Discussion \n\n\n\tWe issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2011 (76 FR 34918). That NPRM proposed to require modifying the fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the wing. \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 (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment. \n\nSupport for Proposed Rule (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011) \n\n\n\tContinental Airlines (Continental) stated it agrees with the intent of the proposed rule (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011). \n\nRequests To Incorporate New Information Notice and Clarify Certain Service Information \n\n\n\tDelta Airlines (Delta), American Airlines (American), and Continental requested that we incorporate Boeing Service Bulletin InformationNotice 767-57-0121 IN 01, dated March 3, 2011, into the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011). American justified its request by stating this information notice addresses information critical to the correct application of sealant, and, if this information notice is not incorporated by reference in the AD, the modification addressed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010, will be incomplete and incorrect. Continental justified its request by stating this information notice corrects and clarifies certain instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767- 57-0121, dated October 7, 2010. Air New Zealand requested clarification of exactly where the sealant specified in steps 7 and 8 of Figures 11 and 12 is to be applied. \n\tBoeing has requested that we allow the use of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011,as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 2, dated January 10, 2012, includes the information contained in Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 767-57-0121 IN 01, dated March 3, 2011. \n\tWe agree to incorporate the content of Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 767-57-0121 IN 01, dated March 3, 2011, into this final rule. This information notice addresses information critical to the correct application of sealant to the wing ribs. We have changed paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 2, dated January 10, 2012. We also have added paragraph (h) of this AD to give credit for modifications of the fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the wing, if those actions were accomplished before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010. We have changed the subsequent paragraph designations accordingly. \n\nRequest To Withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011) \n\n\n\tUPS requested that we withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011) and allow compliance with the actions in AD 2011-03-15, Amendment 39-16599 (76 FR 8615, February 15, 2011) to address the identified unsafe condition addressed in the NPRM. AD 2011-03-15 requires inspecting for correct main track downstop assembly, thread protrusion, damaged and missing parts of the main track downstop assemblies of the outboard slats for foreign objects, debris, and damage to the wall of the track housing of the outboard slats, and corrective actions if necessary for certain Model 767 series airplanes. UPS justified its request by stating that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767- 57-0118, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2010, which is referred to in AD 2011-03-15, requires checking all the slat track stop bolts and slat track housingsfor debris and correcting any discrepancies found, which will correct the unsafe condition addressed by the NPRM. UPS also stated concern that the modification required by the NPRM will not address any or all fuel leaking along the leading edge of the wing for Model 767 airplanes, because Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010, was written to change the drain path, but was based on a specific incident for Model 737 airplane wings. UPS stated the modification based on the single incident cannot ensure that all flammable fuel leaks on Model 767 airplanes will be addressed by the modification specified in the NPRM. \n\tWe disagree with the request to withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011). AD 2011-03-15, Amendment 39-16599 (76 FR 8615, February 15, 2011), was issued to address the potential of foreign object damage or slat track stop bolts coming loose in the slat track housings, which could cause a puncture in the track housing when the slatis retracted, and a consequent fuel leak. The NPRM addressed a wing leading edge drain hole that is located close to the engine nozzle such that a fuel leak from any cause, not just from a slat track housing leak, is drained directly on the engine exhaust nozzle and could cause a fuel fire. Accomplishing the actions of AD 2011-03-15 does not remove the risk caused by the drain hole that is addressed by this final rule. We have not changed the final rule in this regard. \n\n((Page 64698)) \n\nRequests To Require New Part Numbers for All Modified Parts \n\n\n\tContinental and Delta requested that parts modified by accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57- 0121, dated October 7, 2010, be identified with new part numbers. Continental justified its request by stating that the new part numbers are needed to prevent the potential of unmodifying a modified airplane in the future by purchasing and installing an unmodified wing panel on that airplane. Delta justified itsrequest by stating that the lack of configuration control in that service bulletin leaves the entire industry at a risk for de-modification. Swapping access panels between airplanes, which is common during C-checks, could create a non- compliance situation if one airplane has been modified and the other has not. \n\tWe partially agree. We agree with the intent of this request because it prevents a situation where unmodified non-compliant parts are installed unintentionally due to a lack of configuration control. We disagree with the commenters' request for new part numbers to be assigned to all modified parts, because there are no production equivalent parts for these retrofitted parts. Therefore, we cannot use the production part numbers to identify the parts modified per Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010. However, we have changed paragraph (g) of this final rule to require actions to be done in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, Revision 2, dated January 10, 2012, which includes part marking instructions for seal doors, wing panels, and ribs to identify that the part was modified per this service information. \n\nRequest To Approve Delegation of Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) \n\n\n\tBoeing requested paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011) be changed to allow Boeing authority to approve AMOCs under the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA). Boeing justified its request by stating that it anticipates repairs will be required to panel and ribs etc., when Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-57-0121, dated October 7, 2010, is embodied, and it would be beneficial if the Boeing ODA is authorized to approve these repairs. \n\tWe agree with the request to delegate structural AMOC approval to the Boeing ODA, because we believethat the Boeing ODA will be effective at making those findings. We have added new paragraph (i)(3) to the final rule to delegate structural AMOC approval to the Boeing ODA. \n\nChange to Proposed Applicability \n\n\n\tWe have changed paragraph (c) of this final rule to refer to airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767- 57-0121, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011. \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\t(Agr)re consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and \n\tDo not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 34918, June 15, 2011). \n\tWe also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tWe estimate that this AD affects 361 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leading edge fluid drainage 22 work-hours x $85 per $651 $2,521 $910,081 \n\tmodification. hour = $1,870. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\n\n\tAccording to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impacton affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate. \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 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.