25990 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Revision to Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) Section 

(g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the 

AWLs section of the Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by 

incorporating into the MPD the information 

in the subsections specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD; except that 

the initial inspection required by paragraph 

(h) of this AD must be done at the applicable 

compliance time specified in that paragraph. 

Accomplishing the revision in accordance 

with a later revision of the MPD is an 

acceptable method of compliance if the 

revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. 

(1) Subsection E, ‘‘AIRWORTHINESS 

LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS,’’ of 

Revision March 2008 of the MPD. 

(2) Subsection F, ‘‘PAGE FORMAT: FUEL 

SYSTEM AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,’’

of Revision March 2008 of the MPD. 

(3) Subsection G, ‘‘AIRWORTHINESS 

LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,’’

AWLs No. 28–AWL–01 through No. 28–

AWL–22 inclusive, of Revision March 2008 

of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs No. 

28–AWL–23 and No. 28–AWL–24, as 

identified in Subsection G of Revision March 

2008 of the MPD, also may be incorporated 

into the AWLs section of the ICA. 

Initial Inspection and Repair if Necessary 

(h) At the later of the compliance times 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of 

this AD, do a special detailed inspection of 

the lightning shield to ground termination on 

the out-of-tank fuel quantity indication 

system (FQIS) wiring to verify functional 

integrity, in accordance with AWL No. 28–

AWL–03 of Subsection G of Revision March 

2008 of the MPD. If any discrepancy is found 

during the inspection, repair the discrepancy 

before further flight in accordance with AWL 

No. 28–AWL–03 of Subsection G of Revision 

March 2008 of the MPD. Accomplishing the 

actions required by this paragraph in 

accordance with a later revision of the MPD 

is an acceptable method of compliance if the 

revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO. Accomplishing AWL No. 28–AWL–03 

as part of an FAA-approved maintenance 

program before the applicable compliance 

time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of 

this AD constitutes compliance with the 

requirements of this paragraph. 

Note 3: 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.’’

(1) Within 120 months since the date of 

issuance of the original standard 

airworthiness certification or the date of 

issuance of the original export certificate of 

airworthiness. 

(2) Within 24 months after the effective 

date of this AD. 

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 March 2008 of the 

MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO; or unless the inspections, intervals, or 

CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (l) 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 the following 

MPDs are acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) 

and (h) of this AD: Section 9 of the Boeing 

737–600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900 MPD 

Document, D626A001–CMR, Revision March 

2006; Revision May 2006; Revision October 

2006; Revision November 2006; or Revision 

November 2006 R1; and Section 9 of the 

Boeing 737–600/700/800/900 MPD 

Document, D626A001–CMR, Revision March 

2007; Revision March 2007 R1; Revision 

March 2007 R2; or Revision February 2008. 

Terminating Action for AD 2008–06–03, 

Amendment 39–15415 

(k) Incorporating AWLs No. 28–AWL–21, 

No. 28–AWL–22, and No. 28–AWL–24 into 

the AWLs section of the ICA in accordance 

with paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the 

action required by paragraph (h)(1) of AD 

2008–06–03. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(l)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(m) You must use Boeing Temporary 

Revision 09–020, dated March 2008, to the 

Boeing 737–600/700/800/900 Maintenance 

Planning Data (MPD) Document, D626A001–

CMR, to do the actions required by this AD, 

unless the AD specifies otherwise. Boeing 

Temporary Revision 09–020 is published as 

Section 9 of the Boeing 737–600/700/800/900 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document, D626A001–CMR, Revision March 

2008. 

(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: 

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29, 

2008. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–9919 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–28386; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–162–AD; Amendment 

39–15512; AD 2008–10–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–400, –400D, and –400F 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Boeing Model 747–400, –400D, and 

–400F series airplanes. This AD requires 

revising the FAA-approved maintenance 

program by incorporating new 

airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for 

fuel tank systems to satisfy Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 

requirements. This AD also requires the 

initial inspection of certain repetitive 

AWL inspections to phase in those 

inspections, and repair if necessary. 

This AD results from a design review of 

the fuel tank systems. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent the potential for 

ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused 

by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or 

maintenance actions, which, in 

combination with flammable fuel 

vapors, could result in a fuel tank 

explosion and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 

2008. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of June 12, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 25991 

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

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: 

Sulmo Mariano, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6501; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an airworthiness 

directive (AD) that would apply to 

certain Boeing Model 747–400, –400D, 

and –400F series airplanes. That NPRM 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36385). That 

NPRM proposed to require revising the 

FAA-approved maintenance program by 

incorporating new airworthiness 

limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank systems 

to satisfy Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88 requirements. That 

NPRM also proposed to require the 

initial inspection of certain repetitive 

AWL inspections to phase in those 

inspections, and repair if necessary. 

