Discussion
What events have caused this AD? FAA believes that the instructions for opening the airstair door and emergency exits are either not visible or not easy to understand on Raytheon 65, 90, 99, 100, 200, and 300 series, and Model 2000 airplanes. This is based on an accident that resulted in the issuance of AD 97-04-02. AD 97-04-02 was later superseded by AD 98-21-20 to incorporate more visible and understandable instructions.
What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If the exterior door operating instruction placards are not visible or understandable, this could result in the inability to open the airstair door or emergency exits during an emergency situation.
Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Raytheon 65, 90, 99, 100, 200, and 300 series, and Model 2000 airplanes. This proposal waspublished in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 9, 2002 (67 FR 51791). The NPRM proposed to require you to install new exterior operating instruction placards for the airstair door and emergency exits.
Was the public invited to comment? The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment:
Comment Issue No. 1: AD Is Unjustified
What is the commenter's concern? The commenter believes that in the accident that resulted in the earlier ADs, the damage to the airplane prevented the doors from opening. Therefore, the commenter believes that if the new placards had been present in this situation, they still would not have prevented injuries or loss of life. We infer that the commenter wants the NPRM withdrawn based on no compelling evidence that the presence of the placards addresses the unsafe condition.
What Is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur. In an emergency situation, exiting the airplane is of the utmost importance, especially if the postcrash scenario includes a cabin fire. The cabin crew and/or passengers may become incapacitated. Therefore, the exterior emergency exit door operating instructions must be extremely clear and complete so that any person will be able to open the exit door.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 2: Placards Are Not Durable
What is the commenter's concern? The commenter states that the placards supplied by Raytheon do not adhere to the airplane surface properly. The placards often begin to peel-off either in flight or while washing the airplane. We infer that the commenter wants the NPRM withdrawn because the placards will eventually come off on their own.
What is FAA's response to the concern? We are aware that durability and adherence of the placards to the airplane surface may be a problem. However, it is not a valid reason for withdrawing the NPRM. The owners/ operators of the affected airplanes may choose to apply one or two coats of clear coating to seal the edges of the placard.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 3: Placards Degrade the Airplane's Appearance
What is the commenter's concern? The commenter states that the affected airplanes are chiefly used in private, charter, and corporate service where appearance is especially important to the owners/ operators. The commenter states that the placards are out of proportion to the size of the airplanes, look very ugly, and the contrasting colors of the placards cause a problem because of stripe locations on the airplane's paint job. We infer that the commenter wants the NPRM withdrawn because the placards degrade the airplane's appearance.
What is FAA's response to the concern? We understand that appearance of the aircraft is a key element for owners/operators. However, cosmetic issues cannot be given higher priority than addressing the unsafe condition and exiting the airplane in an emergency situation.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
FAA's Determination
What is FAA's final determination on this issue? After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:
--Provide the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
--Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Cost Impact
How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 3,587 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of theaffected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the modification:
Labor cost
Parts cost
Total cost per airplane
Total cost on U.S. operators
2 workhours x $60 per hour = $120
Approximately $190 per airplane
$120 + $190 = $310
$310 x 3,587 = $1,111,970.
The manufacturer will provide warranty credit for labor and parts to the extent noted under MANPOWER and MATERIAL in Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 52-3096, Rev. 1, Revised: June, 2002.
Compliance Time of This AD
What is the compliance time of this AD? The compliance time of this AD is "within the next 200 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first."
Why is the compliance time of this AD presented in both hours TIS and calendar time? The unsafe condition on these airplanes is not a result of the number of times the airplane is operated. Airplane operation varies among operators. For example, one operator may operate the airplane 50 hours TIS in 3 months while it may take another operator 12 months or more to accumulate 50 hours TIS. For this reason, the FAA has determined that the compliance time of this AD should be specified in both hours time-in-service (TIS) and calendar time in order to assure this condition is not allowed to go uncorrected over time.
Regulatory Impact
Does this AD impact various entities? The regulations adopted herein will 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 final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? 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 copy of the final 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under 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. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
39.13 [Amended]
2. FAA amends 39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows: