Discussion \n\n\n\tWe issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2015 (80 FR 66841) (''the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that certain splice plate locations of the aft pressure bulkhead web are hidden and cannot be inspected using existing manufacturer service information. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive open-hole HFEC inspections for cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could result in rapid airplane decompression and loss of structural integrity. \n\nComments \n\n\n\tWe gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. \n\nSupport of the AD \n\n\n\tFedEx, United Airlines, and United Parcel Service comments supported the NPRM. \n\nEffect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions \n\n\n\tAviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM. \n\tWe concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added a new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/ Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ 59027f43b9a7486e86257b1d006591ee/$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a ''change in product'' alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17. \n\nRequest for Clarification of Applicability in the Service Information \n\n\n\tVision Airlines requested clarification on the effectivity in the service information. Vision Airlines stated that the airplane group numbers, line numbers, and configurations do not cover all airplanes that are identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015. More specifically, Vision Airlines stated that there is no mention in paragraph 1.E., ''Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, of airplane line numbers 1- 175 that have not had the aft pressure bulkhead replaced. Vision Airlines did receive guidance from Boeing stating that line numbers 1- 175 without the replaced aft pressure bulkhead should use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0026, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2004, which is mandated by AD 2005-03-11, Amendment 39-13967 (70 FR 7174, February 11, 2005); corrected March 11, 2005 (70 FR 12119). \n\tWe partially agree. We agree that the table on page 7 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, may be confusing. However, page 7 is part of the Summary section of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, and is not mandated by this AD. This AD requires using the effectivity information specified in paragraph 1.E.,''Compliance'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, which is correct in the identification of the Group 1 airplanes. The Group 1 airplanes are all line number 1-175 airplanes on which the aft pressure bulkhead was replaced in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0139, November 12, 2009. If any of these airplanes have not yet had the aft pressure bulkhead replaced as required by AD 2012-09-08, Amendment 39- 17043, (77 FR 28240, May 14 2012) (''AD 2012-09-08''), then they are not yet a Group 1 airplane and are not subject to the requirements this of this AD until the aft pressure bulkhead is replaced. We have not changed this AD in this regard. \n\nRequest To Add ADs to Paragraph (b) of the Proposed AD \n\n\n\tBoeing requested that we add AD 2004-05-16, Amendment 39-13511, (69 FR 10917, March 9, 2004) (''AD 2004-05-16''), AD 2012-09-08, and AD 2014-14-04, Amendment 39-17899 (79 FR 44673, August 1, 2014) (''AD 2014-14-04'') to paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that these ADs do not specifically address the splice plate locations, but the inspection areas defined in these ADs can be interpreted to cover these locations. Boeing noted that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767- 53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, provides information on FAA-approved AMOCs for ADs 2004-05-16, 2012-09-08, and 2014-14-04. \n\tWe partially agree. We agree that ADs 2004-05-16, 2012-09-08, and 2014-14-04 are ''related'' to this AD because Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, provides information on FAA-approved AMOCs that could be used for compliance with ADs 2004-05- 16, 2012-09-08, and 2014-14-04. However, we do not agree to revise paragraph (b) of this AD because it identifies ''affected'' ADs, and ADs 2004-05-16, 2012-09-08, and 2014-14-04 are not affected by the requirements of this AD. For example, the requirements of ADs 2004-05- 16, 2012-09-08, and 2014-14-04 are not terminated by any requirements of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard. \n\nRequest for Clarification of the Terminating Actions in Paragraph (h) of the Proposed AD \n\n\n\tBoeing requested that we clarify the terminating actions in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the existing AD language is vague, and suggested changing the last sentence of paragraph (h) to specify the type of repair as a ''reinforcing repair.'' Boeing pointed out that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767- 53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, provides information on specific AMOCs for existing repairs with damage tolerance evaluation and approval from Boeing. Boeing asserted that under the existing language non- reinforcing repairs such as hole enlargements and blending would terminate any inspections inthe area and might not be correctly evaluated per 14 CFR 26.43. \n\tWe agree that non-reinforcing repairs are not an acceptable method to terminate the repetitive inspections. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD accordingly. \n\nConclusion \n\n\n\tWe reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and \n\n((Page 41431)) \n\ndetermined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes: \n\tAre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and \n\tDo not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. \n\tWe also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD. \n\nRelated Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51 \n\n\n\tWe reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015. The service information describes procedures for removing the aft row of fasteners from each of the splice plates and doing an open- hole HFEC inspection for cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead at station 1582. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tWe estimate that this AD affects 430 airplanes of U.S. registry. \n\tWe estimate the following costs to comply with this AD: \n\n\n\tEstimated Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tCost on U.S. \n\tAction Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product operators ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Repetitive inspections........... Up to 46 work-hours $0 Up to $3,910 per Up to $1,681,300 \n\tx $85 per hour = inspection cycle. per inspection \n\t$3,910 per cycle. \n\tinspection cycle. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\n\n\tWe have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. \n\nAuthority for This Rulemaking \n\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\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\n\tThis 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\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: \n\t(1) Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, \n\t(2) Is not a ''significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), \n\t(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and \n\t(4) Will not have a significant economicimpact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.