A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 767 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2003 (68 FR 20087). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections and tests for discrepancies of the drainage system of the canted pressure deck located in the wheel wells of the main landing gear (MLG) of the left and right wings, and corrective actions if necessary. \n\nComments \n\n\tInterested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received. \n\nRequest To Withdraw the Proposed AD \n\n\tOne commenter requests that, rather than issue an AD to require the inspections proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the inspections be incorporated into the Maintenance Planning Document (MPD). The commenter states thatsince certain of the proposed inspections (the Phase 2 inspection) are already specified as tasks in the MPD, it is unnecessary to require them by AD action. Additionally, the commenter points out the amount of work and time necessary to gain access (removal of several rows of seats, floor panels, and partitions) for the existing MPD inspections would also be required by the inspections proposed in the NPRM. \n\n\tThe FAA does not agree that the NPRM should be withdrawn. The repetitive intervals in Section 8 of the MPD are a baseline inspection program and are written in terms of "check" intervals. The check intervals may be extended by an FAA-approved maintenance program revision. Some operators have had "C" checks extended from 18 to 24 months. For some operators, Section 8 of the MPD may be different than the manufacturer's baseline program. We have determined that the unsafe condition addressed in this AD requires inspections at the intervals specified in the NPRM. To ensure thosespecific inspection intervals are adhered to, an AD must be issued. \n\nRequest To Revise the Unsafe Condition \n\n\tOne commenter, the manufacturer, requests that the unsafe condition be revised to clarify that the AD actions also are required to prevent ice accumulation on components. (The NPRM specified prevention of ice on the lateral flight control cables.) The commenter also requests that the unsafe condition be revised to specify that the unsafe condition "could result in 'degraded' or loss of controllability of the airplane." \n\n\tThe FAA agrees that addition of the words "and/or components" clarifies the unsafe condition, and has revised the final rule to reflect this change. We do not agree that the word "degraded" should be added to the unsafe condition statement. The phrase "loss of controllability of the airplane" adequately describes the end-level effect on the airplane. "Degraded controllability" would not necessarily result in loss of control of the airplane, unless there were other contributing factors. We do not list all possible conditions that could result from ice accumulation, only the end-level effect. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. \n\nRequests To Revise Compliance Times \n\n\tOne commenter requests that the compliance times stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the NPRM be expressed in terms of "C" checks rather than months. The commenter explains that its "C" checks are every 24 months so that inspections would occur at 24 months, 48 months, and 72 months, respectively. The commenter states that the compliance time intervals specified in the NPRM of 18, 36, and 54 months would require its fleet to have special maintenance visits scheduled in addition to the normally scheduled "C" checks. The commenter points out that the cost of special visits and downtime would be considerable. \n\n\tThe FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. The commenter did not provide any justification to show that increasing the compliance time intervals would provide an acceptable level of safety. However, under the provisions of paragraph (e) of the final rule, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance times if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. \n\n\tAnother commenter requests that, for airplanes specified in Work Package 2, the repetitive inspection compliance times be extended from intervals not to exceed 36 months as proposed in the NPRM, to intervals not to exceed 72 months. The commenter explains that the actions specified in Work Package 2 will require significant cabin disassembly. Therefore, the commenter would like to perform the proposed inspections at its "4C" (72 months) heavy maintenance visits. \n\n\tThe FAA does not agree that the repetitive inspection interval should be extended. The commenter provided no technical justification to show that a 72-month intervalwould provide an acceptable level of safety. However, under the provisions of paragraph (e) of the final rule, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. \n\nRequest To Revise the Threshold for Work Package 2 \n\n\tOne commenter points out that new airplanes already have the improved drain systems. Additionally, the commenter notes that it is unlikely that the area inside the canted pressure deck has been contaminated with debris on new airplanes, since that area should not have been disturbed from years of service or by heavy maintenance activities. The commenter objects to the amount of work and time necessary to gain access (removal of several rows of seats, floor panels, and partitions) to perform inspections that the commenter does not consider necessary. \n\n\tThe FAA does not agree. As explained in the preamble of the NPRM, we have received reports of ice accumulation around control cables on Boeing Model 767 series airplanes. We point out that we have also received similar reports on Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, one of which was a report of an event that occurred on the airplane approximately three years after the date of manufacture. Therefore, we consider that the service history demonstrates that new airplanes are not exempt from water accumulation in the canted pressure deck. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. \n\nRequest To Revise Work Package Number \n\n\tTwo commenters request that bullet number three under the paragraph titled "Difference Between This Proposed AD and Service Bulletins" be revised to read, "For Work Package 3," instead of, "For Work Package 1" as stated in the NPRM. \n\n\tThe FAA acknowledges that a typographical error occurred in that paragraph and that bullet number three should read, "For Work Package 3." Since it is clear thatour intent was to specify that bullet number three read, "For Work Package 3," and because the "Difference Between This Proposed AD and Service Bulletins" paragraph does not reappear in this final rule, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. \n\nEditorial Clarification \n\n\tThe FAA has revised certain wording regarding the compliance times of the repetitive inspection requirements specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of this rule. Instead of specifying that the repetitive inspections be repeated "at least every," as stated in paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of the NPRM, this final rule specifies that the inspections be repeated "at intervals not to exceed." \n\nConclusion \n\n\tAfter careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously described. The FAA has determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. \n\nChanges to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the AD \n\n\tOn July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material. \n\nChange to Labor Rate Estimate \n\n\tWe have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. \n\nCost Impact \n\n\tThere are approximately 814 airplanesof the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 345 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection/test of the drainage system specified in Work Package 1 of the service bulletins, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $22,425, or $65 per airplane. \n\n\tIt will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection/cleaning specified in Work Package 2 of the service bulletins, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection/cleaning required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $89,700, or $260 per airplane, per cycle. \n\n\tIt will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection specified in Work Package 3 of the service bulletins,at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $44,850, or $130 per airplane, per inspection cycle. \n\n\tThe cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. \n\nRegulatory Impact \n\n\tThe regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. \n\n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a "significant regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a "significant rule" under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES. \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\n\tAccordingly, pursuant to theauthority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: \n\nPART 39-AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES \n\n\t1. 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\n\t2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive: