Examining the Docket \n\n\tYou may examine the 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 February 15, 2005 (70 FR 7691). That NPRM proposed to require replacing hinge assemblies with new hinge assemblies in the outboard overhead stowage bins and reworking hinge assemblies in the outboard overhead stowage bins that are adjacent to curtain tracks. \n\nComments \n\n\tWe provided the public the opportunity to participatein the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. \n\nSupportive Comments \n\n\tThree commenters support the NPRM. One of the commenters also notes that it expects to complete the actions on all affected airplanes in its fleet within the proposed compliance time of 72 months. \n\nRequest To Reconsider Safety Risk \n\n\tOne commenter, an operator, requests that we provide sufficient data to support our decision that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0078, Revision 4, dated June 10, 2004, addresses a safety concern. Based on the explanation/data we gave in the NPRM, and compared with the explanation/data given in the service bulletin, the commenter concludes that the service bulletin only addresses a reliability issue, and is not an appropriate subject for an NPRM or an AD. The commenter believes that the service bulletin only addresses a reliability issue since the service bulletin does not discuss the potential for the overhead bins to open and possibly release luggage that could cause passenger or crew injuries. The commenter also states that it contacted the manufacturer for data on passenger/crew injuries and the reason behind the change of the service bulletin from 'normal' to 'Special Attention,' but the manufacturer did not provide further data on injuries or why the service bulletin changed status. In addition, the operator states that it has reviewed its records and found only one incident resulting in injury (to a crew member), which occurred on a Model 767 airplane that is not affected by the applicability statement of this AD. The operator notes that internal data reveals a high replacement rate of the affected hinges, which in its opinion, suggests that the routine maintenance program is adequate. \n\n\tWe agree that we did not give sufficient explanation as to why we concluded that the hinges are affected by an unsafe condition instead of a reliability issue. However, we disagree that the service bulletin is an inappropriate subject for an AD. The service bulletin understates the failures and safety issue that it addresses and leads the reader to conclude that it is a reliability issue. However, tests performed on the overhead stowage bins revealed a negative margin of safety for the design, which is not related to reliability. The tests showed that when the bins are subjected to a 4.5g downward load condition, these bins were able to handle only 1.12g, 25 percent of the required load tolerance. The commenter's high replacement rate of hinges may be attributed, in part, to the related understrength condition. In addition, when the bins are loaded, the excessive threshold deflection can cause stowage bin doors to disengage from the latches, resulting in baggage falling out and consequently causing serious passenger injury during routine flight conditions and blockage of the aisles during an emergency evacuation. Several operators have reported cases of hinge breakage and improper latching of the bindoor to us. We are also considering additional rulemaking actions to address related overhead stowage bin and hinge designs on other model airplanes. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue. \n\nRequest To Revise Applicability Statement \n\n\tAnother operator requests that the applicability be revised to exclude those airplanes without overhead stowage bins installed. The commenter states that it has airplanes that are included in the effectivity of the service bulletin, but have been modified from the original passenger configuration into a freighter/cargo configuration without overhead stowage bins installed per various supplemental type certificates. Since all of the overhead stowage bins have been removed, the freighter/cargo configuration would not be affected by the unsafe condition. The operator suggests that such a revision would reduce the number of requests submitted to the FAA for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC), thus, reducing the use of FAA resources.We agree that airplanes with all the overhead stowage bins removed are not affected by the unsafe condition and should not be subject to this AD. The applicability statement of this AD has been revised to apply to Boeing Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, certified in any category; as listed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0078, Revision 4, dated June 10, 2004; equipped with overhead stowage bins. \n\nConclusion \n\n\tWe have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. \n\nClarification of Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph \n\n\tWe have revised this AD to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on anyairplane to which the AMOC applies. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\tThere are about 172 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD will affect about 75 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions will take about 20 work hours (.33 work hours per stowage bins; there are about 60 bins on an airplane) per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $154,560 per airplane ($2,576 per bin). Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $11,689,500, or $155,860 per airplane. \n\n\tThe cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the actions required by this AD, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. However, we have been advised that the terminating modification has already been installed on some affected overhead stowage bins on some airplanes. Therefore, the future economic cost impact of this rule on U.S. operators is expected to be less than the cost impact figure indicated above. \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, describes in 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\tWehave 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):