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 September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59590). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead at station (STA) 1582, repair or replacement of any cracked bulkhead, and eventual replacement of the aft pressure bulkhead at STA 1582 with a new bulkhead. That proposed AD specified that accomplishing the replacement would terminate the repetitive inspections specified in the NPRM. \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 and the FAA's response to each comment. \n\nSupport for NPRM (76 FR 59590, September 27, 2011) \n\n\n\tAmerican Airlines has no objection to the NRPM (76 FR 59590, September 27, 2011), and noted that itwill incorporate the requirements into its maintenance program. \n\nRequest To Include AD 2004-14-19, Amendment 39-13728 (69 FR 42549, July 16, 2004) in NPRM (76 FR 59590, September 27, 2011) Requirements \n\n\n\tBoeing and Airborne Express (ABX) asked that the requirements in AD 2004-14-19, Amendment 39-13728 (69 FR 42549, July 16, 2004), be added to the affected ADs section and the related requirements of the NPRM (76 FR 59590, September 27, 2011). Boeing stated that this would ensure that the initial actions in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of AD 2004-14- 19 begin 50,000 flight cycles after the aft pressure bulkhead has been replaced. ABX recommend that we add a paragraph that allows a 50,000 flight cycle threshold on a new aft pressure bulkhead for the inspections required by AD 2004-14-19. \n\tWe do not agree to include AD 2004-14-19, Amendment 39-13728 (69 FR 42549, July 16, 2004), in the affected ADs section and related requirements of this AD. We have determined that an unsafe condition exists, and that the actions this AD requires are adequate to ensure the continued safety of the affected fleet. The commenter's suggested changes would alter the actions currently required by this AD, so additional rulemaking would be required. We find that delaying this action would be inappropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue. However, operators can always request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for AD 2004-14-19. \n\nRequest To Clarify Terminating Action for Other ADs \n\n\n\tBoeing asked that we change paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 59590, September 27, 2011) to remove the terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (b) of AD 2004-05-16, Amendment 39- 13511 (69 FR 10917, March 9, 2004). Boeing stated that the inspections required by paragraph (b) of AD 2004-05-16 are not terminated by doing the inspections required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM. Boeing added that the inspections required by AD 2004-05-16 are for cracking of the web of the aft pressure bulkhead at the web y-chord joint. Boeing noted that this cracking pattern, location, and growth rate are not covered by the inspection in paragraph (g) of the NPRM. \n\tWe agree with the commenter for the reasons provided. We have removed the terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by AD 2004-05-16 (69 FR 10917, March 9, 2004) from paragraph (g) of this AD. \n\tBoeing also requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 59590, September 27, 2011) to specify that accomplishing the inspections in paragraph (g) of the NPRM terminates the ''initial'' and repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (f) ''and (h)'' of AD 2005-03-11, Amendment 39-13967 (70 FR 7174, February 11, 2005), corrected on March 11, 2005 (70 FR 12119). \n\tWe partially agree with the commenter. Doing the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD replaces the inspections (repetitive) required by paragraph (f) of AD 2005-03-11, Amendment 39- 13967 (70 FR 7174, February 11, 2005), corrected on March 11, 2005 (70 FR 12119). We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly. However, the inspection required by paragraph (h) of AD 2005-03-11 is a one-time inspection of the ''oil can'' locations of the aft pressure bulkhead web, which is not in the same location as the inspections required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR 59590, September 27, 2011). Therefore the requirements in paragraph (h) of AD 2005-03-11 cannot be terminated by the inspections required by paragraph (g) of \n\n((Page 28242)) \n\nthis AD. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we will consider requests to provide such relief through approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the terminating action would also provide an acceptable level of safety. \n\tBoeing also asked that we revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 59590, September 27, 2011) to specify that doing the replacement specified in paragraph (h) of the NPRM terminates the actions required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 2004-05-16, Amendment 39-13511 (69 FR 10917, March 9, 2004) and the actions required by paragraphs (f) and (h) of AD 2005-03-11, Amendment 39-13967 (70 FR 7174, February 11, 2005), corrected on March 11, 2005 (70 FR 12119). \n\tWe agree with the commenter. Once the replacement required by paragraph (h) of this AD is done, it is not necessary to do the inspections required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 2004-05-16, Amendment 39-13511 (69 FR 10917, March 9, 2004) and paragraphs (f) and (h) of AD 2005-03-11, Amendment 39-13967 (70 FR 7174, February 11, 2005), corrected on March 11, 2005 (70 FR 12119). We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD accordingly. \n\nRequest To Include Inspection in Airworthiness Limitations \n\n\n\tABX asked that we add a new paragraph following paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 59590, September 27, 2011), which allows synchronizing the maintenance program and the AD requirements for all airplanes equipped with improved aft pressure bulkheads. ABX added that we should mandate the airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for the maintenance on aft pressure bulkheads that have been replaced, in order to relieve the burden of requesting AMOCs. ABX added that the improved aft pressure bulkhead should have the same maintenance requirements whether it was installed on an airplane in production or in service. \n\tWe partially agree with the commenter. We agree that the actual dimensional and material configuration of the modified aft pressure bulkhead is identical to the later production airplanes. However, although the configuration is identical, the fatigue life of the bulkhead is not. All Model 767 airplanes, including the fatigue test airplanes, are subject to limit test pressurization loads during production. This limit loading substantially enhances the fatigue life of the structure. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. \n\nClarification of Effect of Winglet Installation \n\n\n\tWe have added new Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD to state that supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/ Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ 082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a ''change in product'' AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17. \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. We 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 83 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate thefollowing 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inspections........................ 22 work-hours x $85 per $0 $1,870 $155,210 \n\thour = $1,870 per \n\tinspection cycle. Replacement........................ 1,541 work-hours x $85 per 399,539 530,524 44,033,492 \n\thour = $130,985. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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.