Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER Series Airplanes, 29414-29421 [E8-10976]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29414
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF SERVICE INFORMATION FOR CERTAIN FSLS—Continued
The FSL identified in the service bulletin in paragraph—
Refers to Lockheed Service Bulletin—
For—
2.B.(1)(f) ....................................
093–28–096, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2006
(or later).
2.B.(1)(g) ...................................
093–28–097, dated August 3, 2006 (or later)
Inspecting the wiring harnesses of the No. 1 and No. 3 engine tank valves for evidence of damage and fuel contamination; replacing any damaged wire with new wire; and repairing or replacing any contaminated wires as applicable.
Identifying the wiring harnesses for the fuel quantity indicator
system (FQIS); inspecting the FQIS wiring harnesses for
any visible damage, wear, chafing, or indications of electrical arcing; and replacing or repairing any damaged wires
as applicable.
No Reporting Requirement
(i) Although Lockheed Service Bulletin
093–28–095, dated September 13, 2006;
Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–28–096,
Revision 2, dated June 23, 2006; and
Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–28–097,
dated August 3, 2006; specify to notify
Lockheed of any discrepancies found during
inspection or any evidence of damage or wire
replacement, this AD does not require that
action.
No Alternative Inspections, Inspection
Intervals, or CDCCLs
(j) After accomplishing the actions
specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD,
no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the
inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of
a later revision of the service bulletin that is
approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or unless
the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are
approved as an AMOC in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of
this AD.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD,
if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of
compliance or a different compliance time
for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(l) You must use Lockheed Service Bulletin
093–28–098, Revision 1, dated January 22,
2008, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference of
this service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Lockheed Continued
Airworthiness Project Office, Attention:
Airworthiness, 86 South Cobb Drive,
Marietta, Georgia 30063–0567.
(3) You may review copies of the service
information incorporated by reference at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8,
2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–10975 Filed 5–20–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2007–28388; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–163–AD; Amendment
39–15523; AD 2008–11–01]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and
–400ER Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 767–200, –300, –300F,
and –400ER series airplanes. This AD
requires revising the FAA-approved
maintenance program to incorporate
new airworthiness limitations (AWLs)
for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
requirements. This AD would also
require the initial inspection of certain
repetitive AWL inspections to phase in
those inspections, and repair if
necessary. This AD results from a design
review of the fuel tank systems. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the potential
for ignition sources inside fuel tanks
caused by latent failures, alterations,
repairs, or maintenance actions, which,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
in combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.
DATES: This AD is effective June 25,
2008.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in this AD
as of June 25, 2008.
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707,
Seattle, Washington 98124–2207.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527)
is the Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy
Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6497;
fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We 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 767–200, –300,
–300F, and –400ER series airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on July 3, 2007 (72 FR
36391). That NPRM proposed to require
revising the FAA-approved maintenance
program to incorporate new
E:\FR\FM\21MYR1.SGM
21MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for
fuel tank systems to satisfy Special
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
requirements. That NPRM also proposed
to require the initial inspection of
certain repetitive AWL inspections to
phase in those inspections, and repair if
necessary.
Actions Since NPRM Was Issued
Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing
has published Section 9 of the Boeing
767 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Document, D622T001–9, Revision April
2008 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Revision
April 2008 of the MPD’’). The NPRM
referred to Revision March 2006 of the
MPD as the appropriate source of
service information for accomplishing
the proposed actions. Revision April
2008 of the MPD adds additional
component maintenance manual (CMM)
information to AWL No. 28–AWL–06.
Accordingly, we have revised
paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this AD to
refer to Revision April 2008 of the MPD.
We also have added a new paragraph (j)
to this AD specifying that actions done
before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Revisions March 2006
through March 2008 of the MPD are
acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
Revision April 2008 of the MPD
specifies that the repetitive task interval
for AWL No. 28–AWL–05 is 25,000
flight hours or 6 years, whichever comes
first. However, we have revised
paragraph (g) of this AD to specify that
the repetitive task interval for AWL No.
28–AWL–05 is 72 months only. The
25,000-flight-hour interval will be
removed from that AWL in a future
revision to the MPD. We have also
revised the initial threshold for
accomplishing AWL No. 28–AWL–05 in
Table 1 of this AD.
In Revision March 2008 of the MPD,
Boeing removed the repetitive task
interval of 36,000 flight hours from
AWLs No. 28–AWL–01, No. 28–AWL–
18, and No. 28–AWL–26. Therefore, we
have removed reference to 36,000 total
flight cycles from the initial threshold of
AWLs No. 28–AWL–01, No. 28–AWL–
18, and No. 28–AWL–26 in Table 1 of
this AD and revised the initial threshold
to within 144 months since the date of
issuance of the original standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export
certificate of airworthiness.
Operators should note that, in
Revision March 2008 of the MPD,
Boeing also revised AWLs No. 28–
AWL–18 and No. 28–AWL–26 to reflect
the new maximum loop resistance
values associated with the lightning
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
protection of the unpressurized fuel
quantity indicating system (FQIS) wire
bundle installations.
In Revision October 2007 of the MPD,
Boeing revised the contents of
Subsection D, ‘‘AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS—SYSTEMS,’’ of the
MPD. The fuel system AWLs were
removed from Subsection D and placed
into a new Subsection E, ‘‘PAGE
FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS
AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS.’’
Therefore, we have revised paragraph
(g) of this AD to require the
incorporation of both Subsections D and
E of Revision April 2008 of the MPD.
Operators should note that we have
revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to
require incorporating only AWLs No.
28–AWL–01 through No. 28–AWL–26
inclusive. AWLs No. 28–AWL–27 and
No. 28–AWL–28 were added to Revision
October 2007 of the MPD; we might
issue additional rulemaking to require
the incorporation of those AWLs.
However, as an optional action,
operators may incorporate those AWLs
as specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this
AD.
Other Changes Made to This AD
We have revised paragraph (h) of this
AD to clarify that the actions identified
in Table 1 of this AD must be done at
the compliance time specified in that
table. Also, for standardization
purposes, we have revised this AD in
the following ways:
• We have added a new paragraph (i)
to this AD to specify that no alternative
inspections, inspection intervals, or
critical design configuration control
limitations (CDCCLs) may be used
unless they are part of a later approved
revision of the Revision April 2008 of
the MPD, or unless they are approved as
an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in
the AD is intended to ensure that the
AD-mandated airworthiness limitations
changes are treated the same as the
airworthiness limitations issued with
the original type certificate.
• We have revised Note 2 of this AD
to clarify that an operator must request
approval for an AMOC if the operator
cannot accomplish the required
inspections because an airplane has
been previously modified, altered, or
repaired in the areas addressed by the
required inspections.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to
participate in developing this AD. We
considered the comments received from
the six commenters.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
29415
Request To Allow Inspections Done
According to a Maintenance Program
Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we
revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM to
allow an operator to update its FAAapproved maintenance program to
include the initial inspections and
repair for certain AWLs. JAL states that
the NPRM would require accomplishing
the initial inspection and repair of
certain AWLs, which would require JAL
to establish a special inspection and
special recordkeeping for the proposed
requirement.
The compliance times specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD are intended to
provide a grace period for those
airplanes that have already exceeded the
specified threshold in the MPD. To be
in compliance with the recording
requirements of this AD, operators must
record their compliance with the initial
inspection for those airplanes over the
specified threshold. We have revised
paragraph (h) of this AD to specify that
accomplishing the applicable AWLs as
part of an FAA-approved maintenance
program before the applicable
compliance time constitutes compliance
with the applicable requirements of that
paragraph.
Request To Revise Intervals for Certain
AWL Inspections
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), on
behalf of several operators, requests that
we review a 45-page proposal to align
certain airworthiness limitation item
(ALI) intervals with the applicable
maintenance significant item (MSI) and
enhanced zonal analysis procedure
(EZAP) intervals for Model 737, 747,
757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The
recommendations in that proposal
ensure that the ALI intervals align with
the maintenance schedules of the
operators. Among other changes, the
proposal recommends revising certain
AWL inspection intervals from 12 years/
36,000 flight hours to only 12 years for
Model 767 airplanes.
Qantas Airways also requests that the
36,000-flight-hour parameter be
removed from the inspection interval for
AWL No. 28–AWL–01, No. 28–AWL–
05, No. 28–AWL–18, and No. 28–AWL–
26. The commenter states that the flighthour parameter does not adequately take
into account actual airplane usage, and
that its long haul utilization of the
airplane is 4,000 flight hours per year.
