47180 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

use of the EFVS for functions that have 

not been found to be acceptable. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 27, 

2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–19073 Filed 8–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0044; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–084–AD; Amendment 

39–16381; AD 2010–16–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 767–200, –300, and 

–300F Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Model 767–200, –300, and –300F series 

airplanes. This AD requires inspecting 

to verify the part number of the lowpressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew and 

supernumerary oxygen system installed 

under the oxygen mask stowage box at 

flightcrew and supernumerary oxygen 

mask locations, and replacing the flexhose with a new non-conductive lowpressure flex-hose if necessary. This AD 

results from reports of low-pressure 

flex-hoses of the flightcrew oxygen 

system that burned through due to 

inadvertent electrical current from a 

short circuit in an adjacent audio select 

panel. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

inadvertent electrical current, which 

can cause the low-pressure flex-hoses 

used in the flightcrew and 

supernumerary oxygen systems to melt 

or burn, resulting in oxygen system 

leakage and smoke or fire. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 9, 

2010. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of September 9, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the Document Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan L. Monroe, 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) 917–6457; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an airworthiness 

directive (AD) that would apply to 

certain Model 767–200, –300, and 

–300F series airplanes. That NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 22, 2010 (75 FR 3656). That 

NPRM proposed to require inspecting to 

verify the part number of the lowpressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew and 

supernumerary oxygen system installed 

under the oxygen mask stowage box at 

flightcrew and supernumerary oxygen 

mask locations, and replacing the flexhose with a new non-conductive lowpressure flex-hose if necessary. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received. 

Support for the NPRM 

Boeing concurs with the contents of 

the NPRM. United Airlines and the Air 

Line Pilots Association, International, 

(ALPA) both support the intent of the 

NPRM. 

Request To Take Into Account a NonProcurable Part 

United Airlines states that paragraph 

(g)(1) of the NPRM refers to the 

Accomplishment Instructions in Boeing 

Service Bulletin 767–35A0034, Revision 

1, dated June 22, 2000, which specifies 

the use of tape having part number 

232T8002–26. United Airlines states 

that this tape is no longer available. 

United Airlines states that Boeing has 

advised them to procure tape having 

part number 5841007529 instead. 

United Airlines states that because 

compliance is mandated in accordance 

with Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 

35A0034, this will require all operators 

to request an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) to use the alternate 

part numbered tape. United Airlines 

points out that it has formally asked 

Boeing to use the term ‘‘or equivalent’’ 

in their service bulletins when 

specifying part numbers for such items 

as tapes, marking pens, and solvents, 

but Boeing has responded that the FAA 

expressly forbids them to do so. United 

Airlines states that this is an on-going 

problem that leads to nuisance AMOC 

requests that can be avoided. 

From these statements, we infer that 

United Airlines requests that we revise 

the NPRM to either specify another tape 

or add the term ‘‘or equivalent,’’ so that 

operators will not have to request 

AMOCs. We disagree with adding the 

term ‘‘or equivalent’’ to the AD. We have 

consulted with Boeing regarding this 

issue. Boeing has stated that tape having 

part number 232T8002–26 is a valid 

part number. Boeing states that when 

the customer receives a part number, the 

tape only shows the material code. The 

omission of the part number is being 

resolved by Boeing. Also, paragraphs 

2.C.2.(d) and 2.C.2.(e) of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 767–35A0034, Revision 1, 

dated June 22, 2000, describe the tape 

that is required and can be purchased 

from Boeing with just a reference to the 

name of the tape, ‘‘3/4 wide Permacel 

P29.’’ No change has been made to the 

AD in this regard. 

Request for Clarification Regarding Use 

of Tape or Sleeving 

United Airlines states that there is a 

disparity between the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletins 

737–35A1053, 747–35A2101, and 757– 

35A0015, and Boeing Service Bulletin 

767–35A0034, Revision 1, dated June 

22, 2000, referenced in the NPRM. 

United Airlines states that Model 747 

and 767 airplanes are required to wrap 

the new hose assemblies with tape or 

sleeving, but it is not required on Model 

737 or 757 airplanes. United Airlines 

states that the function of this tape or 

sleeving is to satisfy National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

Safety Recommendation A–09–47, dated 

July 8, 2009. United Airlines points out 

that application of this safety 

recommendation does not appear to be 

consistent. 

From these statements, we infer that 

United Airlines requests clarification 

regarding use of tape or sleeving. We 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 47181 

agree that clarification is necessary 

regarding the use of tape or sleeving on 

oxygen system tubing. Tape or sleeving 

is not required on Model 737 or 757 

fleets due to acceptable clearance 

between the oxygen system tubing and 

electrical wiring. The chafing present in 

the Model 747 and 767 fleets is not 

present in the Model 737 or 757 fleet. 

No change has been made to the AD in 

this regard. 

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance 

United Airlines states that it disagrees 

with the Costs of Compliance section of 

the NPRM, as it includes only the 

inspection labor and not the manpower 

and material costs in the event the hoses 

must be replaced. 

From this statement, we infer that 

United Airlines is requesting that we 

revise the Costs of Compliance section 

of the NPRM to include additional work 

hours and the cost of replacement parts. 

We disagree with changing the costs of 

compliance. The economic analysis of 

an AD is limited to the cost of actions 

that are actually required. The economic 

analysis does not consider the costs of 

conditional actions, such as replacing a 

flex-hose detected during a required 

inspection (‘‘replace, if necessary’’). 

Such conditional repairs would be 

required—regardless of AD direction— 

to correct an unsafe condition identified 

in an airplane and to ensure that the 

airplane is operated in an airworthy 

condition, as required by the Federal 

Aviation Regulations. The cost 

information describes only the direct 

costs of the specific actions required by 

this AD. Based on the best data 

available, the manufacturer provided 

the number of work-hours necessary to 

do the required actions. This number 

represents the time necessary to perform 

only the actions actually required by 

this AD. We recognize that, in doing the 

actions required by an AD, operators 

might incur incidental costs in addition 

to the direct costs. The cost analysis in 

AD rulemaking actions, however, 

typically does not include incidental 

costs such as the time required to gain 

access and close up. Those incidental 

costs, which might vary significantly 

among operators, are almost impossible 

to calculate. No change has been made 

to the AD in this regard. 

Request To Shorten Compliance Time 

ALPA requests that the 36-month 

compliance time specified in the NPRM 

be shortened given the potential 

consequence of an oxygen-fed fire in the 

vicinity of the flightcrew station. 

We do not agree. In developing the 

compliance time, we considered the 

safety implications, parts availability, 

and normal maintenance schedules for 

timely accomplishment of the 

inspection. Further, we arrived at the 

compliance time with manufacturer 

concurrence. In consideration of all of 

these factors, we determined that the 

compliance time, as proposed, 

represents an appropriate interval in 

which the inspections can be done in a 

timely manner within the fleet, while 

still maintaining an adequate level of 

safety. Operators are always permitted 

to accomplish the requirements of an 

AD at a time earlier than the specified 

compliance time; therefore, an operator 

may choose to do the inspection before 

36 months in order to accomplish the 

requirements of this AD. If additional 

data are presented that would justify a 

shorter compliance time, we may 

consider further rulemaking on this 

issue. We have not changed the AD in 

this regard. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

as proposed. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the NPRM, we have 

increased the labor rate used in the 

Costs of Compliance from $80 per workhour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of 

Compliance information, below, reflects 

this increase in the specified hourly 

labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will affect 

297 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it will take 2 work-hours 

per product to comply with this AD. 

The average labor rate is $85 per workhour. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. 

operators to be $50,490, or $170 per 

product. 

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 Findings 

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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(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. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance in the AD Docket. 

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 FAA amends 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

2010–16–04 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–16381. Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0044; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–084–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective September 9, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to The Boeing 

Company Model 767–200, –300, and –300F 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
47182 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

series airplanes, certificated in any category; 

line numbers 1 through 763 inclusive, except 

line number 758, which was accomplished in 

production. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 35: Oxygen. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from a report of a lowpressure flex-hose of the flightcrew oxygen 

system that burned through due to 

inadvertent electrical current from a short 

circuit in an adjacent audio select panel. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent 

electrical current, which can cause the lowpressure flex-hoses used in the flightcrew 

and supernumerary oxygen systems to melt 

or burn, resulting in oxygen system leakage 

and smoke or fire. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspection 

(g) Within 36 months after the effective 

date of this AD, do an inspection to 

determine whether any low-pressure flexhose of the flightcrew and supernumerary 

oxygen systems installed under the oxygen 

mask stowage location has a part number 

identified in Table 1 of this AD. A review of 

airplane maintenance records is acceptable in 

lieu of this inspection if the part number of 

the low-pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew 

and supernumerary oxygen systems can be 

conclusively determined from that review. 

(1) For any hose having a part number 

identified in Table 1 of this AD, before 

further flight, replace the hose with a new or 

serviceable part, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 767–35A0034, Revision 1, 

dated June 22, 2000. 

(2) For any hose not having a part number 

identified in Table 1 of this AD, no further 

action is required by this paragraph. 

TABLE 1—APPLICABLE PART NUMBERS

Boeing specification part No. 

Equivalent Boeing supplier part Nos. 

Sierra Engineering Spencer Fluid Puritan 

Bennett Hydraflow 

60B50059–70 ................................. 835–01–70 ..................................... 9513–20S5–18.0 ............................ ZH784–20 38001–70 

60B50059–81 ................................. Not applicable ................................ Not applicable ................................ Not applicable 38001–81 

60B50059–94 ................................. Not applicable ................................ Not applicable ................................ Not applicable 38001–94 

60B50059–101 ............................... Not applicable ................................ Not applicable ................................ Not applicable 38001–101 

60B50059–130 ............................... Not applicable ................................ Not applicable ................................ Not applicable 38001–130 

Parts Installation 

(h) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install a flightcrew or 

supernumerary oxygen hose with a part 

number identified in Table 1 of this AD on 

any airplane. 

Actions Accomplished According to 

Previous Issue of Service Bulletin 

(i) Actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance with 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–35A0034, 

dated September 2, 1999, are considered 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding actions specified in this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 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: Susan 

L. Monroe, 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) 

917–6457; fax (425) 917–6590. Or, e-mail 

information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(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 principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(k) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 

767–35A0034, Revision 1, dated June 22, 

2000, to do the actions required by this AD, 

unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766– 

5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 16, 

2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18623 Filed 8–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0458; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–CE–023–AD; Amendment 

39–16372; AD 2010–15–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; GROB– 

WERKE GMBH & CO KG Models G102 

ASTIR CS and G102 STANDARD ASTIR 

III Gliders 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

During an annual inspection, a water 

ballast hose connector was found 

disconnected from the fuselage wall of an 

Astir CS. 

The investigation has shown that the hosefuselage connection bonding has been 

degraded over years of service. 

This condition, if not corrected, could lead 

to the following consequences: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1