Examining the Docket \n\n\tYou may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. \n\nDiscussion \n\n\tThe FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 7, 2005 (70 FR 53106). That NPRM proposed to require replacing the placards on certain stowage bins with new placards, installing partial dividers in certain other stowage bins, and installing straps on stowage bins containing life rafts. For certain airplanes, that NPRM also proposed to require related concurrent actions; including replacing door latches, strikes, and thresholds on the outboard overhead stowage compartments with new, improved latches, strikes, and thresholds. \n\nComments \n\n\tWe provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. \n\nRequest To Extend Compliance Time \n\n\tATA, on behalf of its member, Delta Airlines (Delta), requests that we extend the compliance time from 60 months to 72 months. Delta states that this will allow operators to spread out the costs over a longer period of time without any demonstrable decrease in safety to the fleet. \n\n\tWe agree with this request. We have determined that an additional 12 months for compliance will not significantly affect overall fleet safety. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (f) of the AD to extend the compliance time to 72 months. \n\nRequest To Give Credit for Using Original Issue of Service Information \n\n\tATA, on behalf of its member, Delta, requests that we revise the NPRM to give credit for actions accomplished using the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0211, dated August 12, 1993. Delta states that Revision 1 of Service Bulletin 767-25-0211, dated July 14, 1994 (referred to as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD), requires no new work in certain areas. \n\n\tWe agree with this request for the reason given. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (h) of the AD to include a statement that actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Service Bulletin 767-25-0211, dated August 12, 1993, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions of this AD. \n\nRequest To Eliminate Need To Account for Bins Not Installed \n\n\tATA, on behalf of its member, Delta, requests that we revise the NPRM to exclude the need to account for bins that have been removed from the airplane. Delta statesthat Boeing Service Bulletins 767-25- 0336 and 767-25-0211 both identify specific bin modules which must be modified. Delta asserts that the NPRM, as written, will require certain bins to be modified even if those bins have been removed in accordance with an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), and that another AMOC will be required to release operators from this unnecessary compliance. \n\n\tWe do not agree with this request. We find that an AMOC for the requirements of paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD is not necessary if a stowage bin has been removed. The requirements of paragraphs (f) and (g) apply only to stowage bins identified in the referenced service bulletin. However, stowage bins that have been removed from airplanes are still subject to the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard. \n\nRequest for Justification of NPRM \n\n\tOne commenter, Delta, suggests that we review our decision to issue an AD to mandate the modifications described in the referenced service information. Delta states that the cost would be excessive in an airplane that is approaching its maximum age. Delta asks if we or Boeing have researched fleet data for past incidents as described in the NPRM. Delta further asks if such an incident is probable and if the probability is high enough to substantiate that this is a true safety concern that justifies the costs to correct it. \n\n\tThough Delta did not specifically request us to do so, we infer that Delta is requesting us to withdraw this proposed AD. We do not agree. This AD corrects an unsafe condition related to a stowage bin design that is significantly under strength. We have performed an analysis that indicates that several serious injuries may occur during the remaining service life of the affected fleet if this condition is not corrected. Further, Boeing has reported seven events of inadvertent opening of these stowage bins. Therefore, we have determined that this AD is both warrantedand necessary. We have made no changes to the AD in this regard; however, we have provided some relief to operators by extending the compliance time as previously discussed. \n\nRecommendation To Revise Accomplishment Instructions \n\n\tThe Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member, American Airlines (AAL), recommends that the manufacturer revise the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information referenced in the NPRM to allow operators to meet the intent of the NPRM without using partial dividers in the stowage compartments. AAL states that the change as described is costly and time consuming because it creates two different configurations of outboard stowage bins in the 767 fleet, the cost of repair of the partial dividers is not accounted for, and use of partial dividers will impact stowage space. \n\n\tWe do not agree. We have determined that accomplishing the modifications described in the referenced service information adequately addresses the unsafe condition. In addition, we do not consider it appropriate to include various provisions in an AD applicable to a single operator's unique use of an affected airplane. However, under the \nprovisions of paragraph (j) of the AD, we may consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data that are submitted to substantiate that such a design change would provide an acceptable level of safety. \n\nRequest To Provide Warranty Coverage for Material Costs \n\n\tAvianca Airlines states that the materials cost for this modification is very expensive. Avianca Airlines further states that the materials kit for this modification was provided free of charge by Boeing until 1994. Avianca Airlines made no request to revise the NPRM, but recommends that Boeing continue to provide the materials kit free of charge while the operators cover the cost of labor. \n\n\tAs no change was requested, we have not revised the AD in this regard. Further, as material and parts costs are determined by manufacturers,Avianca Airlines may wish to contact Boeing to discuss this recommendation. \n\nClarification of Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph \n\n\tWe have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. \n\nConclusion \n\n\tWe have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\tThere are about 366 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet and 138 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following tables provide the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. \n\n\tEstimated Costs \n\n\nAction \nWork hours per kit \nAverage labor rate per hour \nCost of parts kit per airplane \nCost per airplane \nNumber of U.S.-\nregistered airplanes \nFleet cost \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nInstallation of placards, dividers, and straps. \nBetween 46 and 74 \n$65 \nBetween $26,700 and $44,196. \nBetween $29,690 and $49,006. \n138 \nBetween \n$4,097,220 and \n$6,762,828. \n\n\n\tEstimated Costs of Concurrent Service Bulletin \n\n\nAction \nWork hours \nAverage labor rate per hour \nParts \nCost per airplane \nNumber of U.S.-\nregistered airplanes \nFleet cost \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nInstallation of new door latches, strikes, and thresholds. \nBetween 24 and 31 \n$65 \nBetween $7,000 \nand $70,000. \nBetween $8,560 \nand $72,015. \n105 \nBetween $898,800 \nand $7,561,575. \n\n\nAuthority for This Rulemaking \n\n\tTitle 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, describesin more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. \n\n\tWe 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. \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\tWe have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD 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. \n\n\tFor the reasons discussed above,I certify that this AD: \n\n\t(1) Is not a "significant regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866; \n\n\t(2) Is not a "significant rule" under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and \n\n\t(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. \n\n\tWe prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. \n\nAdoption of the Amendment \n\nAccordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: \n\nPART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES \n\n1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: \n\n\tAuthority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. \n\nSec. 39.13 (Amended) \n\n2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):