Based on this number, the commenter
states that an AWL task due at 36,000
flight hours would need to be done in
9 years instead of 12 years.
Qantas Airways notes an
inconsistency between the inspection
interval specified in Revision March
E:\FR\FM\21MYR1.SGM
21MYR1
29416
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
2006 of the MPD and the compliance
threshold specified in Table 1 of the
NPRM. Table 1 of the NPRM specifies
accomplishing the initial inspection
within a certain number of flight cycles
or a certain number of months since the
date of issuance of the original standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export
certificate of airworthiness, whichever
occurs first. Qantas Airways would
welcome the change from ‘‘flight hours’’
to ‘‘flight cycles,’’ if the flight-hour
parameter is not deleted from the
inspection intervals specified in
Revision March 2006 of the MPD.
We have reviewed the commenter’s
requests, and we agree to revise the
compliance threshold for certain AWLs
as identified by the commenters. As
stated previously, Revision April 2008
of the MPD gives the repetitive intervals
in calendar time. We have revised the
threshold specified in Table 1 of this AD
accordingly.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
Request To Harmonize Task
Descriptions
JAL states that, in Revision March
2006 of the MPD, the task descriptions
defining the applicable area are different
for AWLs Nos. 28–AWL–01 and 28–
AWL–02. (AWL No. 28–AWL–01 is a
repetitive inspection of the external
wires over the center fuel tank, and
AWL No. 28–AWL–02 is a CDCCL to
maintain the original design features for
the external wires over the center fuel
tank.) JAL believes that the task
descriptions for these AWLs should
match. JAL presumes that, if one
purpose for the inspection is to prevent
a spark in the fuel vapor over the center
fuel tank, then the applicable area
should have a certain tolerance instead
of defining the area by exact station
number.
We agree that the task descriptions for
AWL Nos. 28–AWL–01 and 28–AWL–
02 should be harmonized. Revision
April 2008 of the MPD includes a
revised task description of AWL No. 28–
AWL–01, which addresses JAL’s
comments. As stated previously, we
have revised this AD to refer to Revision
April 2008 of the MPD.
Request To Revise the Loop Resistance
Values for Certain AWLs
Boeing, KLM, and Qantas Airways
state that the loop resistance values for
AWLs No. 28–AWL–18 and No. 28–
AWL–26 specified in Revision March
2006 of the MPD are going to be revised,
since those values are relevant for
production airplanes. The commenters
also state that the revised values will be
more representative of the expected
values for in-service airplanes. Boeing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
points out that, according to paragraph
(h) of the NPRM, the revised values
should be able to be used in accordance
with a later revision of the MPD if the
revision is approved by the Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA.
We agree that operators may use the
revised loop resistance values for AWLs
No. 28–AWL–18 and No. 28–AWL–26
in accordance with Revision April 2008
of the MPD. As stated previously, we
have revised this AD accordingly.
Request To Correct Typographical
Error in NPRM
Boeing requests that we correct
typographical errors in Table 1 of
NPRM. Boeing states that the digit ‘‘2’’
is missing from AWLs No. 28–AWL–05,
No. 28–AWL–18, and No. 28–AWL–26
in Table 1 of the NPRM.
We agree that those typographical
errors were published in the Federal
Register version of the NPRM. Since
those errors occurred during publication
of the NPRM, we notified the Federal
Register about those errors on July 3,
2007. The errors should be corrected
when this AD is published in the
Federal Register.
Request To Delegate Authority for
Allowing Use of Equivalent Tools,
Components, Materials, and Equipment
ABX Air requests that we delegate
authority to a designated engineering
representative (DER) or delegation
option authorization (DOA) organization
to approve the use of equivalent tools,
components, materials, and equipment
for cases where the CMM does not state
that an equivalent item may be used.
ABX Air believes that requiring
approval from the Seattle ACO for
equivalent items not cited in the CMMs
will create an undue burden on
operators. ABX Air states that there are
instances when a part or material called
out in a CMM is unavailable on the
market, but an acceptable equivalent
item is available; the commenter states
that it would be impossible to obtain
approval from the Seattle ACO for the
equivalent item in a timely manner.
ABX Air also states that there are
instances where there are common
equivalent items to items specified in a
CMM. As an example, ABX Air points
to a certain CMM that lists the part
number for a required notebook sheet
protector. ABX Air states that, according
to the NPRM, a different notebook sheet
protector cannot be used unless it is
approved by the Seattle ACO. ABX Air
believes that government regulation to
this level is unmanageable and does not
provide an increased level of safety.
ABX Air also states that requiring a
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
specific manufacturer of voltmeters,
common hardware, etc., does not add to
the safety of the fleet of Model 767
airplanes. ABX Air also requests that we
allow an operator or repair station to
acquire and use an equivalent item
without Seattle ACO approval, when the
CMM states that the equivalent items
may be used and the operator or repair
station has procedures for determining
equivalents.
JAL requests that we provide
guidelines for using equivalent tools
and chemical materials according to the
CMMs. JAL states that normally
operators can use equivalents without
FAA approval when the CMM specifies
that equivalents may be used. JAL also
states that it has received further
clarification from Boeing specifying that
unless a CDCCL refers to a certain tool
by part number or certain chemicals by
name, an operator can continue to use
equivalent tools or materials according
to the CMMs.
We acknowledge the commenters’
requests and are working with Boeing to
provide appropriate flexibility while
still ensuring that items critical for
maintaining safety continue to be
specifically identified in the CMMs.
However, to delay issuance of this AD
would be inappropriate.
We agree that when the CMMs allow
use of equivalent items, operators and
repair stations may use equivalents. We
have already approved the use of the
CMMs at the revision levels specified in
Revision April 2008 of the MPD,
including the use of equivalent tools or
chemicals where the CMMs state
equivalents are allowed. If the CMM
does not allow use of an equivalent,
none may be used. No change to this AD
is necessary in this regard.
However, we disagree that DER/DOA
organizations may approve equivalent
items if the CMM does not specifically
allow equivalents because current FAA
Orders do not allow us to delegate
approval of changes to airworthiness
limitations. The FAA is considering
granting a deviation from the order to
allow manufacturer DER/DOA
organizations to approve CMMs in the
future. Until such deviation is in place,
all CMM changes must be approved by
the Seattle ACO. We have not changed
this AD in this regard.
Request To Revise Appendix 1
Boeing requests that we revise
Appendix 1 of the NPRM to reference
additional ATA sections, add additional
airplane maintenance manual (AMM)
task titles and numbers, and correct
certain AMM task titles and numbers.
The affected AWLs are No. 28–AWL–02,
No. 28–AWL–03, No. 28–AWL–07, No.
E:\FR\FM\21MYR1.SGM
21MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
28–AWL–10, No. 28–AWL–12, No. 28–
AWL–13, No. 28–AWL–17, No. 28–
AWL–23, No. 28–AWL–24, and No. 28–
AWL–26.
JAL requests that we update
Appendix 1 of the NPRM to include all
AWLs specified in the MPD, and that
we indicate how to maintain the latest
version of Appendix 1. JAL also
requests that we correct the following
error in Appendix 1 of the NPRM: For
AWL No. 28–AWL–04, change ‘‘SWPM
20–10–15’’ to ‘‘SWPM 20–10–13.’’
We disagree with revising the AMM
references, since we have deleted
Appendix 1 from this AD. The purpose
of Appendix 1 was to assist operators in
identifying the AMM tasks that could
affect compliance with a CDCCL.
However, we have also received several
similar comments regarding the
appendices in other NPRMs that address
the same unsafe condition on other
Boeing airplanes. Those comments
indicate that including non-required
information in those NPRMs has caused
confusion. Further, Revision April 2008
of the MPD contains most of the
updated information that is listed in
Appendix 1 of the NPRM. Therefore, we
have removed Appendix 1 from this AD.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
Request To Extend the Grace Period for
AWL No. 28–AWL–03
KLM expects to have problems
accomplishing the initial inspection of
AWL No. 28–AWL–03 within the 24month grace period. The commenter
states that if it does the inspection and
does not reach the specified values, then
tank entry outside of heavy maintenance
would be necessary. The commenter
also states that it would be helpful to
plan to do this inspection during an
overhaul.
We infer that the commenter requests
that we extend the grace period for AWL
No. 28–AWL–03 in Table 1 of this AD
to allow accomplishing the initial
inspection during a regularly scheduled
‘‘4C’’ check (about 6 years). We disagree
with extending the grace period to 6
years. In developing an appropriate
compliance time for this action, we
considered the safety implications, the
rate of lightning strikes in the fleet, and
the average age of the fleet. In
consideration of these items, we have
determined that an initial compliance
time of 144 months (as discussed
previously) with a grace period of 24
months will ensure an acceptable level
of safety. We have not changed the grace
period for AWL No. 28–AWL–03 in this
regard.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
Request To Extend the Exceptional
Short-Term Extension
Qantas Airways requests that we
allow exceptional short-term extensions
of 10 percent of the task interval or 6
months, whichever is less, for AWL
tasks. The commenter believes that the
exceptional short-term extension of 30
days, which is specified in Revision
March 2006 of the MPD, is too small for
AWL tasks having 12-year intervals. The
commenter states that, as part of the
Boeing 747 Corrosion Prevention and
Control Program mandated by AD 90–
25–05, amendment 39–6790 (55 FR
49268, November 27, 1990), operators
were given a provision to invoke
exceptional short-term extensions of 10
percent of the task interval or 6 months,
whichever is less. The commenter states
that this is a more appropriate
magnitude because operators are often
permitted one-time exceptional
extensions to maintenance checks and
tasks of this proportion. The commenter
also states that limiting the extension
period to 30 days means that a ‘‘4C’’
check can never be extended by more
than 30 days, which would force
operators to do certain AWL inspections
outside of a ‘‘4C’’ check.
We disagree with the commenter’s
request because exceptional short-term
extensions are, in essence, pre-approved
extensions without Seattle ACO review
of the specifics of the situation. We
consider that the ability to extend the
interval without further approval for 30
days should be sufficient for most
circumstances. However, if an operator
finds that it needs an extension longer
than 30 days, with appropriate
justification one may be requested from
the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory
authority. Longer extensions may be
granted on a case-by-case basis because,
as Qantas Airways points out, the task
interval is long, and the FAA is
interested in limiting out-of-sequence
work. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.
Request To Require Latest Revision of
the AMM
JAL requests that we revise the NPRM
to require incorporation of the latest
revision of the manufacturer’s AMM.
JAL asserts that we have allowed Boeing
to include statements in the Boeing
AMM allowing operators to use certain
CMM revision levels or later revisions.
JAL states that, with the exception of the
CMM, operators cannot find what
revision level of the AMM needs to be
incorporated into the operator’s AMM
in order to comply with the proposed
requirements of the NPRM. JAL also
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
29417
states that it could take several weeks to
incorporate the manufacturer’s AMM.
JAL further requests that we clarify
whether it is acceptable to change the
procedures in the AMM with Boeing’s
acceptance. JAL states that the MPD
notes that any use of parts, methods,
techniques, or practices not contained
in the applicable CDCCL and AWL
inspection must be approved by the
FAA office that is responsible for the
airplane model type certificate, or
applicable regulatory agency. JAL also
states that the Boeing AMM or CMM
notes to obey the manufacturer’s
procedures when doing maintenance
that affects a CDCCL or AWL inspection.
However, JAL believes that according to
the NPRM it is acceptable to change the
AMM procedures with Boeing’s
acceptance.
We disagree with the changes
proposed by the commenter. This AD
does not require revising the AMM. This
AD does require revising your
maintenance program to incorporate the
AWLs identified in Revision April 2008
of the MPD. However, complying with
the AWL inspections or CDCCLs will
require other actions by operators
including AMM revisions. In the U.S.,
operators are not required to use
original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
maintenance manuals. Operators may
develop their own manuals, which are
reviewed and accepted by the FAA
Flight Standards Service. In order to
maintain that flexibility for operators,
most of the AWLs contain all of the
critical information, such as maximum
bonding resistances and minimum
separation requirements. The FAA
Flight Standards Service will only
accept operator manuals that contain all
of the information specified in the
AWLs, so there is no need to require
operators to use the OEM maintenance
manuals.
Regarding JAL’s request for
clarification of approval of AWL
changes, we infer JAL is referring to the
following sentence located in the
‘‘Changes to AMMs Referenced in Fuel
Tank System AWLs’’ section of the
NPRM: ‘‘A maintenance manual change
to these tasks may be made without
approval by the Manager, Seattle ACO,
through an appropriate FAA PMI or
PAI, by the governing regulatory
authority, or by using the operator’s
standard process for revising
maintenance manuals.’’ If changes need
to be made to tasks associated with an
AWL, they may be made using an
operator’s normal process without
approval of the Seattle ACO, as long as
the change maintains the information
specified in the AWL. For some
CDCCLs, it was beneficial to not put all
E:\FR\FM\21MYR1.SGM
21MYR1
29418
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
the critical information into the MPD.
This avoids duplication of a large
amount of information. In these cases,
the CDCCL refers to a specific revision
of the CMM. U.S. operators are required
to use those CMMs. Any changes to the
CMMs must be approved by the Seattle
ACO.
Request To Revise Note 2
Boeing requests that we revise Note 2
of the NPRM to clarify the need for an
AMOC. Boeing states that the current
wording is difficult to follow, and that
the note is meant to inform operators
that an AMOC to the required MPD
AWLs might be required if an operator
has previously modified, altered, or
repaired the areas addressed by the
limitations. Boeing requests that we
revise Note 2 as follows:
• Add the words ‘‘according to
paragraph (g)’’ at the end of the first
sentence.
• Replace the words ‘‘revision to’’
with ‘‘deviation from’’ in the last
sentence.
• Delete the words ‘‘(g) or’’ and ‘‘as
applicable’’ from the last sentence.
As stated previously, we have
clarified the language in Note 2 of this
AD for standardization with other
similar ADs. The language the
commenter requests that we change
does not appear in the revised note.
Therefore, no additional change to this
AD is necessary in this regard.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
Request To Delete Reference to Task
Cards
All Nippon Airways (ANA) requests
that we delete the words ‘‘and task
card,’’ unless the task card references
are listed in Subsection D of the MPD
or Appendix 1 of the AD. Those words
are located in the following sentence in
the ‘‘Ensuring Compliance with Fuel
Tank System AWLs’’ section of the
NPRM: ‘‘Operators that do not use
Boeing’s revision service should revise
their maintenance manuals and task
cards to highlight actions tied to
CDCCLs to ensure that maintenance
personnel are complying with the
CDCCLs.’’ ANA believes that if a task
card refers to the AMM, which includes
the CDCCL note, then highlighting the
CDCCL items is not necessary because
they are already highlighted in the
AMM and maintenance personnel
always refer to the AMM. ANA further
states that the applicable task card
references are not listed in Subsection D
of the MPD, or in Appendix 1 of the
NPRM; they refer only to the AMM.
ANA, therefore, states that it is difficult
to find out or distinguish the affected
task card.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
JAL believes that the proposed
requirement regarding the CDCCLs is to
incorporate the manufacturer’s
maintenance manuals into an operator’s
maintenance manual. If the description
of a CDCCL is missing from the
manufacturer’s AMM, then JAL believes
that operators are not responsible for the
requirements of the AD.
We agree that the task cards might not
need to be revised because an operator
might find that the AMM notes are
sufficient. However, we disagree with
deleting the reference to the task cards
since some operators might need to add
notes to their task cards. This AD does
not require any changes to the
maintenance manuals or task cards. The
AD requires incorporating new AWLs
into the operator’s maintenance
program. It is up to the operator to
determine how best to ensure
compliance with the new AWLs. In the
‘‘Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank
System AWLs’’ section of the NPRM, we
were only suggesting, not requiring,
ways that an operator could implement
CDCCLs into its maintenance program.
We have not changed this AD in this
regard.
Request To Clarify Meaning of Task
Cards
JAL requests that we clarify whether
‘‘task cards,’’ as found in the ‘‘Recording
Compliance with Fuel Tank System
AWLs’’ section of the NPRM, means
Boeing task cards only or if they also
include an operator’s unique task cards.
We intended that ‘‘task cards’’ mean
both Boeing and an operator’s unique
task cards, as applicable. The intent is
to address whatever type of task cards
are used by mechanics for maintenance.