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing 

has issued Temporary Revision (TR) 09–

010, dated March 2008. Boeing TR 09–

010 is published as Section 9 of the 

Boeing 747–400 Maintenance Planning 

Data (MPD) Document, D621U400–9, 

Revision March 2008 (hereafter referred 

to as ‘‘Revision March 2008 of the 

MPD’’). The NPRM referred to Revision 

March 2006 of the MPD as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

proposed actions. Revision March 2008 

of the MPD, among other actions, 

includes the following changes: 

• Removes the repetitive task interval 

of 36,000 flight hours from AWLs No. 

28–AWL–01, No. 28–AWL–03, and No. 

28–AWL–10. 

• 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. 

• Adds new AWLs No. 28–AWL–30, 

No. 28–AWL–31, and No. 28–AWL–32 

to incorporate new critical design 

configuration control limitations 

(CDCCLs) for the electronic fuel level 

indication system (EFLI) for Model 747–

400 series airplanes equipped with an 

auxiliary fuel tank. 

Accordingly, we have revised 

paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this AD to 

refer to Revision March 2008 of the 

MPD. We also have removed reference 

to 36,000 total flight cycles from Table 

1 of this AD and revised the initial 

threshold for accomplishing AWLs No. 

28–AWL–01, No. 28–AWL–03, and No. 

28–AWL–10 to within 144 months since 

the date of issuance of the original 

standard airworthiness certificate or the 

date of issuance of the original export 

certificate of airworthiness. (The NPRM 

incorrectly specified 36,000 total ‘‘flight 

cycles’’ instead of ‘‘flight hours.’’) 

We also have added a new paragraph 

(k) to this AD specifying that actions 

done before the effective date of this AD 

in accordance with Revisions March 

2006 through November 2007 of the 

MPD are acceptable for compliance with 

the corresponding requirements of 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. 

Operators should note that we have 

revised paragraph (g)(3) of this AD to 

require incorporating only AWLs No. 

28–AWL–01 through No. 28–AWL–23 

inclusive. AWLs No. 28–AWL–24, No. 

28–AWL–25, No. 28–AWL–26, No. 28–

AWL–27, No. 28–AWL–28, and No. 28–

AWL–29 were added in other revisions 

of the MPD after March 2006 and before 

March 2008. We have issued a separate 

NPRM that proposes to incorporate 

AWL No. 28–AWL–25 into the FAAapproved maintenance program. We 

have also issued a separate NPRM that 

proposes to incorporate AWL No. 28–

AWL–27 into the FAA-approved 

maintenance program. Those NPRMs 

were published in the Federal Register 

on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5770 and 

5773, respectively). We might issue 

additional rulemaking to require the 

incorporation of AWLs No. 28–AWL–

24, No. 28–AWL–26, No. 28–AWL–28, 

and No. 28–AWL–29. However, as an 

optional action, operators may 

incorporate those AWLs as specified in 

paragraph (g)(3) of this AD. 

Further, we have added a new 

paragraph (i) to this AD, which requires 

the incorporation of AWLs No. 28–

AWL–30, No. 28–AWL–31, and No. 28–

AWL–32 on Model 747–400 series 

airplanes equipped with an auxiliary 

fuel tank. Since none of these airplanes 

are on the U.S. Register, this change 

does not impose an additional burden 

on any U.S. operators. 

Other Changes Made to This AD 

We have revised paragraph (h) of this 

AD to clarify that the actions identified 

in Table 1 of this AD must be done at 

the compliance time specified in that 

table. Also, for standardization 

purposes, we have revised this AD in 

the following ways: 

• We have added a new paragraph (j) 

to this AD to specify that no alternative 

inspections, inspection intervals, or 

CDCCLs may be used unless they are 

part of a later approved revision of 

Revision March 2008 of the MPD, or 

unless they are approved as an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in 

the AD is intended to ensure that the 

AD-mandated airworthiness limitations 

changes are treated the same as the 

airworthiness limitations issued with 

the original type certificate. 

• We have revised Note 2 of this AD 

to clarify that an operator must request 

approval for an AMOC if the operator 

cannot accomplish the required 

inspections because an airplane has 

been previously modified, altered, or 

repaired in the areas addressed by the 

required inspections. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received from 

the six commenters. 

Request To Allow Inspections Done 

According to a Maintenance Program 

Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we 

revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM to 

allow an operator to update its FAAapproved maintenance program to 

include the initial inspections and 

repair for certain AWLs. JAL states that 

the NPRM would require accomplishing 

the initial inspection and repair of 

certain AWLs, which would require JAL 

to establish a special inspection and 

special recordkeeping for the proposed 

requirement. 

The compliance times specified in 

paragraph (h) of this AD are intended to 

provide a grace period for those 

airplanes that have already exceeded the 

specified threshold in the MPD. To be 

in compliance with the recording 

requirements of this AD, operators must 

record their compliance with the initial 

inspection for those airplanes over the 

specified threshold. We have revised 

paragraph (h) of this AD to specify that 

accomplishing the applicable AWLs as 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
25992 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

part of an FAA-approved maintenance 

program before the applicable 

compliance time constitutes compliance 

with the applicable requirements of that 

paragraph. 

Request To Revise Intervals for Certain 

AWL Inspections 

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), on 

behalf of several operators, requests that 

we review a 45-page proposal to align 

certain airworthiness limitation item 

(ALI) intervals with the applicable 

maintenance significant item (MSI) and 

enhanced zonal analysis procedure 

(EZAP) intervals for Model 737, 747, 

757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The 

recommendations in that proposal 

ensure that the ALI intervals align with 

the maintenance schedules of the 

operators. Among other changes, the 

proposal recommends revising certain 

AWL inspection intervals from 12 years/ 

36,000 flight hours to only 12 years for 

Model 747–400, –400D, and –400F 

series airplanes. 

Qantas Airways also requests that the 

36,000-flight-hour parameter be 

removed from the inspection interval for 

AWL No. 28–AWL–01, No. 28–AWL–

03, and No. 28–AWL–10. The 

commenter states that the flight-hour 

parameter does not adequately take into 

account actual airplane usage, and that 

the long haul utilization of the airplane 

is 5,000 to 6,000 flight hours per year. 

Based on this number, the commenter 

states that the AWL tasks would be 

required at 6 years instead of 12 years. 

Qantas Airways and Lufthansa both 

note an inconsistency between the 

inspection interval specified in Revision 

March 2006 of the MPD and the 

compliance threshold specified in Table 

1 of the NPRM. Table 1 of the NPRM 

specifies accomplishing the initial 

inspection within 36,000 total flight 

cycles or 144 months since the date of 

issuance of the original standard 

airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original export 

certificate of airworthiness, whichever 

occurs first. Qantas Airways would 

welcome the change from ‘‘flight hours’’

to ‘‘flight cycles,’’ if the flight-hour 

parameter is not deleted from the 

inspection intervals specified in 

Revision March 2006 of the MPD. 

We have reviewed the commenter’s 

requests, and we agree to revise the 

compliance threshold for certain AWLs 

identified by the commenters. As stated 

previously, Revision March 2008 of the 

MPD specifies a repetitive interval of 

144 months. We have revised the 

threshold specified in Table 1 of this AD 

accordingly. 

Request To Harmonize Task 

Descriptions 

JAL states that, in Revision March 

2006 of the MPD, the task descriptions 

defining the applicable area are different 

for AWLs Nos. 28–AWL–01 and 28–

AWL–02. (AWL No. 28–AWL–01 is a 

repetitive inspection of the external 

wires over the center fuel tank, and 

AWL No. 28–AWL–02 is a CDCCL to 

maintain the original design features for 

the external wires over the center fuel 

tank.) JAL believes that the task 

descriptions for these AWLs should 

match. JAL presumes that, if one 

purpose for the inspection is to prevent 

a spark in the fuel vapor over the center 

fuel tank, then the applicable area 

should have a certain tolerance instead 

of defining the area by exact station 

number. 

We agree that the task descriptions for 

AWL Nos. 28–AWL–01 and 28–AWL–

02 should be harmonized. Revision 

March 2008 of the MPD includes a 

revised task description of AWL No. 28–

AWL–01, which addresses JAL’s 

comments. As stated previously, we 

have revised this AD to refer to Revision 

March 2008 of the MPD. 

Request To Revise the Loop Resistance 

Values for AWL No. 28–AWL–03 

Boeing, KLM, Lufthansa, and Qantas 

Airways state that the loop resistance 

values for AWL No. 28–AWL–03 

specified in Revision March 2006 of the 

MPD are going to be revised, since those 

values are relevant for production 

airplanes. The commenters also state 

that the revised values will be more 

representative of the expected values for 

in-service airplanes. Boeing points out 

that, according to paragraph (h) of the 

NPRM, the revised values should be 

able to be used in accordance with a 

later revision of the MPD if the revision 

is approved by the Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA. 

We agree that operators may use the 

revised loop resistance values for AWL 

No. 28–AWL–03 in accordance with 

Revision March 2008 of the MPD. As 

stated previously, we have revised this 

AD accordingly. 

Request To Revise Estimated Costs 

Qantas Airways states that the workhour estimates provided in the NPRM 

seem too small. The commenter has 

submitted its estimates for AWLs No. 

