.
We have also considered the other reasons commenters gave for
extending the compliance time, as discussed below.
We have determined that an interval based on the ``useful
service life'' of the slides, which is 15 years, would not address the
unsafe condition in a timely manner.
We do not agree that having no reported incidents of
airplanes tipping back beyond the certified sill heights is sufficient
justification for extending the proposed compliance time. While the
specific condition addressed in this supplemental NPRM has not been
encountered in service, we have received reports of similar, but less
severe, accidents and incidents that could have been more severe given
slightly different conditions.
We do not agree that the exit slides and slide-rafts on
the opposite side of the airplane would remain within the certified
sill heights and provide a means of safe exit. The gear failure may be
associated with or may have caused other damage that would not only
raise the exit heights on the far side of the airplane, but also could
render the exits on the near side of the airplane unsafe and/or
unusable.
The slide manufacturer has indicated that it is prepared
to support operators with sufficient supplies of replacement slides and
slide-rafts for the worldwide fleet within the compliance time
specified in this supplemental NPRM.
Therefore, although we have extended the compliance time for other
reasons, we do not agree that these comments give adequate
justification for extending the compliance time any further.
Requests To Withdraw Proposed Rule
ANA, and ATA on behalf of its member American Airlines, suggest
that we withdraw the proposed rule because it represents a significant
cost and addresses a scenario that is a remote possibility and,
therefore, should not be considered an unsafe condition.
American Airlines explains that, with one main landing gear out,
the engine would remain attached at ``very low speeds'' that are
associated with taxiing, and would not shear off due to the weight of
the airplane, as explained in the ``Discussion'' section of the
proposed rule. American Airlines also explains that the extreme tip-
back condition would occur only at extreme aft center-of-gravity (CG)
conditions and that there is a low probability of this scenario
resulting in a ``time limited'' (90-second) evacuation. American
Airlines further states that there is a low probability of encountering
the extreme tip-back position, based on no such occurrences having been
encountered over the course of the fleet's high number of flight
cycles.
We do not agree with the commenters' requests to withdraw the
original NPRM. We consider this to be an unsafe condition for the
reasons already given in the original NPRM and for the following
reasons.
While we have received information from the airplane manufacturer
that indicates that engines could not necessarily shear off the
airplane at speeds experienced during taxi, takeoff, landing, or even
under some emergency landing situations, further information from the
manufacturer indicates that the CG associated with this condition is
well within the current accepted operating parameters and is not an
extreme condition. However, operators may consider CG restrictions and
may make proposals for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC)
consideration under the provisions of paragraph (d) of the supplemental
NPRM. We will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient
data are submitted to substantiate that the proposal would provide an
acceptable level of safety.
In addition, although the specific conditions addressed in the
proposed rule have not been encountered in service, we have received
reports of partial tip-back during accidents/incidents that could have
resulted in
[[Page 34236]]
extreme tip-back given slightly different conditions, making this type
of event foreseeable. During at least one of these partial tip-back
events, the slides were deployed to facilitate evacuation. We do not
agree that the low probability of encountering such a foreseeable event
is justification to withdraw the original NPRM.
Request To Limit the Applicability of the Original NPRM
UPS and ABX Air request that we revise the applicability of the
original NPRM. UPS requests that we remove certain Model 767-300F
series airplanes from the applicability of the proposed rule because
they have a different egress system. ABX Air requests that the
applicability of the proposed rule be limited to those airplanes that
are required to be equipped with the affected escape slides. For
example, the Model 767-300F (freighter) and Model 767-200 or 767-300
series airplanes that have been modified from a passenger configuration
to a cargo configuration are not subject to the unsafe condition
addressed by the proposed rule.
We agree that airplanes that are not required to be equipped with
slides and slide-rafts are not subject to this unsafe condition. The
applicability statement of the original NPRM currently includes only
Model 767-200 and 767-300 series airplanes and does not include Model
767-300F series airplanes; therefore, no change to the supplemental
NPRM is necessary to exclude these airplanes from the applicability.