This AD would not require any changes
to the AMMs or task cards relative to the
CDCCLs. We are only suggesting ways
an operator might implement CDCCLs
into its maintenance program. No
change to this AD is necessary in this
regard.
Request To Delete Reference to Parts
Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts
ANA requests that we delete the
words ‘‘Any use of parts (including the
use of parts manufacturer approval
(PMA) approved parts),’’ unless a
continuous supply of CMM-specified
parts is warranted or the FAA is open
24 hours to approve alternative parts for
in-house repair by the operator. Those
words are located in the following
sentence in the ‘‘Changes to CMMs
Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs’’
section of the NPRM: ‘‘Any use of parts
(including the use of parts manufacturer
approval (PMA) approved parts),
methods, techniques, and practices not
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
contained in the CMMs needs to be
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO,
or governing regulatory authority.’’
ANA states that in some cases the
parts specified in the CMMs cannot be
obtained from the parts market or
directly from the component vendor, so
an operator is forced into using
alternative parts to keep its schedule.
ANA requests that we direct the
component vendor to ensure a
continuous supply of CMM parts and to
direct the component vendor to remedy
a lack of parts if parts are not promptly
supplied. ANA further requests that we
direct the component vendor to
promptly review the standard parts and
allow use of alternative fasteners and
washers listed in Boeing D590. ANA
asserts that, in some cases, a component
vendor specifies an uncommon part to
preserve its monopoly.
We disagree with revising the
‘‘Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank
System AWLs’’ section of the NPRM.
We make every effort to identify
potential problems with the parts
supply, and we are not aware of any
problems at this time. The impetus to
declare overhaul and repair of certain
fuel tank system components as CDCCLs
arose from in-service pump failures that
resulted from repairs not done
according to OEM procedures. We have
approved the use of the CMMs—
including parts, methods, techniques,
and practices—at the revision levels
specified in Revision April 2008 of the
MPD. Third-party spare parts, such as
parts approved by PMA, have not been
reviewed. We expect that such parts
might be found to be acceptable
alternatives.
An operator may submit a request to
the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory
authority, for approval of an AMOC if
sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that use of an alternative
part would provide an acceptable level
of safety. The CDCCLs do not restrict
where repairs can be performed, so an
operator may do the work in-house as
long as the approved CMMs are
followed. If operators would like to
change those procedures, they can
request approval of the changes. The
FAA makes every effort to respond to
operators’ requests in a timely manner.
If there is a potential for disrupting the
flight schedule, the operator should
include that information in its request.
Operators should request approval for
the use of PMA parts and alternative
procedures from the FAA or the
governing regulatory authority in
advance in order to limit schedule
disruptions. We have not changed this
AD in this regard.
E:\FR\FM\21MYR1.SGM
21MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Request To Identify Other Test
Equipment
JAL states that certain test equipment
is designated in the MPD and that
additional equipment should also be
designated. For example, AWL No. 28–
AWL–18 would require using loop
resistance tester, part number (P/N)
906–10246–2 or –3. Therefore, JAL
requests that we also identify alternative
test equipment, so that operators do not
need to seek an AMOC to use other
equipment.
We disagree with identifying other
test equipment. We cannot identify
every possible piece of test equipment.
We ensure that some are listed as
recommended by the manufacturer.
With substantiating data, operators can
request approval of an alternative tester
from the Seattle ACO, or the governing
regulatory agency. We have not changed
this AD in this regard.
Request To Clarify AWL No. 28–AWL–
02
JAL requests that we clarify the intent
of AWL No. 28–AWL–02. JAL states that
Chapters 53–01 and 53–21 of the Boeing
767 AMM specify doing an inspection
of the external wires over the center fuel
tank according to AMM 28–11–00
before installing the floor panel over the
center wing tank based on AWL No. 28–
AWL–02. JAL also states that, according
to Revision March 2006 of the MPD,
AWL No. 28–AWL–02 contains two
limitations: maintaining the existing
wire bundle routing and clamping, and
installing any new wire bundle per the
Boeing standard wiring practices
manual (SWPM). Therefore, JAL
believes it is not necessary to inspect
the external wires over the center fuel
tank according to AMM 28–11–00
before installing the floor panel over the
center wing tank, unless that wire
bundle routing and clamping are
changed.
We point out that AWL No. 28–AWL–
02 also contains a third limitation:
verifying that all wire bundles over the
center fuel tank are inspected according
to AWL No. 28–AWL–01, which refers
to AMM 28–11–00 for accomplishing
the inspection. We do not agree that the
inspection should be required only if
the wire bundle routing and clamping
are changed while maintenance is
accomplished in the area. If any of the
other bundles have a clamp or routing
failure, it must be detected and
corrected. After accomplishing the
inspection required by AWL No. 28–
AWL–01, an operator would not need to
repeat the inspection for another 12
years. No change to this AD is necessary
in this regard.
Request for Clarification for Recording
Compliance With CDCCLs
JAL requests that we clarify the
following sentence: ‘‘An entry into an
operator’s existing maintenance record
system for corrective action is sufficient
for recording compliance with CDCCLs,
as long as the applicable maintenance
manual and task cards identify actions
that are CDCCLs.’’ That sentence is
located in the ‘‘Recording Compliance
with Fuel Tank System AWLs’’ section
of the NPRM. Specifically, JAL asks
whether an operator must indicate the
CDCCL in their recording documents or
whether it is sufficient for the recording
document to call out the applicable
AMMs that are tied to the CDCCLs.
We have coordinated with the FAA
Flight Standards Service and it agrees
that, for U.S.-registered airplanes, if the
applicable AMMs and task cards
identify the CDCCL, then the entry into
29419
the recording documents does not need
to identify the CDCCL. However, if the
applicable AMMs and tasks cards do not
identify the CDCCL, then they must be
identified. Other methods may be
accepted by the appropriate FAA
principal maintenance inspector (PMI)
or pri ncipal avionics inspector (PAI), or
governing regulatory authority. No
change to this AD is necessary in this
regard.
Request To Clarify the Approval of
Service Bulletins
ABX Air asks that we clarify whether
a service bulletin will need to be
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO,
if a manufacturer publishes a service
bulletin that modifies or repairs an
affected component.
If the modification or repair described
in the service bulletin affects
compliance with this AD, then the
service bulletin will need to be
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO.
No change to this AD is necessary in
this regard.
Conclusion
We 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.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 824 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet.
The following table provides the
estimated costs, at an average labor rate
of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators
to comply with this AD.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Work
hours
Action
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
Maintenance program revision .......................................................
Inspections .....................................................................................
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 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.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
Parts
8
8
None ...........
None ...........
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Cost per
airplane
Sfmt 4700
Number of
U.S.-registered
airplanes
$640
640
332
332
Fleet cost
$212,480
212,480
Regulatory Findings
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.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this AD:
E:\FR\FM\21MYR1.SGM
21MYR1
29420
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(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.
You can find our regulatory
evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
I
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
I
2008–11–01 Boeing: Amendment 39–15523.
Docket No. FAA–2007–28388;
Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–163–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is
effective June 25, 2008.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767–
200, –300, –300F, and –400ER series
airplanes, certificated in any category; with
an original standard airworthiness certificate
or original export certificate of airworthiness
issued before April 22, 2006.
Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard
airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued on or after
April 22, 2006, must already be in
compliance with the airworthiness
limitations specified in this AD because
those limitations were applicable as part of
the airworthiness certification of those
airplanes.
Note 2: This AD requires revisions to
certain operator maintenance documents to
include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR
91.403(c). For airplanes that have been
previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by these inspections, the
operator may not be able to accomplish the
inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c),
the operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (k) of this AD. The
request should include a description of
changes to the required inspections that will
ensure the continued operational safety of
the airplane.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a design review
of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this
AD to prevent the potential for ignition
sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent
failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance
actions, which, in combination with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel
tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Service Information Reference
(f) The term ‘‘Revision April 2008 of the
MPD,’’ as used in this AD, means Section 9
of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD) Document, D622T001–9, Revision
April 2008.
Maintenance Program Revision
(g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the
FAA-approved maintenance program by
incorporating the information in the
subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD; except that the initial
inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD
must be done at the compliance times
specified in Table 1; and except that the task
interval for AWL No. 28–AWL–05 is 72
months. Accomplishing the revision in
accordance with a later revision of the MPD
is an acceptable method of compliance if the
revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
(1) Subsection D, ‘‘AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS—SYSTEMS,’’ of Revision
April 2008 of the MPD.