28–AWL–01, No. 28–AWL–03, No. 28–

AWL–10, No. 28–AWL–17, and No. 28–

AWL–21. 

We infer the commenter requests that 

we revise the ‘‘Costs of Compliance’’

section of this AD to reflect its 

estimates. We agree to include the workhour estimates for the initial 

accomplishment of AWLs No. 28–AWL–

01, No. 28–AWL–03, and No. 28–AWL–

10 in this AD. We have not included the 

estimate for AWL No. 28–AWL–17, 

since this AD does not need to require 

the initial inspection of that AWL to 

phase in the inspection. The initial 

inspection of AWL No. 28–AWL–17 

should have been previously 

accomplished as part of the existing 

FAA-approved maintenance program. 

We also have not included the estimate 

for AWL No. 28–AWL–21 because 

incorporation of that AWL has been 

postponed, as specified in Revision 24, 

dated June 2006, of the MPD. 

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 

March 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 Revise Appendix 1 

Boeing requests that we revise 

Appendix 1 of the NPRM as follows: (1) 

Reference an additional ATA section for 

AWL No. 28–AWL–02, (2) correct the 

airplane maintenance manual (AMM) 

task titles and numbers for AWL No. 

28–AWL–09, (3) correct the AMM task 

number for AWL No. 28–AWL–10, (4) 

delete certain information from the ATA 

section for AWL No. 28–AWL–21, and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 25993 

(4) add AMM task titles and numbers for 

AWL No. 28–AWL–23. 

JAL requests that we update 

Appendix 1 of the NPRM to include all 

AWLs specified in the MPD, and that 

we indicate how to maintain the latest 

version of Appendix 1. JAL also 

requests that we correct the following 

error in Appendix 1 of the NPRM: For 

AWL No. 28–AWL–04, change ‘‘SWPM 

20–10–15’’ to ‘‘SWPM 20–10–13.’’

We disagree with revising the AMM 

references, since we have deleted 

Appendix 1 from this AD. The purpose 

of Appendix 1 was to assist operators in 

identifying the AMM tasks that could 

affect compliance with a CDCCL. 

However, we have also received several 

similar comments regarding the 

appendices in other NPRMs that address 

the same unsafe condition on other 

Boeing airplanes. Those comments 

indicate that including non-required 

information in those NPRMs has caused 

confusion. Further, Revision March 

2008 of the MPD contains most of the 

updated information that is listed in 

Appendix 1 of the NPRM. Therefore, we 

have removed Appendix 1 from this AD. 

Request To Extend the Grace Period for 

AWL No. 28–AWL–03 

Lufthansa and KLM expect to have 

problems accomplishing the initial 

inspection of AWL No. 28–AWL–03 

within the 24-month grace period. The 

commenters state that if they do the 

check and do not reach the specified 

values, then tank entry outside of heavy 

maintenance would be necessary. The 

commenters also state that it would be 

helpful to plan to do this inspection 

during an overhaul. 

We infer that the commenters request 

that we extend the grace period for AWL 

No. 28–AWL–03 in Table 1 of this AD 

to allow accomplishing the initial 

inspection during a regularly scheduled 

‘‘D’’ check (about 6 years). We disagree 

with extending the grace period to 6 

years. In developing an appropriate 

compliance time for this action, we 

considered the safety implications, the 

rate of lightning strikes in the fleet, and 

the average age of the fleet. In 

consideration of these items, we have 

determined that an initial compliance 

time of 144 months (as discussed 

previously) with a grace period of 24 

months will ensure an acceptable level 

of safety. We have not changed the grace 

period for AWL No. 28–AWL–03 in this 

regard. 

Request To Extend the Exceptional 

Short-Term Extension 

Qantas Airways requests that we 

allow exceptional short-term extensions 

of 10 percent of the task interval or 6 

months, whichever is less, for AWL 

tasks. The commenter believes that the 

exceptional short-term extension of 30 

days, which is specified in Revision 

March 2006 of the MPD, is too small for 

AWL tasks having 12-year intervals. The 

commenter states that, as part of the 

Boeing 747 Corrosion Prevention and 

Control Program mandated by AD 90–

25–05, amendment 39–6790 (55 FR 

49268, November 27, 1990), operators 

were given a provision to invoke 

exceptional short-term extensions of 10 

percent of the task interval or 6 months, 

whichever is less. The commenter states 

that this is a more appropriate 

magnitude because operators are often 

permitted one-time exceptional 

extensions to maintenance checks and 

tasks of this proportion. The commenter 

also states that limiting the extension 

period to 30 days means that a ‘‘D’’

check can never be extended by more 

than 30 days, which would force 

operators to do certain AWL inspections 

outside of a ‘‘D’’ check. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request because exceptional short-term 

extensions are, in essence, pre-approved 

extensions without Seattle ACO review 

of the specifics of the situation. We 

consider that the ability to extend the 

interval without further approval for 30 

days should be sufficient for most 

circumstances. However, if an operator 

finds that it needs an extension longer 

than 30 days, with appropriate 

justification one may be requested from 

the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory 

authority. Longer extensions may be 

granted on a case-by-case basis because, 

as Qantas Airways points out, the task 

interval is long, and the FAA is 

interested in limiting out-of-sequence 

work. We have not changed this AD in 

this regard. 

Request To Add Applicability to Table 

1 

Lufthansa states that the applicability 

of AWL inspections should be included 

in Table 1 of the AD. 

We disagree because the AWL 

inspections listed in Table 1 of this AD 

are applicable to all airplanes identified 

in paragraph (c) of this AD. We have not 

changed this AD in this regard. 

Request To Require Latest Revision of 

the AMM 

JAL requests that we revise the NPRM 

to require incorporation of the latest 

revision of the manufacturer’s AMM. 

JAL asserts that we have allowed Boeing 

to include statements in the Boeing 

AMM allowing operators to use certain 

CMM revision levels or later revisions. 

JAL states that, with the exception of the 

CMM, operators cannot find what 

revision level of the AMM needs to be 

incorporated into the operator’s AMM 

in order to comply with the proposed 

requirements of the NPRM. JAL also 

states that it could take several weeks to 

incorporate the manufacturer’s AMM. 

JAL further requests that we clarify 

whether it is acceptable to change the 

procedures in the AMM with Boeing’s 

acceptance. JAL states that the MPD 

notes that any use of parts, methods, 

techniques, or practices not contained 

in the applicable CDCCL and AWL 

inspection must be approved by the 

FAA office that is responsible for the 

airplane model type certificate, or 

applicable regulatory agency. JAL also 

states that the Boeing AMM or CMM 

notes to obey the manufacturer’s 

procedures when doing maintenance 

that affects a CDCCL or AWL inspection. 

However, JAL believes that according to 

the NPRM it is acceptable to change the 

AMM procedures with Boeing’s 

acceptance. 

We disagree with the changes 

proposed by the commenter. This AD 

does not require revising the AMM. This 

AD does require revising your 

maintenance program to incorporate the 

AWLs identified in Revision March 

2008 of the MPD. However, complying 

with the AWL inspections or CDCCLs 

will require other actions by operators 

including AMM revisions. In the U.S., 

operators are not required to use 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

maintenance manuals. Operators may 

develop their own manuals, which are 

reviewed and accepted by the FAA 

Flight Standards Service. In order to 

maintain that flexibility for operators, 

most of the AWLs contain all of the 

critical information, such as maximum 

bonding resistances and minimum 

separation requirements. The FAA 

Flight Standards Service will only 

accept operator manuals that contain all 

of the information specified in the 

AWLs, so there is no need to require 

operators to use the OEM maintenance 

manuals. 

Regarding JAL’s request for 

clarification of approval of AWL 

changes, we infer JAL is referring to the 

following sentence located in the 

‘‘Changes to AMMs Referenced in Fuel 

Tank System AWLs’’ section of the 

NPRM: ‘‘A maintenance manual change 

to these tasks may be made without 

approval by the Manager, Seattle ACO, 

through an appropriate FAA 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
25994 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Note 2 

Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 

of the NPRM to clarify the need for an 

AMOC. Boeing states that the current 

wording is difficult to follow, and that 

the note is meant to inform operators 

that an AMOC to the required MPD 

AWLs might be required if an operator 

has previously modified, altered, or 

repaired the areas addressed by the 

limitations. Boeing requests that we 

revise Note 2 as follows: 

• Add the words ‘‘according to 

paragraph (g)’’ at the end of the first 

sentence. 

•Replace the words ‘‘revision to’’

with ‘‘deviation from’’ in the last 

sentence. 

• Delete the words ‘‘(g) or’’ and ‘‘as 

applicable’’ from the last sentence. 

As stated previously, we have 

clarified the language in Note 2 of this 

AD for standardization with other 

similar ADs. The language the 

commenter requests that we change 

does not appear in the revised note. 

Therefore, no additional change to this 

AD is necessary in this regard. 

Request To Delete Reference to Task 

Cards 

All Nippon Airways (ANA) requests 

that we delete the words ‘‘and task 

cards,’’ unless the task card references 

are listed in Subsection D of the MPD 

or Appendix 1 of the AD. Those words 

are located in the following sentence in 

the ‘‘Ensuring Compliance with Fuel 

Tank System AWLs’’ section of the 

NPRM: ‘‘Operators that do not use 

Boeing’s revision service should revise 

their maintenance manuals and task 

cards to highlight actions tied to 

CDCCLs to ensure that maintenance 

personnel are complying with the 

CDCCLs.’’ ANA believes that if a task 

card refers to the AMM, which includes 

the CDCCL note, then highlighting the 

CDCCL items is not necessary because 

they are already highlighted in the 

AMM and maintenance personnel 

always refer to the AMM. ANA further 

states that the applicable task card 

references are not listed in Subsection D 

of the MPD, or in Appendix 1 of the 

NPRM; they refer only to the AMM. 

ANA, therefore, states that it is difficult 

to find out or distinguish the affected 

task card. 

JAL believes that the proposed 

requirement regarding the CDCCLs is to 

incorporate the manufacturer’s 

maintenance manuals into an operator’s 

maintenance manual. If the description 

of a CDCCL is missing from the 

manufacturer’s AMM, then JAL believes 

that operators are not responsible for the 

requirements of the AD. 

We agree that the task cards might not 

need to be revised because an operator 

might find that the AMM notes are 

sufficient. However, we disagree with 

deleting the reference to the task cards 

since some operators might need to add 

notes to their task cards. This AD does 

not require any changes to the 

maintenance manuals or task cards. The 

AD requires incorporating new AWLs 

into the operator’s maintenance 

program. It is up to the operator to 

determine how best to ensure 

compliance with the new AWLs. In the 

‘‘Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank 

System AWLs’’ section of the NPRM, we 

were only suggesting, not requiring, 

ways that an operator could implement 

CDCCLs into its maintenance program. 

We have not changed this AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Clarify Meaning of Task 

Cards 

JAL requests that we clarify whether 

‘‘task cards,’’ as found in the ‘‘Recording 

Compliance with Fuel Tank System 

AWLs’’ section of the NPRM, means 

Boeing task cards only or if they also 

include an operator’s unique task cards. 

We intended that ‘‘task cards’’ mean 

both Boeing and an operator’s unique 

task cards, as applicable. The intent is 

to address whatever type of task cards 

are used by mechanics for maintenance. 

This AD would not require any changes 

to the AMMs or task cards relative to the 

CDCCLs. We are only suggesting ways 

an operator might implement CDCCLs 

into its maintenance program. No 

change to this AD is necessary in this 

regard. 

Request To Delete Reference to Parts 

Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts 

ANA requests that we delete the 

words ‘‘Any use of parts (including the 

use of parts manufacturer approval 

(PMA) approved parts),’’ unless a 

continuous supply of CMM specified 

parts is warranted or the FAA is open 

24 hours to approve alternative parts for 

in-house repair by the operator. Those 

words are located in the following 

sentence in the ‘‘Changes to CMMs 

Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs’’

section of the NPRM: ‘‘Any use of parts 

(including the use of parts manufacturer 

approval (PMA) approved parts), 

methods, techniques, and practices not 

contained in the CMMs needs to be 

approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, 

or governing regulatory authority.’’

ANA states that in some cases the 

parts specified in the CMMs cannot be 

obtained from the parts market or 

directly from the component vendor, so 

an operator is forced into using 

alternative parts to keep its schedule. 

ANA requests that we direct the 

component vendor to ensure a 

continuous supply of CMM parts and to 

direct the component vendor to remedy 

a lack of parts if parts are not promptly 

supplied. ANA further requests that we 

direct the component vendor to 

promptly review the standard parts and 

allow use of alternative fasteners and 

washers listed in Boeing D590. ANA 

asserts that, in some cases, a component 

vendor specifies an uncommon part to 

preserve its monopoly. 

We disagree with revising the 

‘‘Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank 

System AWLs’’ section of the NPRM. 

We make every effort to identify 

potential problems with the parts 

supply, and we are not aware of any 

problems at this time. The impetus to 

declare overhaul and repair of certain 

fuel tank system components as CDCCLs 

arose from in-service pump failures that 

resulted from repairs not done 

according to OEM procedures. We have 

approved the use of the CMMs—

including parts, methods, techniques, 

and practices—at the revision levels 

specified in Revision March 2008 of the 

MPD. Third-party spare parts, such as 

parts approved by PMA, have not been 

reviewed. 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 25995 

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 53–21 and 53–01 of the Boeing 

AMM specify doing an inspection of the 

external wires over the center fuel tank 

according to AMM 28–11–00 before 

installing the floor panel over the center 

wing tank based on AWL No. 28–AWL–

02. JAL also states that, according to 

Revision March 2006 of the MPD, AWL 

No. 28–AWL–02 contains two 

limitations: maintaining the existing 

wire bundle routing and clamping, and 

installing any new wire bundle per the 

Boeing standard wiring practices 

manual (SWPM). Therefore, JAL 

believes it is not necessary to inspect 

the external wires over the center fuel 

tank according to AMM 28–11–00 

before installing the floor panel over the 

center wing tank, unless that wire 

bundle routing and clamping are 

changed. 

