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 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on January 28, 2003 (68 FR 4116). That action proposed to require a one-time detailed inspection to detect discrepancies of all wire bundles routed along the ceiling of the forward cargo compartment at certain stations; and corrective actions if necessary. \n\nExplanation of New Service Information \n\n\tSince the issuance of the supplemental NPRM, Boeing issued and we reviewed Revision 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-24A0128, dated June 24, 2004. (The supplemental NPRM referred to Revision 2 of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions.) Revision 3 adds a new Figure 2 to clarify the instructionsfor inspecting the power feeder cables and installing sleeving, and clarifies the instructions for installing sleeving and lacing tape in Figure 1. Revision 3 also corrects a typographical error that resulted in the reference to an incorrect station; the supplemental NPRM specified the correct station. No more work is necessary on airplanes changed in accordance with Revision 2 or earlier releases of the service bulletin, provided that the required inspection and applicable corrective actions are done on all wire bundles, including power feeder cables W208 and W236, of the electrical system in the forward cargo compartment from stations 368 through 742 and from right buttock lines (RBL) 40 through 70, routed along the ceiling. \n\n\tIn light of the changes to the service bulletin described above, we have revised paragraphs (a) and (a)(2) and the preamble of this AD accordingly, to clarify the inspection area and clearance measurements. In addition, we have revised the final rule to refer to Revision 3 of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions and added a new paragraph (b) to give operators credit for accomplishing the required actions before the effective date of the AD, in accordance with Revision 2 or earlier releases of the service bulletin with the provision described previously. \n\nComments \n\n\tInterested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received. \n\nRequest To Extend Compliance Time \n\n\tOne commenter requests that the compliance time for the proposed inspection specified in paragraph (a) of the supplemental NPRM be extended from 18 to 24 months to coincide with regularly scheduled "C" checks. The commenter states that the proposed compliance time of 18 months will require approximately one-fourth of its fleet to be scheduled at special times for the accomplishment of the inspection atadditional expense. The commenter also states that a detailed inspection was done on two of its oldest airplanes and no chafing was found, and that the proposed inspection area is already included in an existing maintenance inspection program. For these reasons, the commenter concludes that a 24-month compliance time will provide an equivalent level of safety. \n\n\tThe FAA partially agrees. We do not agree with the commenter's rationale for extending the compliance time. The inspection that the commenter refers to in the existing maintenance program is not a detailed inspection of the wire bundles; it is a general visual inspection of the area that includes the wire bundles. In addition, although the commenter found no chafing damage on its oldest airplanes, age is not the only contributing factor to wire degradation and consequent damaged wire bundles. The wiring on any airplane, regardless of age, is also susceptible to contributing factors such as improper installation or maintenance, contamination, fluid leakages, inadvertent spillage of liquids, or harmful debris that may be generated during production or maintenance. \n\n\tIn developing an appropriate compliance time for the required inspection, we considered the safety implications, the commenters' request in the original NPRM to extend the compliance time from 15 to 18 months, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the inspection. In consideration of these items, we have determined that 18 months represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein the inspection can be accomplished during scheduled maintenance intervals for the majority of affected operators, and an acceptable level of safety can be maintained. However, we recognize that some operators' "C" check intervals are longer than 18 months because of a low utilization rate. Therefore, we have revised the compliance time specified in paragraph (a) of this AD to "Within 18 months or 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later." \n\nRequest To Exclude the Generator Power Feeder Cables From the Required Actions \n\n\tOne commenter requests that paragraph (a) of the supplemental NPRM be revised to state, "* * * to detect discrepancies of the stranded wire bundles routed in the notched floor beam area along the ceiling of the forward cargo compartment, from station 368 through 742. * * *" The commenter states that Revision 2 of the referenced service bulletin describes an inspection area beyond where wiring actually exists, and that it does not differentiate between the stranded wire bundles and the feeder cables. The commenter also states that the feeder cables are well supported within an inch of the stand-offs, are relatively stiff as compared to the stranded wire bundles, and are not part of the issues that prompted the proposed actions on the cables in this area. The commenter further states that there is no benefit gained from attaching plastic sleeving or adding spacers where the cable is routed greater than .125 inch from any stand-off. \n\n\tWe do not agree with the suggestion as worded by the commenter, but do agree that the inspection area specified in paragraph (a) and clearance measurements specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this AD need to be clarified. In conjunction with Boeing, we conducted an inspection of the subject area on certain affected Boeing Model 767 series airplanes at Boeing's production area. The inspection results revealed that power feeder cables W208 and W236 are more rigidly supported in their position than other electrical wire bundles in the forward cargo compartment from stations 368 through 742 and RBLs 40 through 70, routed along the cargo compartment ceiling. As discussed previously, we