(2) Subsection E, ‘‘PAGE FORMAT: FUEL
SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS,’’ AWLs No. 28–AWL–01
through No. 28–AWL–26 inclusive, of
Revision April 2008 of the MPD. As an
optional action, AWLs No. 28–AWL–27 and
No. 28–AWL–28, as identified in Subsection
E of Revision April 2008 of the MPD, also
may be incorporated into the FAA-approved
maintenance program.
Initial Inspections and Repair if Necessary
(h) Do the inspections specified in Table 1
of this AD at the compliance time specified
in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any
discrepancy, in accordance with Subsection
D, ‘‘AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—
SYSTEMS,’’ of Revision April 2008 of the
MPD. The repair must be done before further
flight. Accomplishing the actions required by
this paragraph in accordance with a later
revision of the MPD is an acceptable method
of compliance if the revision is approved by
the Manager, Seattle ACO. Accomplishing
the inspections identified in Table 1 of this
AD as part of an FAA-approved maintenance
program before the applicable compliance
time specified in Table 1 of this AD
constitutes compliance with the
requirements of this paragraph.
Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive
examination of a specific item, installation,
or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying
lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.’’
Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a
special detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive
examination of a specific item, installation,
or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. The examination is likely to
make extensive use of specialized inspection
techniques and/or equipment. Intricate
cleaning and substantial access or
disassembly procedure may be required.’’
TABLE 1.—INITIAL INSPECTIONS
AWL No.
Compliance time
(whichever occurs later)
Description
Threshold
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
28–AWL–01 ............
VerDate Aug<31>2005
A detailed inspection of external wires
over the center fuel tank for damaged clamps, wire chafing, and wire
bundles in contact with the surface
of the center fuel tank.
14:17 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Grace period
Within 144 months since the date of
issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.
Within 72 months after the effective
date of this AD.
Fmt 4700
21MYR1
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\21MYR1.SGM
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
29421
TABLE 1.—INITIAL INSPECTIONS—Continued
AWL No.
Compliance time
(whichever occurs later)
Description
Threshold
28–AWL–05 ............
A special detailed inspection of the
bulkhead fitting bond for the hydraulic line tank penetration.
28–AWL–18 ............
A special detailed inspection of the
lightning shield to ground termination
on the out-of-tank fuel quantity indicating system to verify functional integrity.
A special detailed inspection of the
lightning shield to ground termination
on the out-of-tank surge tank fuel
level sensor to verify functional integrity.
28–AWL–26 ............
No Alternative Inspections, Inspection
Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitations (CDCCLs)
(i) After accomplishing the actions
specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD,
no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the
inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of
a later revision of Revision April 2008 of the
MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle
ACO; or unless the inspections, intervals, or
CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD.
Credit for Actions Done According to
Previous Revisions of the MPD
(j) Actions done before the effective date of
this AD in accordance with Section 9 of the
Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD) Document, D622T001–9, Revision
March 2006; Revision October 2006; Revision
January 2007; Revision October 2007; or
Revision March 2008; are acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding
requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this
AD.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD,
if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of
compliance or a different compliance time
for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(l) You must use Section 9 of the Boeing
767 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Document, D622T001–9, Revision April
2008, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
Grace period
Within 72 months since the date of
issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.
Within 144 months since the date of
issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.
Within 144 months since the date of
issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.
Within 60 months after the effective
date of this AD.
this service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207.
(3) You may review copies of the service
information incorporated by reference at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of
_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8,
2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–10976 Filed 5–20–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2007–0024; Directorate
Identifier 2007–NM–086–AD; Amendment
39–15526; AD 2008–11–04]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300,
–400, and –500 Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 737–100, –200, –200C,
–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes.
This AD requires repetitive inspections
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Within 24 months after the effective
date of this AD.
Within 24 months after the effective
date of this AD.
for cracking in and around the upper
and lower hinge cutouts of the forward
entry and forward galley service
doorways, and corrective actions if
necessary. This AD results from
multiple reports of cracks found in the
skin, bearstrap, and/or frame outer
chord in the hinge cutout areas of the
forward entry and forward galley service
doorways. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct such cracking, which
could result in rapid decompression of
the airplane.
DATES: This AD is effective June 25,
2008.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in this AD
as of June 25, 2008.
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707,
Seattle, Washington 98124–2207.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527)
is the Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Howard Hall, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
E:\FR\FM\21MYR1.SGM
21MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 21, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29414-29421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10976]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2007-28388; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-163-AD;
Amendment 39-15523; AD 2008-11-01]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and
-400ER Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes. This AD
requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate
new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank systems to satisfy
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD would
also require the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL
inspections to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary.
This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside
fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or
maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors,
could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.
DATES: This AD is effective June 25, 2008.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 25,
2008.
ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6497; fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We 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 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2007 (72 FR
36391). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved
maintenance program to incorporate new
[[Page 29415]]
airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank systems to satisfy
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That NPRM also
proposed to require the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL
inspections to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary.
Actions Since NPRM Was Issued
Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has published Section 9 of the
Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622T001-9,
Revision April 2008 (hereafter referred to as ``Revision April 2008 of
the MPD''). The NPRM referred to Revision March 2006 of the MPD as the
appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the
proposed actions. Revision April 2008 of the MPD adds additional
component maintenance manual (CMM) information to AWL No. 28-AWL-06.
Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this AD to
refer to Revision April 2008 of the MPD. We also have added a new
paragraph (j) to this AD specifying that actions done before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with Revisions March 2006
through March 2008 of the MPD are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
Revision April 2008 of the MPD specifies that the repetitive task
interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-05 is 25,000 flight hours or 6 years,
whichever comes first. However, we have revised paragraph (g) of this
AD to specify that the repetitive task interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-05
is 72 months only. The 25,000-flight-hour interval will be removed from
that AWL in a future revision to the MPD. We have also revised the
initial threshold for accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-05 in Table 1 of
this AD.
In Revision March 2008 of the MPD, Boeing removed the repetitive
task interval of 36,000 flight hours from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-
AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26. Therefore, we have removed reference to
36,000 total flight cycles from the initial threshold of AWLs No. 28-
AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26 in Table 1 of this AD and
revised the initial threshold to within 144 months since the date of
issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date
of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.
Operators should note that, in Revision March 2008 of the MPD,
Boeing also revised AWLs No. 28-AWL-18 and No. 28-AWL-26 to reflect the
new maximum loop resistance values associated with the lightning
protection of the unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS)
wire bundle installations.
In Revision October 2007 of the MPD, Boeing revised the contents of
Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,'' of the MPD. The
fuel system AWLs were removed from Subsection D and placed into a new
Subsection E, ``PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS.''
Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to require the
incorporation of both Subsections D and E of Revision April 2008 of the
MPD.
Operators should note that we have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this
AD to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-
26 inclusive. AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28 were added to
Revision October 2007 of the MPD; we might issue additional rulemaking
to require the incorporation of those AWLs. However, as an optional
action, operators may incorporate those AWLs as specified in paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD.
Other Changes Made to This AD
We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to clarify that the
actions identified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance
time specified in that table. Also, for standardization purposes, we
have revised this AD in the following ways:
We have added a new paragraph (i) to this AD to specify
that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless
they are part of a later approved revision of the Revision April 2008
of the MPD, or unless they are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is intended to
ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations changes are
treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued with the
original type certificate.
We have revised Note 2 of this AD to clarify that an
operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot
accomplish the required inspections because an airplane has been
previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the
required inspections.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the six commenters.
Request To Allow Inspections Done According to a Maintenance Program
Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we revise paragraph (h) of the
NPRM to allow an operator to update its FAA-approved maintenance
program to include the initial inspections and repair for certain AWLs.
JAL states that the NPRM would require accomplishing the initial
inspection and repair of certain AWLs, which would require JAL to
establish a special inspection and special recordkeeping for the
proposed requirement.
The compliance times specified in paragraph (h) of this AD are
intended to provide a grace period for those airplanes that have
already exceeded the specified threshold in the MPD. To be in
compliance with the recording requirements of this AD, operators must
record their compliance with the initial inspection for those airplanes
over the specified threshold. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD
to specify that accomplishing the applicable AWLs as part of an FAA-
approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time
constitutes compliance with the applicable requirements of that
paragraph.
