Examining the Docket \n\n\tYou may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. \n\nDiscussion \n\n\tThe FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2002-11-11, amendment 39-12772 (67 FR 39265, June 7, 2002). The existing AD applies to certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2006 (71 FR 37507). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, for discrepancies of the potable water supply and gray water drain lines; and applicable corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require replacing the heater tapes on the potable water supply and gray water drain lines of the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, with new ribbon heaters, which would end the repetitive inspections. \n\nComments \n\n\tWe provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. \n\nRequest To Permit Alternative Method of Compliance \n\n\tBoeing requests that we permit an alternative method of compliance for the terminating action described in the NPRM. Boeing states that Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 2, dated February 23, 2006, describes procedures for deactivating and removing the heater tapes of certain gray water drain lines and wrapping the drain lines with foam insulation. Boeing therefore requests that we revise the summary and paragraph (h), Terminating Action, of the NPRM to state that the alternative action described here is acceptable as a terminating action for the requirements of the AD. \n\n\tWe agree for the reasons stated. Accordingly, we have revised the summary of the AD, revised paragraph (h) of the AD to include new paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2), and removed paragraph identifiers (1) and (2) from Table 2 of the AD. We have also revised the Costs of Compliance section of the AD to present the estimated costs for deactivation and removal of the heating tapes and installation of foam insulation. These actions neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. \n\nRequest To Clarify Costs of Compliance \n\n\tBoeing requests that we clarify the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM. Boeing states that the Estimated Costs table is not clear and asserts that the time estimated for performing the inspections should be ''2 or 3" work hours. Boeing further asserts that Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038 specifies ''between4.75 and 11 work hours" to perform the heater tape replacements. Although Boeing made no specific request, we infer that Boeing wishes us to revise the Costs of Compliance section to more closely reflect the estimated costs specified in the service bulletin. \n\n\tWe partially agree. We concur that the time estimated for performing the inspections should be 2 or 3 work hours, as shown in the Estimated Costs table. However, the statement that ''between 4.75 and 11 work hours" are required to replace the heater tapes does not accurately reflect the service information we have reviewed. The service bulletin provides an estimate of between 4.75 and 11 work hours to gain access, perform inspections, replacements and tests, and close access. Typically, the costs specified in an AD are only the direct costs of the specific actions required by the AD. Therefore, the figures shown in the Estimated Costs table of this AD do not include the time to gain and close access or perform testing. Further, the remaining work hours specified to do the direct actions are divided into two parts: one part to perform the inspections and one part to replace the ribbon heater or to remove the heater and install foam insulation. We have made no changes to the AD in regard to these comments. \n\nComment Regarding Applicability \n\n\tA private citizen states that the NPRM does not apply to Model 767 freighter airplanes. \n\n\tWe agree. The AD does not apply to Model 767-300F or -400ER series airplanes (freighters), but only to Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, as stated in the NPRM. No change is needed to the AD in this regard. \n\nRequest for Posting of Service Information \n\n\tThe Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA), requests that we revise our procedures for incorporation by reference (IBR) of service information in ADs. MARPA states that, as an AD is a public regulatory instrument, it can not rely upon private writings. MARPA asserts that such IBR documents lose anyproprietary, protected status they originally had and become public documents and, therefore, that they must be published in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA addresses the stated purpose of the Federal Register IBR method, brevity, which is intended to relieve the Federal Register of needlessly publishing documents already supplied to affected individuals: owners and operators of affected aircraft. MARPA asserts that ''affected individuals" are no longer merely owners and operators, but, since most aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops, that a new class of affected individuals has emerged. This new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under 14 CFR 21.303 (PMA). Further, MARPA contends that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as most documents arekept in electronic files. MARPA therefore requests that IBR documents be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument and posted in the DMS docket for the applicable AD. \n\n\tWe acknowledge MARPA's comments. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the document \nnecessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. \n\n\tIn regard to MARPA's request to post service documents on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service documents on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment. \n\nRequest for Standardized Directorate Policies \n\n\tMARPA requests standardized directorate policies, asserting that another directorate has already given a blanket parts manufacturer approval (PMA) by stating in published rules that ''FAA-approved equivalent parts" may be used. MARPA contends that, by not using similar language, we are not in compliance with Executive Order 12866 or proposed FAA order 8040.2. MARPA asserts that for us to not include similar blanket language at the earliest possible time could work to our disadvantage legally. \n\n\tWe recognize the need for standardization on this issue and currently are in the process of reviewing issues that address PMAs at the national level.However, the Transport Airplane Directorate considers that to delay this particular AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, no change has been made to the final rule in this regard. \n\nConclusion \n\n\tWe have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\tThere are about 455 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. \n\n\tEstimated Costs\n\n\nAction\nWork hours 1\nAverage labor rate per hour\nParts\nCost per airplane 1\nNumber of U.S.-registered airplanes\nFleet cost 2\nInspections\n2 or 3\n$80\nNone\n$160 or $240, per inspection cycle\n83\nBetween $13,280 and $19,920, per inspection cycle\nDeactivation/ installation of insulation\n1 \n$80\nNone\n$80\nUp to 83\nUp to $6,640\nReplacement\nBetween 1 and 3\n$80\n$8,000\nBetween $8,080 and $8,240\n83\nUp to $683,920\n1 Depending on airplane configuration. \n2 Depending on fleet configuration. \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\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\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\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\n\t(2) Is not a ''significant rule" under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and \n\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\n\tWe prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. \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: \n\nPART 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by removing amendment 39-12772 (67 FR 39265, June 7, 2002) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):