have reviewed Revision 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-24A0128, dated June 24, 2004, which clarifies the inspection area and clearance measurement, and have revised the final rule accordingly. \n\nRequest To Allow Installation of aTie Cord \n\n\tOne commenter requests that paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of the supplemental NPRM be revised to allow installation of a tie cord instead of a tie strap. The commenter notes that Figure 1, Step 5 of Revision 2 of the referenced service bulletin specifies the use of a strap having part number (P/N) BACS38K2 to secure the harness to the cable mount. The commenter states that the retainer end of the strap can interfere with adjacent harness runs and may cause future damage. \n\n\tWe agree with the commenter's request and observations. We have determined that a tie cord having P/N BMS 13-54 or equivalent may be used as an alternative to a strap having P/N BACS38K2. We have revised paragraph (a)(2) of this AD accordingly. \n\nRequest To Fix Service Bulletin Errors \n\n\tOne commenter notes that the inspection area specified in the "NOTES" column in the table of Figure 1 of Revision 2 of the service bulletin should be from station "368," not "638." From this comment, we infer that the commenter is requesting us to inform Boeing of the error. We agree. As discussed previously, Boeing has issued and we have reviewed Revision 3 of the service bulletin, which corrects the typographical error. However, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard, because this AD specifies the correct station. \n\n\tIn the "NOTES" column in the table of Figure 1 of Revision 2 of the service bulletin, the same commenter also notes that it refers to Boeing Standard Wiring Practices Manual (BWSPM) sections 20-10-11 and 20-10-12. The commenter states that these sections specify installation criteria, not an inspection procedure, and that BWSPM section 20-60-03, page 201, sub-task 222-003 is a more appropriate reference as it is an inspection criteria directed toward damage identification. \n\n\tWe agree with the commenter that BWSPM sections 20-10-11 and 20-10-12 do not provide inspection procedures. In fact, none of the BSWPM sections describe procedures for inspections. The intent of those sections is to provide instructions how to examine the wires and mounting components to determine installation and damage conditions and to make necessary repairs. Revisions 2 and Revision 3 of the service bulletin are referring to those sections for that purpose only. We also note that BSWPM section 20-60-03, as suggested by the commenter, provides procedures for special protection of electrical connectors. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. \n\nRequest for Credit for Accomplishment of Earlier Service Bulletin \n\n\tOne commenter requests that the supplemental NPRM be revised to give operators credit for prior accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-24A0128, dated May 11, 2000; and Revision 1, dated December 6, 2001; as acceptable means of compliance with the requirements of the supplemental NPRM. \n\n\tA second commenter requests credit for Revision 1 only. The commenter states that Revision 1 of the service bulletin is more restrictive than Revision 2 with regard to the installation of the subject Teflon protection, clamps, and straps, and therefore, offers an equivalent level of protection to the wire bundles. The commenter also states that the addition of buttock line information to Revision 2, while useful data, does not affect the ability to accomplish the intent of the supplemental NPRM. The commenter believes that all of the subject wire bundles in the inspection area are closely located to each other and clearly visible to maintenance personnel when the inspection area is accessed. Further, the commenter notes that there are no differences between the illustrations in Revisions 1 and 2 showing wire bundle locations subject to the inspection, and therefore, concludes that the areas to be accessed are the same. \n\n\tWe partially agree with the commenters' request. As discussed in the preamble of the supplemental NPRM, Revision 2 of the referenced service bulletin expands the inspection to include areas that were inadvertently omitted from the original service bulletin and Revision 1. Figure 1 of the original issue and Revision 1 incorrectly identifies the inspection area as RBL 70 only; the correct inspection area is between RBL 40 and RBL 70. Therefore, we do not agree with the commenters that accomplishing the required inspection and applicable corrective actions at RBL 70 only, as specified in the original issue and Revision 1 of the referenced service bulletin, is an acceptable means of compliance with the requirements of this AD. However, as discussed previously, we have added a new paragraph (b) to the final rule to give operators credit for accomplishing the required actions before the effective date of the AD in accordance with those previous releases of the referenced service bulletin, provided that those actions were done on the subject wire bundles from stations 368 through 742 and from RBL 40 through 70. \n\nConclusion \n\n\tAfter careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. These changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. \n\nChanges to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the AD \n\n\tOn July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we \nhave retained the language of the supplemental NPRM regarding that material. \n\nChanges to Labor Rate \n\n\tWe have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. \n\nCost Impact \n\n\tThere are about 774 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 303 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $39,390, or $130 per airplane. \n\n\tThe 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. 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. \n\nRegulatory Impact \n\n\tThe 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. \n\n\tFor 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. \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, 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: \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\n§ 39.13 (Amended) \n\n2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive: