Discussion \n\n\tWe issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to certain Boeing Model 767 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2009 (74 FR 34513). That NPRM proposed to require inspections for scribe lines in the fuselage skin at skin lap joints, the skin at certain external approved repairs, the skin around external features such as antennas, and the skin at decals; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. \n\nComments \n\n\tWe gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the commenters. \n\nSupport for the NPRM \n\n\tThe Air Transport Association of America (ATA) agrees with the intent of the NPRM. \n\nRequest To Remove Requirements for Inspections for Partially Repainted Airplanes \n\n\tThe ATA, on behalf of its member American Airlines (AA), requests that we revise the NPRM to state that the inspections done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, are necessary only in areas that have been previously stripped or repainted. \n\tWe agree that clarification is necessary. Note 1 of paragraph (g) of this AD, as well as the notes in paragraph 1.E., "Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, state the exceptions to the inspection. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, states that these inspections are not necessary in areas that have not been stripped or repainted. We have not changed the AD in this regard. \n\nRequest To Remove Reference to Butt Joints From Paragraph (g) of the NPRM \n\n\tThe ATA, on behalf of its member United Airlines (UAL), and Boeing and Japan Airlines (JAL) request that we remove the term "butt joints'' from the requirements of paragraph (g) of the NPRM. Boeing and JAL pointout that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, does not specify any inspections for scribe lines at butt joints. \n\tWe agree to remove the reference to "butt joints'' from paragraph (g) in this final rule. While Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767- 53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, does state that some scribe lines were found at butt joint areas of the skin, it does not specifically address scribe lines found at butt joints for Model 767 airplanes. We have removed the term "butt joints'' from paragraph (g) of the final rule. \n\nRequest To Remove Requirement for Inspections Where Decals Have Been Installed \n\n\tJAL requests that we remove the requirement for inspections where decals have been installed if procedures were used to ensure that the skin was not damaged. JAL states that it protects the skin before installing decals and inspects the skin to confirm that the area is free of damage after installing decals. \n\tWe partially agree. Using tools that do not scribe the skin should be given consideration. However, we disagree that it is necessary to remove the requirement for inspections of any location where decals have been installed. Notes (b) and (d) in Table 1 in paragraph 1.E., "Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, state the locations that are exempt from the inspections. Under the provisions of paragraph (l) of the final rule, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance if data are submitted to substantiate that such request would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD regarding this issue. \n\nRequest To Revise Reporting Requirement \n\n\tAll Nippon Airways (ANA), JAL, Boeing, and ATA, on behalf of its member Delta, request that we require reporting for crack findings only rather than require reporting positive and negative findings. ANA requests that we limit reporting to positive findings of cracks equal to or greater than 0.006 inch deep. Delta requests that reporting be mandated only for positive findings (specifically findings over 0.001 inch deep), and requests that we extend the window for reporting from 30 to 180 days. Delta states that a longer time period will allow findings to be batched together for a grouped report and preclude undue compliance issues related to late reporting. The commenters state that to require reporting for all findings, both for positive and negative findings, is burdensome and unnecessary. \n\tWe agree to revise the reporting requirement to require reporting only for positive findings. Since Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767- 53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, specifies that only a repair plan be reported to Boeing, we have revised paragraph (j) of the final rule to require reporting only for scribe lines deeper than 0.001 inch along with a respective repair plan. While airplanes with scribe lines greater than 0.001 inch deep and less than 0.006 inch deep may be eligible for the limited return to service (LRTS) program depending on location, airplanes with scribe lines greater than 0.006 inch in any location are not eligible for the LRTS program. \n\tWe disagree with Delta's request to extend the window for reporting from 30 to 180 days. We find that 30 days after a completed inspection is an appropriate amount of time to submit reporting requirements. \n\nRequest To Remove Inspection Requirement for Areas Without External Features \n\n\tJAL requests that we remove the inspection requirement for areas without external features. JAL notes that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, requires inspections for scribe lines where external features are installed. JAL states that it has airplane configurations with antennas that were not installed. JAL requests that we add "if an antenna is not located in the position described in the identification, no inspection for the skin at that location is required,'' to the AD. \n\tWe partially agree with the commenter. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, does not provide instructions to address such anomalies in those areas. However, we disagree that adding an exception to the AD is necessary because these anomalies do not affect the majority of the fleet. JAL may address this situation by requesting approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to the procedures in paragraph (l) of this AD. \n\nWe have not changed the AD in this regard. \n\nRequest To Change "Exploratory Detailed Inspection'' to "Detailed Inspection'' \n\n\tJAL requests that we change the term "exploratory detailed inspection'' to "detailed inspection'' because Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, does not define "exploratory detailed inspection.'' \n\tWe agree to change the term for the reason provided by the commenter. We have revised paragraph (g) of the AD to reflect this change. \n\nRequest To Remove Requirement to Return Airplanes To a "Serviceable Condition'' \n\n\tThe ATA, on behalf of its member AA, requests that we remove the requirement to return airplanes to a "serviceable condition.'' AA notes that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, states "put the airplane back into a serviceable condition'' multiple times. AA requests that we revise the AD to exclude this requirement because it does not address the unsafe condition. Furthermore, AA states that most operators will accomplish these inspections as part of a heavy maintenance visit, so returning the airplane to a serviceable condition will occur well after the inspections are complete. \n\tWe partially agree with the commenter's request. The airplanes may not be in a "serviceable'' condition immediately after addressing the scribe line issue. However, we disagree that revising the AD is necessary because the statement is designed to ensure that the airplane is airworthy after all the required tasks have been completed and before the next flight of the airplane. We have not revised the AD in regard to this issue. \n\nRequest To Include Alternate Measurement Tools \n\n\tThe ATA, on behalf of its member AA, requests that we include alternate measurement tools. AA notes that paragraph 2.F., "Special Tooling,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, lists several different optical micrometers and laser measurement devices. AA requests that we revise the AD to include provisions for using alternative equivalent measurement tools rather than allowing only the specific models listed. \n\tWe disagree with the commenter's request to revise the AD to include alternative measurement tools. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, specifies that no special tooling is necessary to accomplish the specified actions, and it lists standard tools that may be needed to measure scribe line depth. We have not changed the AD in this regard. \n\nRequest To Change Compliance Time in the Service Bulletin \n\n\tANA requests that we change the requirement "after the original issue date of the service bulletin'' as it is written in paragraph 1.E., "Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, to "after the effective date of the AD.'' \n\tWe agree with the commenter that the effective date of the AD should be the date used to determine compliance. Paragraph (h) of this final rule states that where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0193, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2009, specifies a compliance time after the date on that service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard. \n\nExplanation of Change Made to This AD \n\n\tBoeing Commercial Airplanes has received an Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), which replaces their previous designation as a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) holder. We have revised paragraph (l)(3) of this AD to delegate the authority to approve an alternative method of compliance for any repair required by this AD to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA. \n\nConclusion \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\tWe estimate that this AD affects 367 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. \n\n\tTable--Estimated Costs\n\n\nAction\nWork hours\nAverage labor rate per hour\nParts\nCost per product\nNumber of U.S.-registered airplanes\nFleet cost\nInspections\n340\n$80\nNone\n$27,200\n367\n$9,982,400\n\nAuthority for This Rulemaking \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\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\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), and \n\t(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. \n\tYou can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. \n\nAdoption of the Amendment \n\nAccordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES \n\n1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: \n\n\tAuthority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. \n\nSec. 39.13 (Amended) \n\n2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new AD: