Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER Series Airplanes, 30737-30743 [E8-11467]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of more than $100
million in any one year.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Executive Order 12866
14 CFR Part 39
OTS has determined that this
extension is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
[Docket No. FAA–2007–28389; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–171–AD; Amendment
39–15536; AD 2008–11–13]
Plain Language
RIN 2120–AA64
Section 722 of the Gramm-LeachBliley Act (12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the
Agencies to use ‘‘plain language’’ in all
final rules published after January 1,
2000. OTS believes that the final rule
containing the extension is presented in
a clear and straightforward manner.
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and
–300ER Series Airplanes
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 585
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 777–200, –200LR, –300,
and –300ER series airplanes. This AD
requires revising the Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) section of the
Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness by incorporating new
limitations for fuel tank systems to
satisfy Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 requirements. This
AD also requires the initial performance
of certain repetitive inspections
specified in the AWLs 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 fuel tank
explosions and consequent loss of the
airplane.
Administrative practice and
procedure, Holding companies,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Savings associations.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons in the preamble, OTS
is amending part 585 of chapter V of
title 12 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
I
PART 585—PROHIBITED SERVICE AT
SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING
COMPANIES
1. The authority citation for 12 CFR
part 585 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463,
1464, 1467a, and 1829(e).
2. In § 585.100(b)(2), revise the
introductory text to read as follows:
I
§ 585.100 Who is exempt from the
prohibition under this part?
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) This exemption expires on
November 3, 2008, unless the savings
and loan holding company or the person
files an application seeking a case-bycase exemption for the person under
§ 585.110 by that date. If the savings and
loan holding company or the person
files such an application, the temporary
exemption expires on:
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 20, 2008.
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
John M. Reich,
Director.
[FR Doc. E8–11781 Filed 5–28–08; 8:45 am]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This AD becomes effective July
3, 2008.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in the AD
as of July 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707,
Seattle, Washington 98124–2207.
DATES:
*
BILLING CODE 6720–01–M
Federal Aviation Administration
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30737
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 917–6500; fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
The FAA issued a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an
AD that would apply to certain Boeing
Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and
–300ER series airplanes. That
supplemental NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on February 28,
2008 (73 FR 10698). That supplemental
NPRM proposed to require revising the
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness (ICA) by incorporating
new limitations for fuel tank systems to
satisfy Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 (SFAR 88)
requirements. That supplemental NPRM
also proposed to require the initial
performance of certain repetitive
inspections specified in the AWLs to
phase in those inspections, and repair if
necessary.
Actions Since NPRM Was Issued
Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing
has issued Temporary Revision (TR) 09–
014, dated December 2007. Boeing TR
09–014 is published as Section 9 of the
Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD) Document,
D622W001–9, Revision February 2008
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Revision
February 2008 of the MPD’’). The
supplemental NPRM referred to
Revision October 2007 of the MPD as
the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the
proposed actions. Revision February
2008 of the MPD revises AWL No. 28–
AWL–03 to reflect the new maximum
loop resistance values associated with
the lightning protection of the
unpressurized fuel quantity indicating
system (FQIS) wire bundle installations.
Accordingly, we have revised
paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this AD to
refer to Revision February 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 Revision
October 2007 or Revision December
2007 of the MPD are acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
30738
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this AD.
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–20
inclusive. AWLs No. 28–AWL–21
through No. 28–AWL–26 were added in
Revision December 2007 of the MPD for
Model 777–200LR series airplanes
equipped with an auxiliary fuel tank.
We might issue additional rulemaking
to require the incorporation of those
AWLs. However, as an optional action,
operators may incorporate those
optional AWLs as specified in
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. Operators
should also note that we might issue a
separate NPRM that proposes to
incorporate AWL No. 28–AWL–19 and
No. 28–AWL–20 into the AWLs section
of the ICA and the associated design
change.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments received.
Support for the Supplemental NPRM
Boeing, American Airlines, and
United Airlines (UAL) concur with the
contents of the supplemental NPRM.
The Air Transport Association (ATA)
agrees with the intent of the
supplemental NPRM.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Request for Clarification of Paragraph
(g)
The ATA, on behalf of UAL,
submitted a comment stating that there
might be a logic error in the proposed
requirement of paragraph (g) of the
supplemental NPRM. UAL states that it
understands that the proposed action is
to revise the AWLs section of the ICA
to ‘‘Incorporate the MPD into the MPD.’’
We infer that the commenters request
that we clarify the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD. We agree that
clarification is necessary. The intent of
paragraph (g) of this AD is to require the
operator to incorporate Subsections D
and E of Revision February 2008 of the
MPD into the operator’s existing MPD.
We have deleted the words ‘‘into the
MPD’’ from paragraph (g) of this AD to
eliminate any confusion.
Request To Revise the Loop Resistance
Values for AWL No. 28–AWL–03
The ATA, on behalf of Continental
Airlines (CAL), submitted a request to
revise the loop resistance values for
AWL No. 28–AWL–03 of Revision
October 2007 of the MPD to reflect the
appropriate limits for in-service
airplanes. CAL states that the limits in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
AWL No. 28–AWL–03 reflect factory
limits, and that mandating those limits
would result in non-compliance and
ground the Model 777 fleet. CAL states
that the limits in AWL No. 28–AWL–03
should be harmonized with the limits in
Tables 601 and 602 of Task 05–55–54–
200–801 of the Boeing 777 Airplane
Maintenance Manual (AMM), which
contain bonding resistance values for inservice airplanes. CAL further requests
that the new limits be published before
May 2008, so that operators have
adequate time to develop the necessary
task cards before the required
compliance time of paragraph (g) of this
AD.
We agree that the loop resistance
values for AWL No. 28–AWL–03 of
Revision October 2007 of the MPD
needed to be revised. Boeing published
Revision February 2008 of the MPD to
specify the appropriate values, which
agree with the AMM. As stated
previously, we have revised this AD
accordingly.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (i)
The ATA, on behalf of UAL, requests
that we clarify paragraph (i) of the
supplemental NPRM. UAL interprets
paragraph (i) to mean that, prior to the
accomplishment of paragraphs (g) and
(h) of the supplemental NPRM, an
operator is allowed to use alternative
inspections, inspection intervals, or
critical design configuration control
limitations (CDCCLs), which are not
part of subsequent revisions of Revision
October 2007 of the MPD. UAL states
that, if this interpretation is true, then
paragraph (i) might be in conflict with
section 121.1113 (‘‘Fuel tank system
maintenance program’’) of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1113).
UAL asks us to clarify whether
paragraph (i) suspends the intent of 14
CFR 121.1113 and allows deviations
until paragraphs (g) and (h) are
complied with.
We disagree with UAL’s
interpretation that this AD conflicts
with 14 CFR 121.1113. The two
requirements are entirely compatible.
That section requires that, no later than
December 16, 2008, operators must
incorporate applicable inspections,
procedures, and limitations for fuel tank
systems that have been approved under
SFAR 88. The AWLs required by this
AD are a portion of the SFAR 88
documents approved for these airplanes.
Since the compliance date for this AD
was chosen to coincide with the
compliance date for 14 CFR 121.1113,
compliance with this AD by that date
will also be partial compliance with 14
CFR 121.1113, and neither that section
nor this AD impose requirements before
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that date. Paragraph (i) of this AD is also
consistent with 14 CFR 121.1113 in that
both prohibit changing the requirements
unless the changes are approved by the
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), which is the oversight office for
this airplane model. No change to this
AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Clarify Use of Equivalent
Tools and Chemicals
JAL requests that we provide
guidelines for using equivalent tools
and chemical materials according to the
component maintenance manuals
(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 commenter’s
request 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 tools or chemical
materials, operators and repair stations
may use equivalents. We have already
approved the use of the CMMs at the
revision levels specified in Revision
February 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.
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
original 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
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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
original 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 original
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.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
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 original 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 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 16,000
flight cycles/3,000 days to only 6,000
days for Model 777 airplanes.
We infer that KLM requests we revise
paragraph (h) of this AD to extend the
compliance time to 6,000 days for AWLs
No. 28–AWL–01 and No. 28–AWL–03.
We disagree because we have
determined that it would be
inappropriate to extend the inspection
intervals. Given the safety implications
for these inspections, 6,000 days
(approximately over 16 years) is too
long, especially since these areas are
accessed more frequently than every 16
years for maintenance. Also, KLM did
not include any reliability information
showing that the systems can continue
to safely operate between the proposed
inspection periods. However, according
to the provisions of paragraph (k) of this
AD, we might approve requests to adjust
the compliance time if the request
includes data that prove that the new
compliance time would provide an
acceptable level of safety. No change to
this AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Require Latest Revision of
the AMM
JAL requests that we revise the
original 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 original 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30739
procedures when doing maintenance
that affects a CDCCL or AWL inspection.
However, JAL believes that according to
the original 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 February
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,
all 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
original NPRM: ‘‘A maintenance manual
change to these tasks may be made
without approval by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, through an appropriate
FAA principal maintenance inspector
(PMI) or principal avionics inspector
(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
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 AMM Task 28–11–00
The ATA, on behalf of CAL,
submitted a comment regarding AWL
No. 28–AWL–01, which specifies doing
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
30740
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
repetitive detailed inspections of the
wire bundles routed over the center fuel
tank and under the main deck floor
boards to detect damaged clamps, wire
chafing, and any wire bundle that is in
contact with the surface of the center
fuel tank. The AWL specifies doing the
inspection in accordance with Task 28–
11–00 of the Boeing 777 AMM. CAL
states that, according to the definition
for a detailed inspection in the
Enhanced Airworthiness Program for
Airplane Systems (EAPAS) Participant
Guide, dated August 2007, a detailed
inspection may include a tactile
assessment in which a component or
assembly is checked for tightness and
security (to ensure continued integrity
of installations such as bonding jumpers
and terminal connectors). CAL states
that the inspection for tightness and
security might require the disassembly
of the wire installation, but that there
are no re-installation procedures in the
current routine manuals. CAL also states
that maintenance personnel have to
disassemble the entire wire bundle
installation to accomplish the detailed
inspection in Task 28–11–00–210–801
of the Boeing 777 AMM. According to
CAL, this action, in the past, has created
more discrepancies with wire bundle
installations.
We infer the commenters request that
Boeing revise Task 28–11–00 of the
Boeing 777 AMM to include procedures
for re-installation of the wire bundles.
We do not agree that the Boeing 777
AMM needs to be revised. This
inspection does not require any
disassembly of wire bundle installations
because, as CAL points out, disassembly
might create an unsafe condition. The
guidance for a detailed inspection
provided by the Maintenance Steering
Group 3 (MSG–3) and EAPAS includes
a tactile assessment of bundle security,
which uses the mechanic’s hands to
pull on the bundle. A visual inspection
is not sufficient. The tactile assessment
is intended to be a non-intrusive
inspection. No change to this AD is
necessary in this regard.
Request To Revise AMM Task 28–11–
00–210–801
The ATA, on behalf of CAL,
submitted a comment regarding Task
28–11–00–210–801 of the Boeing 777
AMM for accomplishing a detailed
inspection of the wire bundles between
the main deck and the top surface of the
center fuel tank. (Task 28–11–00 is
referenced in AWL No. 28–AWL–01 of
Revision February 2008 of the MPD.)
CAL states that the task procedures do
not provide specific details or
information for the wire bundle
installation to ensure that maintenance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
personnel can comply with the design
requirements. CAL also states that the
wire bundle installation has been
modified according to Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777–57A0050, dated
January 26, 2006; and Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777–57A0051, dated
May 15, 2006. CAL states that it
provided comments to the NPRM that
propose to mandate the accomplishment
of those service bulletins. (That NPRM
(Docket No. FAA–2007–27042) was
published in the Federal Register on
January 29, 2007 (72 FR 3956).)
We infer the commenters request that
Boeing revise Task 28–11–00–210–801
of the Boeing 777 AMM to provide
specific details for the wire bundle
installation. We do not agree that the
Boeing 777 AMM needs to be revised
because specific design information is
not needed for accomplishing this
inspection. The type and location of the
wiring over the center fuel tank can vary
among airplanes, and these details are
not necessary to complete the
inspection. AWL No. 28–AWL–01 is
concerned with wire installation
failures that will eventually lead to
arcing through the top surface of the
tank. That AWL and the referenced
AMM provide for the type of failures
that might progress to arcing, and any
wire bundle in that area needs to be
inspected. No change to this AD is
necessary in this regard.
Request To Revise AMM by Including
Warning Statements
The ATA, on behalf of CAL,
submitted a comment regarding Tasks
28–11–00–210–801 and 05–55–54–200–
801 of the Boeing 777 AMM. CAL states
that these tasks do not contain CDCCL
warning statements to alert maintenance
personnel of their importance to
regulatory compliance requirements.
We infer the commenters request that
Boeing revise the Boeing 777 AMM to
include warning statements as stated by
CAL. We do not agree that the Boeing
777 AMM needs to be revised because
Step A.(1) of the relevant AMM sections
contains notes about the CDCCLs. The
FAA and Boeing chose to use notes, not
warning statements, because we did not
want to undermine other sections of the
AMM, which are not tied to AWLs but
are still necessary for maintaining the
airplane. If CAL determines that a
different approach would work better
for its maintenance program, it can
develop a different system with the help
of its PMI or PAI. No change to this AD
is necessary in this regard.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Request To Publish Manuals for
Maintenance Personnel
The ATA, on behalf of CAL,
submitted a comment stating that CAL
is concerned that not enough attention
has been given to ensure that specific
detailed inspections are preserved for
the long-term operation of its Model 777
fleet. CAL states that, other than some
generic information found in Revision
October 2007 of the MPD, there are no
published maintenance documents for
continuous airworthiness available to
show each specific requirement as
detailed in the airplane production
drawings, such as Task 05–55–54–200–
801 of the Boeing 777 AMM. CAL
further states that information detailed
by the airplane production drawing
must be available in manuals that are
routinely used by the maintenance
personnel. CAL asserts that making this
information available will prevent the
inadvertent reversal of the designated
configuration, which could lead to
violation of the supplemental NPRM, in
addition to compromising the higher
level of safety intended for the Model
777 fleet.