Request To Revise Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), on behalf of several operators,
requests that we review a 45-page proposal to align certain
airworthiness limitation item (ALI) intervals with the applicable
maintenance significant item (MSI) and enhanced zonal analysis
procedure (EZAP) intervals for Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777
airplanes. The recommendations in that proposal ensure that the ALI
intervals align with the maintenance schedules of the operators. Among
other changes, the proposal recommends revising certain AWL inspection
intervals from 12 years/36,000 flight hours to only 12 years for Model
767 airplanes.
Qantas Airways also requests that the 36,000-flight-hour parameter
be removed from the inspection interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-
AWL-05, No. 28-AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26. The commenter states that the
flight-hour parameter does not adequately take into account actual
airplane usage, and that its long haul utilization of the airplane is
4,000 flight hours per year. Based on this number, the commenter states
that an AWL task due at 36,000 flight hours would need to be done in 9
years instead of 12 years.
Qantas Airways notes an inconsistency between the inspection
interval specified in Revision March
[[Page 29416]]
2006 of the MPD and the compliance threshold specified in Table 1 of
the NPRM. Table 1 of the NPRM specifies accomplishing the initial
inspection within a certain number of flight cycles or a certain number
of months since the date of issuance of the original standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first. Qantas
Airways would welcome the change from ``flight hours'' to ``flight
cycles,'' if the flight-hour parameter is not deleted from the
inspection intervals specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD.
We have reviewed the commenter's requests, and we agree to revise
the compliance threshold for certain AWLs as identified by the
commenters. As stated previously, Revision April 2008 of the MPD gives
the repetitive intervals in calendar time. We have revised the
threshold specified in Table 1 of this AD accordingly.
Request To Harmonize Task Descriptions
JAL states that, in Revision March 2006 of the MPD, the task
descriptions defining the applicable area are different for AWLs Nos.
28-AWL-01 and 28-AWL-02. (AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is a repetitive inspection
of the external wires over the center fuel tank, and AWL No. 28-AWL-02
is a CDCCL to maintain the original design features for the external
wires over the center fuel tank.) JAL believes that the task
descriptions for these AWLs should match. JAL presumes that, if one
purpose for the inspection is to prevent a spark in the fuel vapor over
the center fuel tank, then the applicable area should have a certain
tolerance instead of defining the area by exact station number.
We agree that the task descriptions for AWL Nos. 28-AWL-01 and 28-
AWL-02 should be harmonized. Revision April 2008 of the MPD includes a
revised task description of AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which addresses JAL's
comments. As stated previously, we have revised this AD to refer to
Revision April 2008 of the MPD.
Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for Certain AWLs
Boeing, KLM, and Qantas Airways state that the loop resistance
values for AWLs No. 28-AWL-18 and No. 28-AWL-26 specified in Revision
March 2006 of the MPD are going to be revised, since those values are
relevant for production airplanes. The commenters also state that the
revised values will be more representative of the expected values for
in-service airplanes. Boeing points out that, according to paragraph
(h) of the NPRM, the revised values should be able to be used in
accordance with a later revision of the MPD if the revision is approved
by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
We agree that operators may use the revised loop resistance values
for AWLs No. 28-AWL-18 and No. 28-AWL-26 in accordance with Revision
April 2008 of the MPD. As stated previously, we have revised this AD
accordingly.
Request To Correct Typographical Error in NPRM
Boeing requests that we correct typographical errors in Table 1 of
NPRM. Boeing states that the digit ``2'' is missing from AWLs No. 28-
AWL-05, No. 28-AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26 in Table 1 of the NPRM.
We agree that those typographical errors were published in the
Federal Register version of the NPRM. Since those errors occurred
during publication of the NPRM, we notified the Federal Register about
those errors on July 3, 2007. The errors should be corrected when this
AD is published in the Federal Register.
Request To Delegate Authority for Allowing Use of Equivalent Tools,
Components, Materials, and Equipment
ABX Air requests that we delegate authority to a designated
engineering representative (DER) or delegation option authorization
(DOA) organization to approve the use of equivalent tools, components,
materials, and equipment for cases where the CMM does not state that an
equivalent item may be used. ABX Air believes that requiring approval
from the Seattle ACO for equivalent items not cited in the CMMs will
create an undue burden on operators. ABX Air states that there are
instances when a part or material called out in a CMM is unavailable on
the market, but an acceptable equivalent item is available; the
commenter states that it would be impossible to obtain approval from
the Seattle ACO for the equivalent item in a timely manner. ABX Air
also states that there are instances where there are common equivalent
items to items specified in a CMM. As an example, ABX Air points to a
certain CMM that lists the part number for a required notebook sheet
protector. ABX Air states that, according to the NPRM, a different
notebook sheet protector cannot be used unless it is approved by the
Seattle ACO. ABX Air believes that government regulation to this level
is unmanageable and does not provide an increased level of safety. ABX
Air also states that requiring a specific manufacturer of voltmeters,
common hardware, etc., does not add to the safety of the fleet of Model
767 airplanes. ABX Air also requests that we allow an operator or
repair station to acquire and use an equivalent item without Seattle
ACO approval, when the CMM states that the equivalent items may be used
and the operator or repair station has procedures for determining
equivalents.
JAL requests that we provide guidelines for using equivalent tools
and chemical materials according to the CMMs. JAL states that normally
operators can use equivalents without FAA approval when the CMM
specifies that equivalents may be used. JAL also states that it has
received further clarification from Boeing specifying that unless a
CDCCL refers to a certain tool by part number or certain chemicals by
name, an operator can continue to use equivalent tools or materials
according to the CMMs.
We acknowledge the commenters' requests and are working with Boeing
to provide appropriate flexibility while still ensuring that items
critical for maintaining safety continue to be specifically identified
in the CMMs. However, to delay issuance of this AD would be
inappropriate.
We agree that when the CMMs allow use of equivalent items,
operators and repair stations may use equivalents. We have already
approved the use of the CMMs at the revision levels specified in
Revision April 2008 of the MPD, including the use of equivalent tools
or chemicals where the CMMs state equivalents are allowed. If the CMM
does not allow use of an equivalent, none may be used. No change to
this AD is necessary in this regard.
However, we disagree that DER/DOA organizations may approve
equivalent items if the CMM does not specifically allow equivalents
because current FAA Orders do not allow us to delegate approval of
changes to airworthiness limitations. The FAA is considering granting a
deviation from the order to allow manufacturer DER/DOA organizations to
approve CMMs in the future. Until such deviation is in place, all CMM
changes must be approved by the Seattle ACO. We have not changed this
AD in this regard.
Request To Revise Appendix 1
Boeing requests that we revise Appendix 1 of the NPRM to reference
additional ATA sections, add additional airplane maintenance manual
(AMM) task titles and numbers, and correct certain AMM task titles and
numbers. The affected AWLs are No. 28-AWL-02, No. 28-AWL-03, No. 28-
AWL-07, No.
[[Page 29417]]
28-AWL-10, No. 28-AWL-12, No. 28-AWL-13, No. 28-AWL-17, No. 28-AWL-23,
No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-26.
JAL requests that we update Appendix 1 of the NPRM to include all
AWLs specified in the MPD, and that we indicate how to maintain the
latest version of Appendix 1. JAL also requests that we correct the
following error in Appendix 1 of the NPRM: For AWL No. 28-AWL-04,
change ``SWPM 20-10-15'' to ``SWPM 20-10-13.''
We disagree with revising the AMM references, since we have deleted
Appendix 1 from this AD. The purpose of Appendix 1 was to assist
operators in identifying the AMM tasks that could affect compliance
with a CDCCL. However, we have also received several similar comments
regarding the appendices in other NPRMs that address the same unsafe
condition on other Boeing airplanes. Those comments indicate that
including non-required information in those NPRMs has caused confusion.
Further, Revision April 2008 of the MPD contains most of the updated
information that is listed in Appendix 1 of the NPRM. Therefore, we
have removed Appendix 1 from this AD.
Request To Extend the Grace Period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03
KLM expects to have problems accomplishing the initial inspection
of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 within the 24-month grace period. The commenter
states that if it does the inspection and does not reach the specified
values, then tank entry outside of heavy maintenance would be
necessary. The commenter also states that it would be helpful to plan
to do this inspection during an overhaul.