We point out that AWL No. 28–AWL–

02 also contains a third limitation: 

verifying that all wire bundles over the 

center fuel tank are inspected according 

to AWL No. 28–AWL–01, which refers 

to AMM 28–11–00 for accomplishing 

the inspection. We do not agree that the 

inspection should be required only if 

the wire bundle routing and clamping 

are changed while maintenance is 

accomplished in the area. If any of the 

other bundles have a clamp or routing 

failure, it must be detected and 

corrected. After accomplishing the 

inspection required by AWL No. 28–

AWL–01, an operator would not need to 

repeat the inspection for another 12 

years. No change to this AD is necessary 

in this regard. 

Request for Clarification for Recording 

Compliance With CDCCLs 

JAL requests that we clarify the 

following sentence: ‘‘An entry into an 

operator’s existing maintenance record 

system for corrective action is sufficient 

for recording compliance with CDCCLs, 

as long as the applicable maintenance 

manual and task cards identify actions 

that are CDCCLs.’’ That sentence is 

located in the ‘‘Recording Compliance 

with Fuel Tank System AWLs’’ section 

of the NPRM. Specifically, JAL asks 

whether an operator must indicate the 

CDCCL in their recording documents or 

whether it is sufficient for the recording 

document to call out the applicable 

AMMs that are tied to the CDCCLs. 

We have coordinated with the FAA 

Flight Standards Service and it agrees 

that, for U.S.-registered airplanes, if the 

applicable AMMs and task cards 

identify the CDCCL, then the entry into 

the recording documents does not need 

to identify the CDCCL. However, if the 

applicable AMMs and tasks cards do not 

identify the CDCCL, then they must be 

identified. Other methods may be 

accepted by the appropriate FAA PMI or 

PAI, or governing regulatory authority. 

No change to this AD is necessary in 

this regard. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We also determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 596 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs, at an average labor rate 

of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators 

to comply with this AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Parts Cost per 

airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Maintenance program revision .............................................. 8 None ............ $640 57 $36,480 

Initial accomplishment of AWL 28–AWL–01 ......................... 6 None ............ 480 57 27,360 

Initial accomplishment of AWL 28–AWL–03 ......................... 32 None ............ 2,560 57 145,920 

Initial accomplishment of AWL 28–AWL–10 ......................... 2 None ............ 180 57 9,120 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
25996 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance in the AD Docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

2008–10–06 Boeing: Amendment 39–15512. 

Docket No. FAA–2007–28386; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–162–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective June 12, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747–

400, –400D, and –400F series airplanes, 

certificated in any category; with an original 

standard airworthiness certificate or original 

export certificate of airworthiness issued 

before April 12, 2006. 

Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard 

airworthiness certificate or original export 

certificate of airworthiness issued on or after 

April 12, 2006, must be already in 

compliance with the airworthiness 

limitations specified in this AD because 

those limitations were applicable as part of 

the airworthiness certification of those 

airplanes. 

Note 2: This AD requires revisions to 

certain operator maintenance documents to 

include new inspections. Compliance with 

these inspections is required by 14 CFR 

91.403(c). For airplanes that have been 

previously modified, altered, or repaired in 

the areas addressed by these inspections, the 

operator may not be able to accomplish the 

inspections described in the revisions. In this 

situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), 

the operator must request approval for an 

alternative method of compliance (AMOC) 

according to paragraph (l) of this AD. The 

request should include a description of 

changes to the required inspections that will 

ensure the continued operational safety of 

the airplane. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a design review 

of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent the potential for ignition 

sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent 

failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance 

actions, which, in combination with 

flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel 

tank explosion and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Service Information Reference 

(f) The term ‘‘Revision March 2008 of the 

MPD,’’ as used in this AD, means Boeing 

Temporary Revision (TR) 09–010, dated 

March 2008. Boeing TR 09–010 is published 

as Section 9 of the Boeing 747–400 

Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document, D621U400–9, Revision March 

2008. 

Maintenance Program Revision 

(g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the 

FAA-approved maintenance program by 

incorporating the information in the 

subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1), 

(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD; except that the 

initial inspections specified in Table 1 of this 

AD must be done at the compliance times 

specified in Table 1. Accomplishing the 

revision in accordance with a later revision 

of the MPD is an acceptable method of 

compliance if the revision is approved by the 

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA. 

(1) Subsection B, ‘‘AIRWORTHINESS 

LIMITATIONS (AWLs)—SYSTEMS,’’ of 

Revision March 2008 of the MPD. 