CAL believes the current program, as
provided by AWLs No. 28–AWL–01 and
No. 28–AWL–03 of Revision October
2007 of the MPD, is not ready to be
implemented. CAL states that, if those
AWLs are mandated as proposed, CAL
would not be able to incorporate those
AWLs in its Model 777 fleet, and a high
risk of future de-modification of the
wire bundles would exist for airplanes
on which those AWLs could be
implemented. CAL recommends that we
coordinate with Boeing regarding the
changes it requests in the previous
comments.
We infer the commenters request that
we delay issuance of the final rule until
Boeing publishes manual(s) containing
detailed information for maintenance
personnel to accomplish the required
AWL inspections. We disagree. To delay
this action would be inappropriate,
since we have determined that an
unsafe condition exists and that the
actions required by this AD must be
mandated to ensure continued safety.
The amount of detail within the
Boeing 777 AMM needs to be balanced,
and it might not be the same for every
operator. The FAA and Boeing have
worked together to define what design
requirements need to be included in the
AMMs for fuel tank ignition prevention
features. If the AMMs are overly
specific, they might be too voluminous
to be used effectively and would be
prone to errors, since wiring
installations vary among airplanes. The
amount of information needed to be
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
included in the AMMs will also vary
among operators, depending on the
processes and training for a given
operator. If CAL determines more
detailed design information needs to be
included in its AMMs, CAL can work
with its PMI or PAI and Boeing to add
that information. 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 original 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 the uncommon part to
preserve its monopoly.
We disagree with revising the
‘‘Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank
System AWLs’’ section of the original
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 February 2008 of
the MPD. Third-party spare parts, such
as parts approved by PMA, have not
been reviewed. We expect that such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.
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–03 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
777 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30741
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 16,000
flight cycles or 3,000 days, whichever is
first. 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 original 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 PMI or
PAI, or governing regulatory authority.
No change to this AD is necessary in
this regard.
Request To Clarify Approval of CMM
Changes
JAL requests that we clarify whether
FAA approval is required for changes to
the CMM. JAL states that, when it finds
incorrect instructions, typographical
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
30742
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
errors, or vague instructions in the
CMM, it usually contacts the component
manufacturer about those issues and
revises the instructions in its own
manuals. JAL states that those changes
are not reflected in the CMM until the
component manufacturer revises the
CMM. JAL requests that we provide
guidelines for CMM errors that do not
require FAA approval.
Changes to the CMMs must be
approved by the FAA, or governing
regulatory authority, before the revised
CMMs can be used. No change to this
AD is necessary in this regard.
economic burden on any operator nor
increase the scope of the AD.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the
available data, including the comments
received, and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described
previously. We have determined that
these changes will neither increase the
We estimate that this AD affects 127
airplanes of U.S. registry. 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.
Costs of Compliance
ESTIMATED COSTS
Action
Work hours
AWLs revision ...........................................
Inspection ..................................................
8
8
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.
None .........................................................
None .........................................................
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation.
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.
Regulatory Findings
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Cost per
airplane
Parts
§ 39.13
We have determined that this AD will
not have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132. This AD will
not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this AD:
(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
I
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
2008–11–13 Boeing: Amendment 39–15536.
Docket No. FAA–2007–28389;
Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–171–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective July 3, 2008.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 777–
200, –200LR, –300, and –300ER series
airplanes; certificated in any category; with
an original standard airworthiness certificate
or original export certificate of airworthiness
issued before December 5, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
$640
640
Number of
U.S.-registered
airplanes
127
127
Fleet cost
$81,280
81,280
Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard
airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued on or after
December 5, 2007, must be already in
compliance with the airworthiness
limitations (AWLs) 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 fuel
tank explosions and consequent loss of the
airplane.
Compliance
(e) Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
Service Information
(f) The term ‘‘Revision February 2008 of
the MPD,’’ as used in this AD, means Boeing
Temporary Revision (TR) 09–014, dated
December 2007. Boeing TR 09–014 is
published as Section 9 of the Boeing 777
Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)
D622W001–9, Revision February 2008.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Revision of Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) Section
(g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the
AWLs section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness (ICA) 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 paragraph (h) of this
AD must be done at the compliance times
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) Subsection D, ‘‘AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS—SYSTEMS,’’ of Revision
February 2008 of the MPD.
(2) Subsection E, ‘‘PAGE FORMAT: FUEL
SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS,’’ AWLs No. 28–AWL–01
through No. 28–AWL–20 inclusive, of
Revision February 2008 of the MPD. As an
optional action, AWLs No. 28–AWL–21
through No. 28–AWL–26 inclusive, as
identified in Subsection E of Revision
February 2008 of the MPD, also may be
incorporated into the AWLs section of the
ICA.
Initial Inspections and Repair
(h) Do the inspections required by
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD at the
compliance times specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2), in accordance with the
applicable AWLs described in Subsection E
of Revision February 2008 of the MPD. If any
discrepancy is found during these
inspections, repair the discrepancy before
further flight in accordance with Revision
February 2008 of the MPD.
(1) At the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD,
do 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, and
repair any discrepancy, in accordance with
AWL No. 28–AWL–01. Accomplishing AWL
No. 28–AWL–01 as part of an FAA-approved
maintenance program before the applicable
compliance time specified in paragraph
(h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD constitutes
compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph.
(i) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total
flight cycles, or within 3,000 days 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.
(ii) Within 72 months after the effective
date of this AD.
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.’’
(2) At the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD,
do a special detailed inspection (resistance
test) of the lightning shield-to-ground
termination of the out tank wiring of the fuel
quantity indicating system (FQIS) and, as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
applicable, repair (restore) the bond to ensure
the shield-to-ground termination meets
specified resistance values, in accordance
with AWL No. 28–AWL–03. Accomplishing
AWL No. 28–AWL–03 as part of an FAAapproved maintenance program before the
applicable compliance time specified in
paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of this AD
constitutes compliance with the
requirements of this paragraph.
(i) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total
flight cycles, or within 3,000 days 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.
(ii) Within 24 months after the effective
date of this AD.
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.’’
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 February 2008 of
the MPD that is approved by the Manager,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (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 777 MPD Document, D622W001–9,
Revision October 2007; or Revision December
2007; 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,
ATTN: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace
Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6500; fax
(425) 917–6590; has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using 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 Boeing Temporary
Revision (TR) 09–014, dated December 2007,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30743
to the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD) Document, D622W001–9,
to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise. Boeing TR 09–
014 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing
777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)
Document, D622W001–9, Revision February
2008. (The List of Effective Pages for Section
9 of Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD) Document, D622W001–9,
Revision February 2008, contains numerous
errors. However, the revision/date identified
on the individual pages of the document are
correct.)
(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 14,
2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–11467 Filed 5–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2007–0214; Directorate
Identifier 2007–NM–224–AD; Amendment
39–15528; AD 2008–11–06]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell
Douglas Model 717–200 Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
McDonnell Douglas Model 717–200
airplanes. This AD requires installing an
additional support bracket for the gray
water drain hose; replacing the screw of
the support bracket with a new screw
for the potable water supply hose;
installing a spacer; doing a detailed
inspection to detect interference or wear
damage on hoses, lines and/or cables;
and doing corrective actions if
necessary. This AD results from reports
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 104 (Thursday, May 29, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30737-30743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11467]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2007-28389; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-171-AD;
Amendment 39-15536; AD 2008-11-13]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and
-300ER Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series
airplanes. This AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by
incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD also requires
the initial performance of certain repetitive inspections specified in
the AWLs 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 fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the
airplane.
DATES: This AD becomes effective July 3, 2008.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 3, 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: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6500; fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain
Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. That
supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 28,
2008 (73 FR 10698). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require revising
the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by incorporating new limitations for fuel
tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
(SFAR 88) requirements. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to require
the initial performance of certain repetitive inspections specified in
the AWLs to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary.
Actions Since NPRM Was Issued
Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has issued Temporary Revision (TR)
09-014, dated December 2007. Boeing TR 09-014 is published as Section 9
of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) Document,
D622W001-9, Revision February 2008 (hereafter referred to as ``Revision
February 2008 of the MPD''). The supplemental NPRM referred to Revision
October 2007 of the MPD as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision February
2008 of the MPD revises AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to reflect the new maximum
loop resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the
unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) wire bundle
installations.
Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this
AD to refer to Revision February 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 Revision October 2007 or
Revision December 2007 of the MPD are acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding
[[Page 30738]]
requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
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-
20 inclusive. AWLs No. 28-AWL-21 through No. 28-AWL-26 were added in
Revision December 2007 of the MPD for Model 777-200LR series airplanes
equipped with an auxiliary fuel tank. We might issue additional
rulemaking to require the incorporation of those AWLs. However, as an
optional action, operators may incorporate those optional AWLs as
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. Operators should also note
that we might issue a separate NPRM that proposes to incorporate AWL
No. 28-AWL-19 and No. 28-AWL-20 into the AWLs section of the ICA and
the associated design change.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Support for the Supplemental NPRM
Boeing, American Airlines, and United Airlines (UAL) concur with
the contents of the supplemental NPRM. The Air Transport Association
(ATA) agrees with the intent of the supplemental NPRM.
Request for Clarification of Paragraph (g)
The ATA, on behalf of UAL, submitted a comment stating that there
might be a logic error in the proposed requirement of paragraph (g) of
the supplemental NPRM. UAL states that it understands that the proposed
action is to revise the AWLs section of the ICA to ``Incorporate the
MPD into the MPD.''
We infer that the commenters request that we clarify the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. We agree that clarification
is necessary. The intent of paragraph (g) of this AD is to require the
operator to incorporate Subsections D and E of Revision February 2008
of the MPD into the operator's existing MPD. We have deleted the words
``into the MPD'' from paragraph (g) of this AD to eliminate any
confusion.
Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03
The ATA, on behalf of Continental Airlines (CAL), submitted a
request to revise the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of
Revision October 2007 of the MPD to reflect the appropriate limits for
in-service airplanes. CAL states that the limits in AWL No. 28-AWL-03
reflect factory limits, and that mandating those limits would result in
non-compliance and ground the Model 777 fleet. CAL states that the
limits in AWL No. 28-AWL-03 should be harmonized with the limits in
Tables 601 and 602 of Task 05-55-54-200-801 of the Boeing 777 Airplane
Maintenance Manual (AMM), which contain bonding resistance values for
in-service airplanes. CAL further requests that the new limits be
published before May 2008, so that operators have adequate time to
develop the necessary task cards before the required compliance time of
paragraph (g) of this AD.
We agree that the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of
Revision October 2007 of the MPD needed to be revised. Boeing published
Revision February 2008 of the MPD to specify the appropriate values,
which agree with the AMM. As stated previously, we have revised this AD
accordingly.
Request To Clarify Paragraph (i)
The ATA, on behalf of UAL, requests that we clarify paragraph (i)
of the supplemental NPRM. UAL interprets paragraph (i) to mean that,
prior to the accomplishment of paragraphs (g) and (h) of the
supplemental NPRM, an operator is allowed to use alternative
inspections, inspection intervals, or critical design configuration
control limitations (CDCCLs), which are not part of subsequent
revisions of Revision October 2007 of the MPD. UAL states that, if this
interpretation is true, then paragraph (i) might be in conflict with
section 121.1113 (``Fuel tank system maintenance program'') of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1113). UAL asks us to clarify
whether paragraph (i) suspends the intent of 14 CFR 121.1113 and allows
deviations until paragraphs (g) and (h) are complied with.
We disagree with UAL's interpretation that this AD conflicts with
14 CFR 121.1113. The two requirements are entirely compatible. That
section requires that, no later than December 16, 2008, operators must
incorporate applicable inspections, procedures, and limitations for
fuel tank systems that have been approved under SFAR 88. The AWLs
required by this AD are a portion of the SFAR 88 documents approved for
these airplanes. Since the compliance date for this AD was chosen to
coincide with the compliance date for 14 CFR 121.1113, compliance with
this AD by that date will also be partial compliance with 14 CFR
121.1113, and neither that section nor this AD impose requirements
before that date. Paragraph (i) of this AD is also consistent with 14
CFR 121.1113 in that both prohibit changing the requirements unless the
changes are approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), which is the oversight office for this airplane model. No change
to this AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Clarify Use of Equivalent Tools and Chemicals
JAL requests that we provide guidelines for using equivalent tools
and chemical materials according to the component maintenance manuals
(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 commenter's request 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 tools or
chemical materials, operators and repair stations may use equivalents.
We have already approved the use of the CMMs at the revision levels
specified in Revision February 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.
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 original 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
[[Page 30739]]
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 original 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 original 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
original 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 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 16,000 flight cycles/3,000 days to only 6,000 days for
Model 777 airplanes.
We infer that KLM requests we revise paragraph (h) of this AD to
extend the compliance time to 6,000 days for AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 and No.
28-AWL-03. We disagree because we have determined that it would be
inappropriate to extend the inspection intervals. Given the safety
implications for these inspections, 6,000 days (approximately over 16
years) is too long, especially since these areas are accessed more
frequently than every 16 years for maintenance. Also, KLM did not
include any reliability information showing that the systems can
continue to safely operate between the proposed inspection periods.
However, according to the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, we
might approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request
includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an
acceptable level of safety. No change to this AD is necessary in this
regard.
Request To Require Latest Revision of the AMM
JAL requests that we revise the original 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 original 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 original 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
February 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,
all 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 original NPRM: ``A maintenance manual change to these tasks may be
made without approval by the Manager, Seattle ACO, through an
appropriate FAA principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (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
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 AMM Task 28-11-00
The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment regarding AWL No.
28-AWL-01, which specifies doing
[[Page 30740]]
repetitive detailed inspections of the wire bundles routed over the
center fuel tank and under the main deck floor boards to detect damaged
clamps, wire chafing, and any wire bundle that is in contact with the
surface of the center fuel tank. The AWL specifies doing the inspection
in accordance with Task 28-11-00 of the Boeing 777 AMM. CAL states
that, according to the definition for a detailed inspection in the
Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems (EAPAS) Participant
Guide, dated August 2007, a detailed inspection may include a tactile
assessment in which a component or assembly is checked for tightness
and security (to ensure continued integrity of installations such as
bonding jumpers and terminal connectors). CAL states that the
inspection for tightness and security might require the disassembly of
the wire installation, but that there are no re-installation procedures
in the current routine manuals. CAL also states that maintenance
personnel have to disassemble the entire wire bundle installation to
accomplish the detailed inspection in Task 28-11-00-210-801 of the
Boeing 777 AMM. According to CAL, this action, in the past, has created
more discrepancies with wire bundle installations.
We infer the commenters request that Boeing revise Task 28-11-00 of
the Boeing 777 AMM to include procedures for re-installation of the
wire bundles. We do not agree that the Boeing 777 AMM needs to be
revised. This inspection does not require any disassembly of wire
bundle installations because, as CAL points out, disassembly might
create an unsafe condition. The guidance for a detailed inspection
provided by the Maintenance Steering Group 3 (MSG-3) and EAPAS includes
a tactile assessment of bundle security, which uses the mechanic's
hands to pull on the bundle. A visual inspection is not sufficient. The
tactile assessment is intended to be a non-intrusive inspection. No
change to this AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Revise AMM Task 28-11-00-210-801
The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment regarding Task 28-
11-00-210-801 of the Boeing 777 AMM for accomplishing a detailed
inspection of the wire bundles between the main deck and the top
surface of the center fuel tank. (Task 28-11-00 is referenced in AWL
No. 28-AWL-01 of Revision February 2008 of the MPD.) CAL states that
the task procedures do not provide specific details or information for
the wire bundle installation to ensure that maintenance personnel can
comply with the design requirements. CAL also states that the wire
bundle installation has been modified according to Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-57A0050, dated January 26, 2006; and Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-57A0051, dated May 15, 2006. CAL states that it provided
comments to the NPRM that propose to mandate the accomplishment of
those service bulletins. (That NPRM (Docket No. FAA-2007-27042) was
published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2007 (72 FR 3956).)
We infer the commenters request that Boeing revise Task 28-11-00-
210-801 of the Boeing 777 AMM to provide specific details for the wire
bundle installation. We do not agree that the Boeing 777 AMM needs to
be revised because specific design information is not needed for
accomplishing this inspection. The type and location of the wiring over
the center fuel tank can vary among airplanes, and these details are
not necessary to complete the inspection. AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is
concerned with wire installation failures that will eventually lead to
arcing through the top surface of the tank. That AWL and the referenced
AMM provide for the type of failures that might progress to arcing, and
any wire bundle in that area needs to be inspected. No change to this
AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Revise AMM by Including Warning Statements
The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment regarding Tasks 28-
11-00-210-801 and 05-55-54-200-801 of the Boeing 777 AMM. CAL states
that these tasks do not contain CDCCL warning statements to alert
maintenance personnel of their importance to regulatory compliance
requirements.
We infer the commenters request that Boeing revise the Boeing 777
AMM to include warning statements as stated by CAL. We do not agree
that the Boeing 777 AMM needs to be revised because Step A.(1) of the
relevant AMM sections contains notes about the CDCCLs. The FAA and
Boeing chose to use notes, not warning statements, because we did not
want to undermine other sections of the AMM, which are not tied to AWLs
but are still necessary for maintaining the airplane. If CAL determines
that a different approach would work better for its maintenance
program, it can develop a different system with the help of its PMI or
PAI. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Publish Manuals for Maintenance Personnel
The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment stating that CAL is
concerned that not enough attention has been given to ensure that
specific detailed inspections are preserved for the long-term operation
of its Model 777 fleet. CAL states that, other than some generic
information found in Revision October 2007 of the MPD, there are no
published maintenance documents for continuous airworthiness available
to show each specific requirement as detailed in the airplane
production drawings, such as Task 05-55-54-200-801 of the Boeing 777
AMM. CAL further states that information detailed by the airplane
production drawing must be available in manuals that are routinely used
by the maintenance personnel. CAL asserts that making this information
available will prevent the inadvertent reversal of the designated
configuration, which could lead to violation of the supplemental NPRM,
in addition to compromising the higher level of safety intended for the
Model 777 fleet.
CAL believes the current program, as provided by AWLs No. 28-AWL-01
and No. 28-AWL-03 of Revision October 2007 of the MPD, is not ready to
be implemented. CAL states that, if those AWLs are mandated as
proposed, CAL would not be able to incorporate those AWLs in its Model
777 fleet, and a high risk of future de-modification of the wire
bundles would exist for airplanes on which those AWLs could be
implemented. CAL recommends that we coordinate with Boeing regarding
the changes it requests in the previous comments.