We infer that the commenter requests that we extend the grace
period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in Table 1 of this AD to allow
accomplishing the initial inspection during a regularly scheduled
``4C'' check (about 6 years). We disagree with extending the grace
period to 6 years. In developing an appropriate compliance time for
this action, we considered the safety implications, the rate of
lightning strikes in the fleet, and the average age of the fleet. In
consideration of these items, we have determined that an initial
compliance time of 144 months (as discussed previously) with a grace
period of 24 months will ensure an acceptable level of safety. We have
not changed the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in this regard.
Request To Extend the Exceptional Short-Term Extension
Qantas Airways requests that we allow exceptional short-term
extensions of 10 percent of the task interval or 6 months, whichever is
less, for AWL tasks. The commenter believes that the exceptional short-
term extension of 30 days, which is specified in Revision March 2006 of
the MPD, is too small for AWL tasks having 12-year intervals. The
commenter states that, as part of the Boeing 747 Corrosion Prevention
and Control Program mandated by AD 90-25-05, amendment 39-6790 (55 FR
49268, November 27, 1990), operators were given a provision to invoke
exceptional short-term extensions of 10 percent of the task interval or
6 months, whichever is less. The commenter states that this is a more
appropriate magnitude because operators are often permitted one-time
exceptional extensions to maintenance checks and tasks of this
proportion. The commenter also states that limiting the extension
period to 30 days means that a ``4C'' check can never be extended by
more than 30 days, which would force operators to do certain AWL
inspections outside of a ``4C'' check.
We disagree with the commenter's request because exceptional short-
term extensions are, in essence, pre-approved extensions without
Seattle ACO review of the specifics of the situation. We consider that
the ability to extend the interval without further approval for 30 days
should be sufficient for most circumstances. However, if an operator
finds that it needs an extension longer than 30 days, with appropriate
justification one may be requested from the Seattle ACO, or governing
regulatory authority. Longer extensions may be granted on a case-by-
case basis because, as Qantas Airways points out, the task interval is
long, and the FAA is interested in limiting out-of-sequence work. We
have not changed this AD in this regard.
Request To Require Latest Revision of the AMM
JAL requests that we revise the NPRM to require incorporation of
the latest revision of the manufacturer's AMM. JAL asserts that we have
allowed Boeing to include statements in the Boeing AMM allowing
operators to use certain CMM revision levels or later revisions. JAL
states that, with the exception of the CMM, operators cannot find what
revision level of the AMM needs to be incorporated into the operator's
AMM in order to comply with the proposed requirements of the NPRM. JAL
also states that it could take several weeks to incorporate the
manufacturer's AMM.
JAL further requests that we clarify whether it is acceptable to
change the procedures in the AMM with Boeing's acceptance. JAL states
that the MPD notes that any use of parts, methods, techniques, or
practices not contained in the applicable CDCCL and AWL inspection must
be approved by the FAA office that is responsible for the airplane
model type certificate, or applicable regulatory agency. JAL also
states that the Boeing AMM or CMM notes to obey the manufacturer's
procedures when doing maintenance that affects a CDCCL or AWL
inspection. However, JAL believes that according to the NPRM it is
acceptable to change the AMM procedures with Boeing's acceptance.
We disagree with the changes proposed by the commenter. This AD
does not require revising the AMM. This AD does require revising your
maintenance program to incorporate the AWLs identified in Revision
April 2008 of the MPD. However, complying with the AWL inspections or
CDCCLs will require other actions by operators including AMM revisions.
In the U.S., operators are not required to use original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) maintenance manuals. Operators may develop their own
manuals, which are reviewed and accepted by the FAA Flight Standards
Service. In order to maintain that flexibility for operators, most of
the AWLs contain all of the critical information, such as maximum
bonding resistances and minimum separation requirements. The FAA Flight
Standards Service will only accept operator manuals that contain all of
the information specified in the AWLs, so there is no need to require
operators to use the OEM maintenance manuals.
Regarding JAL's request for clarification of approval of AWL
changes, we infer JAL is referring to the following sentence located in
the ``Changes to AMMs Referenced in Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of
the NPRM: ``A maintenance manual change to these tasks may be made
without approval by the Manager, Seattle ACO, through an appropriate
FAA PMI or PAI, by the governing regulatory authority, or by using the
operator's standard process for revising maintenance manuals.'' If
changes need to be made to tasks associated with an AWL, they may be
made using an operator's normal process without approval of the Seattle
ACO, as long as the change maintains the information specified in the
AWL. For some CDCCLs, it was beneficial to not put all
[[Page 29418]]
the critical information into the MPD. This avoids duplication of a
large amount of information. In these cases, the CDCCL refers to a
specific revision of the CMM. U.S. operators are required to use those
CMMs. Any changes to the CMMs must be approved by the Seattle ACO.
Request To Revise Note 2
Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 of the NPRM to clarify the
need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is difficult
to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators that an AMOC
to the required MPD AWLs might be required if an operator has
previously modified, altered, or repaired the areas addressed by the
limitations. Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 as follows:
Add the words ``according to paragraph (g)'' at the end of
the first sentence.
Replace the words ``revision to'' with ``deviation from''
in the last sentence.
Delete the words ``(g) or'' and ``as applicable'' from the
last sentence.
As stated previously, we have clarified the language in Note 2 of
this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the
commenter requests that we change does not appear in the revised note.
Therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Delete Reference to Task Cards
All Nippon Airways (ANA) requests that we delete the words ``and
task card,'' unless the task card references are listed in Subsection D
of the MPD or Appendix 1 of the AD. Those words are located in the
following sentence in the ``Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank System
AWLs'' section of the NPRM: ``Operators that do not use Boeing's
revision service should revise their maintenance manuals and task cards
to highlight actions tied to CDCCLs to ensure that maintenance
personnel are complying with the CDCCLs.'' ANA believes that if a task
card refers to the AMM, which includes the CDCCL note, then
highlighting the CDCCL items is not necessary because they are already
highlighted in the AMM and maintenance personnel always refer to the
AMM. ANA further states that the applicable task card references are
not listed in Subsection D of the MPD, or in Appendix 1 of the NPRM;
they refer only to the AMM. ANA, therefore, states that it is difficult
to find out or distinguish the affected task card.
JAL believes that the proposed requirement regarding the CDCCLs is
to incorporate the manufacturer's maintenance manuals into an
operator's maintenance manual. If the description of a CDCCL is missing
from the manufacturer's AMM, then JAL believes that operators are not
responsible for the requirements of the AD.
We agree that the task cards might not need to be revised because
an operator might find that the AMM notes are sufficient. However, we
disagree with deleting the reference to the task cards since some
operators might need to add notes to their task cards. This AD does not
require any changes to the maintenance manuals or task cards. The AD
requires incorporating new AWLs into the operator's maintenance
program. It is up to the operator to determine how best to ensure
compliance with the new AWLs. In the ``Ensuring Compliance with Fuel
Tank System AWLs'' section of the NPRM, we were only suggesting, not
requiring, ways that an operator could implement CDCCLs into its
maintenance program. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Request To Clarify Meaning of Task Cards
JAL requests that we clarify whether ``task cards,'' as found in
the ``Recording Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of the
NPRM, means Boeing task cards only or if they also include an
operator's unique task cards.
We intended that ``task cards'' mean both Boeing and an operator's
unique task cards, as applicable. The intent is to address whatever
type of task cards are used by mechanics for maintenance. This AD would
not require any changes to the AMMs or task cards relative to the
CDCCLs. We are only suggesting ways an operator might implement CDCCLs
into its maintenance program. No change to this AD is necessary in this
regard.
Request To Delete Reference to Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts
ANA requests that we delete the words ``Any use of parts (including
the use of parts manufacturer approval (PMA) approved parts),'' unless
a continuous supply of CMM-specified parts is warranted or the FAA is
open 24 hours to approve alternative parts for in-house repair by the
operator. Those words are located in the following sentence in the
``Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of the NPRM:
``Any use of parts (including the use of parts manufacturer approval
(PMA) approved parts), methods, techniques, and practices not contained
in the CMMs needs to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or
governing regulatory authority.''
ANA states that in some cases the parts specified in the CMMs
cannot be obtained from the parts market or directly from the component
vendor, so an operator is forced into using alternative parts to keep
its schedule. ANA requests that we direct the component vendor to
ensure a continuous supply of CMM parts and to direct the component
vendor to remedy a lack of parts if parts are not promptly supplied.
