Discussion \n\n\n\tWe issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2008-08-24, Amendment 39-15478 (73 FR 21242, April 21, 2008). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34879). That NPRM proposed to require replacing the drain tube assembly of the left and right engine strut aft fairings with a new one which includes an integral support clamp made of nickel alloy 625. That NPRM also proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. \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 proposal (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment. \n\nSupport for the NPRM (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012) \n\n\n\tUnited Airlines supports the 60-month compliance time specified in the NPRM (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012). \n\nClarification of Effect of Winglet Installation \n\n\n\tAviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012). \n\tWe concur. We have added new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD, which states that STC ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/408E012E008616A7862578880060456C?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00830se) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE 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 section 39.17 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. For all other AMOC requests, the operator must request approval for an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. \n\nRequest To Extend Compliance Time \n\n\n\tAmerican Airlines (AAL) requested that thecompliance time specified in paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012) be extended from 60 to 72 months. AAL stated that the routine maintenance schedule does not allow for accomplishment of the replacements during the proposed compliance time. AAL stated that the compliance time could be extended for all airplanes without jeopardizing aviation safety. \n\tWe disagree with the request to change the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered not only the safety implications, but the manufacturer's recommendations, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the actions within an interval of time that corresponds to typical scheduled maintenance for affected operators. Under the provisions of paragraph (h) of the final rule, however, we may consider requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such adjustments would provide an acceptable level of safety. No change has been made to this AD in this regard. \n\nRequest To Revise Paragraph (f) of the NPRM (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012) To Include Terminating Action \n\n\n\tAAL requested that we revise paragraph (f) of the NPRM (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012) to state that accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 2, dated November 4, 2011, constitutes a terminating action for the specified unsafe condition and that no further action is required. \n\tWe disagree with the request to revise paragraph (f) of the NPRM (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012). The action required by paragraph (g) of this AD, which is specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 2, dated November 4, 2011, is the only action required by this AD. If operators have previously accomplished the actions specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 2, dated November 4, 2011, they are in compliance with the AD, as specified in paragraph (f) of this AD. No change has been made to this AD in this regard. \n\nRequest To Clarify Conflicting AMOC Statements \n\n\n\tAlaska Airlines (ASA) requested clarification regarding conflicting AMOC statements. ASA stated that paragraph (h)(3) of the NPRM (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012) does not allow AMOCs approved for AD 2008-08-24, Amendment 39-15478 (73 FR 21242, April 21, 2008), to be used for the actions proposed in the NPRM. However, ASA pointed out that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 2, dated November 4, 2011, states that it is an approved AMOC for paragraphs (f) and (h) of AD 2008-08-24. ASA also requested credit for actions done previously using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 2, dated November 4, 2011. \n\tWe agree to clarify. Paragraph 1.F., ''Approval,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 2, dated November 4, 2011, states that the actions specified in that service bulletin are approved as an AMOC for paragraphs (f) and (h) of AD 2008- 08-24, Amendment 39-15478 (73 FR 21242, April 21, 2008). That AMOC approval allows operators to use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 2, dated November 4, 2011, to comply with AD 2008-08-24. However, on the effective date of this AD, AD 2008- 08-24 will be superseded (i.e., will no longer exist), and the fact that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 2, dated November 4, 2011, refers to AD 2008-08-24 will be moot. This AD requires the accomplishment of the actions of that service bulletin as the primary means of compliance with this AD, and not as an AMOC. \n\tThe intent of paragraph (h)(3) of this AD is to prevent the use of any AMOC for AD 2008-08-24, Amendment 39-15478 (73 FR 21242, April 21, 2008), as an AMOC for this new AD. This new AD requires accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 2, datedNovember 4, 2011. No credit is given for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 1, dated October 19, \n\n((Page 70359)) \n\n2009; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, dated May 2, 2007; because additional work is necessary for airplanes on which Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2009; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1043, dated May 2, 2007; was accomplished. No change has been made to this AD in this regard. \n\nConclusion \n\n\n\tWe reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the 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 (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and \n\tDo not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 34879, June 12, 2012). \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tWe estimate that this AD affects 1,098 airplanes of U.S. registry. \n\tWe estimate the following costs to comply with this AD: \n\n\n\tEstimated costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tCost per Cost on U.S. \n\tAction Labor cost Parts cost product operators ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Replacement........................... 14 work-hours x $85 per $12,326 $13,516 $14,840,568 \n\thour = $1,190. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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, Section106, 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\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\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 economic impact, 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.