We infer the commenters request that we delay issuance of the final
rule until Boeing publishes manual(s) containing detailed information
for maintenance personnel to accomplish the required AWL inspections.
We disagree. To delay this action would be inappropriate, since we have
determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the actions
required by this AD must be mandated to ensure continued safety.
The amount of detail within the Boeing 777 AMM needs to be
balanced, and it might not be the same for every operator. The FAA and
Boeing have worked together to define what design requirements need to
be included in the AMMs for fuel tank ignition prevention features. If
the AMMs are overly specific, they might be too voluminous to be used
effectively and would be prone to errors, since wiring installations
vary among airplanes. The amount of information needed to be
[[Page 30741]]
included in the AMMs will also vary among operators, depending on the
processes and training for a given operator. If CAL determines more
detailed design information needs to be included in its AMMs, CAL can
work with its PMI or PAI and Boeing to add that information. 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
original 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 the uncommon part to preserve its monopoly.
We disagree with revising the ``Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank
System AWLs'' section of the original 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 February 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.
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-03 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 777 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 16,000 flight cycles or 3,000 days, whichever is first. 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 original 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 PMI or PAI, or governing regulatory authority. No change to this AD
is necessary in this regard.
Request To Clarify Approval of CMM Changes
JAL requests that we clarify whether FAA approval is required for
changes to the CMM. JAL states that, when it finds incorrect
instructions, typographical
[[Page 30742]]
errors, or vague instructions in the CMM, it usually contacts the
component manufacturer about those issues and revises the instructions
in its own manuals. JAL states that those changes are not reflected in
the CMM until the component manufacturer revises the CMM. JAL requests
that we provide guidelines for CMM errors that do not require FAA
approval.
Changes to the CMMs must be approved by the FAA, or governing
regulatory authority, before the revised CMMs can be used. No change to
this AD is necessary in this regard.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 127 airplanes of U.S. registry.
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
Cost per U.S.-
Action Work hours Parts airplane registered Fleet cost
airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWLs revision....................... 8 None.................. $640 127 $81,280
Inspection.......................... 8 None.................. 640 127 81,280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
2008-11-13 Boeing: Amendment 39-15536. Docket No. FAA-2007-28389;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-171-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective July 3, 2008.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -
300ER series airplanes; certificated in any category; with an
original standard airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued before December 5, 2007.
Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued
on or after December 5, 2007, must be already in compliance with the
airworthiness limitations (AWLs) 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 fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
Service Information
(f) The term ``Revision February 2008 of the MPD,'' as used in
this AD, means Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-014, dated December
2007. Boeing TR 09-014 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 777
Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) D622W001-9, Revision February
2008.
[[Page 30743]]
Revision of Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Section
(g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the AWLs section of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) 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
paragraph (h) of this AD must be done at the compliance times
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,'' of
Revision February 2008 of the MPD.
(2) Subsection E, ``PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS,'' AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-20 inclusive,
of Revision February 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs
No. 28-AWL-21 through No. 28-AWL-26 inclusive, as identified in
Subsection E of Revision February 2008 of the MPD, also may be
incorporated into the AWLs section of the ICA.
Initial Inspections and Repair
(h) Do the inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2)
of this AD at the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
and (h)(2), in accordance with the applicable AWLs described in
Subsection E of Revision February 2008 of the MPD. If any
discrepancy is found during these inspections, repair the
discrepancy before further flight in accordance with Revision
February 2008 of the MPD.
(1) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)
and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, do 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, and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-
01. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-01 as part of an FAA-approved
maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified
in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD constitutes
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
(i) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,000 days 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.
(ii) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.
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.''
(2) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i)
and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection
(resistance test) of the lightning shield-to-ground termination of
the out tank wiring of the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS)
and, as applicable, repair (restore) the bond to ensure the shield-
to-ground termination meets specified resistance values, in
accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03
as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable
compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of
this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph.
(i) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,000 days 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.
(ii) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
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.''
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 February 2008 of
the MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (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 777 MPD Document, D622W001-
9, Revision October 2007; or Revision December 2007; 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, ATTN: Margaret Langsted,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6500; fax
(425) 917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using 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 Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-014, dated
December 2007, to the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)
Document, D622W001-9, to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise. Boeing TR 09-014 is published as Section
9 of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) Document,
D622W001-9, Revision February 2008. (The List of Effective Pages for
Section 9 of Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)
Document, D622W001-9, Revision February 2008, contains numerous
errors. However, the revision/date identified on the individual
pages of the document are correct.)
(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 14, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-11467 Filed 5-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