However, we have revised the applicability statement of the
supplemental NPRM to state that only Boeing Model 767-200 and -300
series airplanes that are equipped with door-mounted escape slide
systems are affected.
Request To Remove Paragraph (b) of the Original NPRM
ABX Air recommends that we remove paragraph (b) of the original
NPRM because the second sentence in the proposed rule, ``Compliance:
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously,'' already gives
operators credit for accomplishing the actions before the effective
date of the AD.
We agree with the request to remove paragraph (b) of the original
NPRM. Paragraph (b) was intended to give operators credit for
accomplishing actions in accordance with an earlier version of the
referenced service bulletin. However, in this case, there is no earlier
version of the service bulletin, and paragraph (b) was included
inadvertently in the original NPRM. We have revised the supplemental
NPRM accordingly.
Removal of Table 1 of the Original NPRM
We have removed Table 1 of the original NPRM. That table contains
information about specific replacement procedures in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-25-0266 that are necessary for each airplane
group. We find that information is readily available in any revision of
the service bulletin and therefore not necessary to include in the
supplemental NPRM.
Conclusion
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original
NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this supplemental NPRM.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 745 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 261 airplanes of U.S. registry
would be affected by this supplemental NPRM. The work hours and
required parts per airplane vary according to the configuration group
to which the affected airplane belongs. The average labor rate is $80
per work hour. The ``Cost Impact Per Airplane Configuration Group''
table shows the estimated costs.
Cost Impact per Airplane Configuration Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.- Fleet cost, by
Airplane configuration group registered Work hours Kit cost Slide cost Cost per configuration
airplanes airplane group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 208 6 $1,236 $174,400 $176,116 $36,632,128
2....................................................... 12 12 2,472 354,264 357,696 4,292,352
3....................................................... 41 11 98,858 174,400 274,138 11,239,658
4....................................................... 0 11 34,012 174,400 209,292 0
5....................................................... 0 17 35,248 354,264 390,872 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the figures in the ``Cost Impact Per Airplane
Configuration Group'' table, the cost impact of this supplemental NPRM
on U.S. operators is estimated to be $52,164,138.
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. The cost impact figures
discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to
perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other
administrative actions.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct
effect 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, it
is determined that this proposal
[[Page 34237]]
would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
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:
Boeing: Docket 2001-NM-237-AD.
Applicability: Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, line
numbers 1 through 793 inclusive, certificated in any category;
equipped with door-mounted escape slide systems.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent the escape slides and slide-rafts of the forward and
mid-cabin entry and service doors from being too steep for
evacuation in the event that the airplane rotates onto the aft
fuselage into the extreme tip-back condition, accomplish the
following:
Replacement of Slide-Rafts
(a) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the applicable slide-rafts at the applicable door or doors,
and do all other applicable actions including, but not limited to,
changing the latches, and replacing or modifying the counterbalance
assemblies, by accomplishing all applicable actions specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25A0266,
Revision 2, dated September 27, 2007.
Modification of the Firing Cable
(b) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
general visual inspection of the slide-raft(s) to determine if
supplier part number (P/N) 5A3294-1, 5A3294-2, 5A3295-1, or 5A3295-3
is installed (Boeing P/N S416T214-3, S416T214-4, S416T214-2, and
S416T214-1, respectively). Do the inspection in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
25A0395, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2007. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
P/N of the slide-raft can be conclusively determined from that
review.
(1) If no affected P/N is installed, no further action is
required by this paragraph.
(2) If any affected P/N is installed, before further flight,
lengthen the firing cable and test the valve of the inflation
trigger system of the escape slide-raft in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
25A0395, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2007.
Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0395, Revision 1,
refers to Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3294/5A3295-25-362, dated July
25, 2006, as an additional source of service information for
lengthening the firing cable and testing the valve of the inflation
trigger system of the escape slide-raft.
Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously
(c) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD
are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of
this AD.
Table 1.--Previous Revisions of Service Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin Revision level Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
767-25A0266.............................. 1........................... December 4, 2006.
767-25A0395.............................. Original.................... August 31, 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(d)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 5, 2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-13579 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