ANA further requests that we direct the component vendor to promptly
review the standard parts and allow use of alternative fasteners and
washers listed in Boeing D590. ANA asserts that, in some cases, a
component vendor specifies an uncommon part to preserve its monopoly.
We disagree with revising the ``Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank
System AWLs'' section of the NPRM. We make every effort to identify
potential problems with the parts supply, and we are not aware of any
problems at this time. The impetus to declare overhaul and repair of
certain fuel tank system components as CDCCLs arose from in-service
pump failures that resulted from repairs not done according to OEM
procedures. We have approved the use of the CMMs--including parts,
methods, techniques, and practices--at the revision levels specified in
Revision April 2008 of the MPD. Third-party spare parts, such as parts
approved by PMA, have not been reviewed. We expect that such parts
might be found to be acceptable alternatives.
An operator may submit a request to the Seattle ACO, or governing
regulatory authority, for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that use of an alternative part would provide
an acceptable level of safety. The CDCCLs do not restrict where repairs
can be performed, so an operator may do the work in-house as long as
the approved CMMs are followed. If operators would like to change those
procedures, they can request approval of the changes. The FAA makes
every effort to respond to operators' requests in a timely manner. If
there is a potential for disrupting the flight schedule, the operator
should include that information in its request. Operators should
request approval for the use of PMA parts and alternative procedures
from the FAA or the governing regulatory authority in advance in order
to limit schedule disruptions. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.
[[Page 29419]]
Request To Identify Other Test Equipment
JAL states that certain test equipment is designated in the MPD and
that additional equipment should also be designated. For example, AWL
No. 28-AWL-18 would require using loop resistance tester, part number
(P/N) 906-10246-2 or -3. Therefore, JAL requests that we also identify
alternative test equipment, so that operators do not need to seek an
AMOC to use other equipment.
We disagree with identifying other test equipment. We cannot
identify every possible piece of test equipment. We ensure that some
are listed as recommended by the manufacturer. With substantiating
data, operators can request approval of an alternative tester from the
Seattle ACO, or the governing regulatory agency. We have not changed
this AD in this regard.
Request To Clarify AWL No. 28-AWL-02
JAL requests that we clarify the intent of AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL
states that Chapters 53-01 and 53-21 of the Boeing 767 AMM specify
doing an inspection of the external wires over the center fuel tank
according to AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the
center wing tank based on AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL also states that,
according to Revision March 2006 of the MPD, AWL No. 28-AWL-02 contains
two limitations: maintaining the existing wire bundle routing and
clamping, and installing any new wire bundle per the Boeing standard
wiring practices manual (SWPM). Therefore, JAL believes it is not
necessary to inspect the external wires over the center fuel tank
according to AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the
center wing tank, unless that wire bundle routing and clamping are
changed.
We point out that AWL No. 28-AWL-02 also contains a third
limitation: verifying that all wire bundles over the center fuel tank
are inspected according to AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which refers to AMM 28-
11-00 for accomplishing the inspection. We do not agree that the
inspection should be required only if the wire bundle routing and
clamping are changed while maintenance is accomplished in the area. If
any of the other bundles have a clamp or routing failure, it must be
detected and corrected. After accomplishing the inspection required by
AWL No. 28-AWL-01, an operator would not need to repeat the inspection
for another 12 years. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.
Request for Clarification for Recording Compliance With CDCCLs
JAL requests that we clarify the following sentence: ``An entry
into an operator's existing maintenance record system for corrective
action is sufficient for recording compliance with CDCCLs, as long as
the applicable maintenance manual and task cards identify actions that
are CDCCLs.'' That sentence is located in the ``Recording Compliance
with Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of the NPRM. Specifically, JAL
asks whether an operator must indicate the CDCCL in their recording
documents or whether it is sufficient for the recording document to
call out the applicable AMMs that are tied to the CDCCLs.
We have coordinated with the FAA Flight Standards Service and it
agrees that, for U.S.-registered airplanes, if the applicable AMMs and
task cards identify the CDCCL, then the entry into the recording
documents does not need to identify the CDCCL. However, if the
applicable AMMs and tasks cards do not identify the CDCCL, then they
must be identified. Other methods may be accepted by the appropriate
FAA principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or pri ncipal avionics
inspector (PAI), or governing regulatory authority. No change to this
AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Clarify the Approval of Service Bulletins
ABX Air asks that we clarify whether a service bulletin will need
to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, if a manufacturer publishes
a service bulletin that modifies or repairs an affected component.
If the modification or repair described in the service bulletin
affects compliance with this AD, then the service bulletin will need to
be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. No change to this AD is
necessary in this regard.
Conclusion
We 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.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 824 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at
an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of U.S.-
Action Work Parts Cost per registered Fleet cost
hours airplane airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision.... 8 None............... $640 332 $212,480
Inspections..................... 8 None............... 640 332 212,480
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 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.
We 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.
Regulatory Findings
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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
[[Page 29420]]
(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.
You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
2008-11-01 Boeing: Amendment 39-15523. Docket No. FAA-2007-28388;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-163-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 25,
2008.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -
400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; with an
original standard airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued before April 22, 2006.
Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued
on or after April 22, 2006, must already be in compliance with the
airworthiness limitations specified in this AD because those
limitations were applicable as part of the airworthiness
certification of those airplanes.
Note 2: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (k) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for
ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion
and consequent loss of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Service Information Reference
(f) The term ``Revision April 2008 of the MPD,'' as used in this
AD, means Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD) Document, D622T001-9, Revision April 2008.
Maintenance Program Revision
(g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved
maintenance program by incorporating the information in the
subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD;
except that the initial inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD
must be done at the compliance times specified in Table 1; and
except that the task interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-05 is 72 months.
Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of
the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is
approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA.
(1) Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,'' of
Revision April 2008 of the MPD.
(2) Subsection E, ``PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS,'' AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-26 inclusive,
of Revision April 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs No.
28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28, as identified in Subsection E of
Revision April 2008 of the MPD, also may be incorporated into the
FAA-approved maintenance program.
Initial Inspections and Repair if Necessary
(h) Do the inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD at the
compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any
discrepancy, in accordance with Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,'' of Revision April 2008 of the MPD. The
repair must be done before further flight. Accomplishing the actions
required by this paragraph in accordance with a later revision of
the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Accomplishing the inspections
identified in Table 1 of this AD as part of an FAA-approved
maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified
in Table 1 of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements
of this paragraph.
Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''
Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed
inspection is: ``An intensive examination of a specific item,
installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of
specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate
cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be
required.''
Table 1.--Initial Inspections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance time (whichever occurs later)
AWL No. Description ---------------------------------------------------
Threshold Grace period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28-AWL-01......................... A detailed inspection of Within 144 months since Within 72 months after
external wires over the the date of issuance of the effective date of
center fuel tank for the original standard this AD.
damaged clamps, wire airworthiness
chafing, and wire certificate or the date
bundles in contact with of issuance of the
the surface of the original export
center fuel tank. certificate of
airworthiness.
[[Page 29421]]
28-AWL-05......................... A special detailed Within 72 months since Within 60 months after
inspection of the the date of issuance of the effective date of
bulkhead fitting bond the original standard this AD.
for the hydraulic line airworthiness
tank penetration. certificate or the date
of issuance of the
original export
certificate of
airworthiness.
28-AWL-18......................... A special detailed Within 144 months since Within 24 months after
inspection of the the date of issuance of the effective date of
lightning shield to the original standard this AD.
ground termination on airworthiness
the out-of-tank fuel certificate or the date
quantity indicating of issuance of the
system to verify original export
functional integrity. certificate of
airworthiness.
28-AWL-26......................... A special detailed Within 144 months since Within 24 months after
inspection of the the date of issuance of the effective date of
lightning shield to the original standard this AD.
ground termination on airworthiness
the out-of-tank surge certificate or the date
tank fuel level sensor of issuance of the
to verify functional original export
integrity. certificate of
airworthiness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)
(i) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals,
or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Revision April 2008 of the
MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the
inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.
Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the MPD
(j) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning
Data (MPD) Document, D622T001-9, Revision March 2006; Revision
October 2006; Revision January 2007; Revision October 2007; or
Revision March 2008; are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(l) You must use Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622T001-9, Revision April 2008, to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
(3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or
go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-10976 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