(2) Subsection C, ‘‘PAGE FORMAT: FUEL 

SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS 

LIMITATIONS,’’ of Revision March 2008 of 

the MPD. 

(3) Subsection D, ‘‘AIRWORTHINESS 

LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS,’’ AWLs 

No. 28–AWL–01 through No. 28–AWL–23 

inclusive, of Revision March 2008 of the 

MPD. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28–

AWL–24 through No. 28–AWL–29 inclusive, 

as identified in Subsection D of Revision 

March 2008 of the MPD, also may be 

incorporated into the FAA-approved 

maintenance program. 

Initial Inspections and Repair if Necessary 

(h) Do the inspections specified in Table 1 

of this AD at the compliance time specified 

in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any 

discrepancy, in accordance with Subsection 

D of Revision March 2008 of the MPD. The 

repair must be done before further flight. 

Accomplishing the actions required by this 

paragraph in accordance with a later revision 

of the MPD is an acceptable method of 

compliance if the revision is approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO. Accomplishing the 

inspections identified in Table 1 of this AD 

as part of an FAA-approved maintenance 

program before the applicable compliance 

time specified in Table 1 of this AD 

constitutes compliance with the 

requirements of this paragraph. 

Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a 

special detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. The examination is likely to 

make extensive use of specialized inspection 

techniques and/or equipment. Intricate 

cleaning and substantial access or 

disassembly procedure may be required.’’

TABLE 1.—INITIAL INSPECTIONS

AWL No. Description 

Compliance time 

(whichever occurs later) 

Threshold Grace period 

28–AWL–01 ....... A detailed inspection of external wires 

over the center fuel tank for damaged 

or loose clamps, wire chafing, and 

wire bundles in contact with the surface of the center fuel tank. 

Within 144 months since the date of 

issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. 

Within 72 months after the effective 

date of this AD. 

28–AWL–03 ....... A special detailed inspection of the 

lightning shield to ground termination 

on the out-of-tank fuel quantity indicating system to verify functional integrity. 

Within 144 months since the date of 

issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. 

Within 24 months after the effective 

date of this AD. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 25997 

TABLE 1.—INITIAL INSPECTIONS—Continued 

AWL No. Description 

Compliance time 

(whichever occurs later) 

Threshold Grace period 

28–AWL–10 ....... A special detailed inspection of the fault 

current bond of the fueling shutoff 

valve actuator of the center wing tank 

to verify electrical bond. 

Within 144 months since the date of 

issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. 

Within 60 months after the effective 

date of this AD. 

Incorporation of Additional AWLs for 

Certain Airplanes 

(i) For Model 747–400 series airplanes 

equipped with an auxiliary fuel tank: Before 

December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved 

maintenance program by incorporating AWLs 

No. 28–AWL–30, No. 28–AWL–31, and No. 

28–AWL–32 of Subsection D of Revision 

March 2008 of the MPD. Accomplishing the 

revision in accordance with a later revision 

of the MPD is an acceptable method of 

compliance if the revision is approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO. 

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection 

Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration 

Control Limitations (CDCCLs) 

(j) After accomplishing the applicable 

actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), and 

(i) 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 March 

2008 of the MPD that is approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the 

inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are 

approved as an AMOC in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of 

this AD. 

Credit for Actions Done According to 

Previous Revisions of the MPD 

(k) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with Section 9 of 

the Boeing 747–400 MPD Document, 

D621U400–9, Revision 23, dated March 2006; 

Revision 24, dated June 2006; Revision 

November 2006; Revision December 2006; 

Revision December 2006 R1; Revision May 

2007; Revision October 2007; or Revision 

November 2007; are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this 

AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(l)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(m) You must use Boeing Temporary 

Revision 09–010, dated March 2008, to the 

Boeing 747–400 Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document, D621U400–9, to do the 

actions required by this AD, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. Boeing Temporary 

Revision 09–010 is published as Section 9 of 

the Boeing 747–400 Maintenance Planning 

Data (MPD) Document, D621U400–9, 

Revision March 2008. 

(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: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 

2008. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–9897 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–0045; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–169–AD; Amendment 

39–15501; AD 2008–09–20] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 

and 747–400D Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Boeing Model 747–200F, 747–300, 747–

400, and 747–400D series airplanes. 

This AD requires a detailed inspection 

to detect missing fasteners from the 

shear clip at a certain stub frame to 

auxiliary sill joint, and applicable 

related investigative and corrective 

actions. This AD results from reports of 

missing fasteners from the shear clip of 

the stub frame to auxiliary sill joint and 

cracking of the adjacent exterior skin 

and internal doubler. We are issuing 

this AD to ensure that fasteners are 

installed in the shear clip of the stub 

frame to auxiliary sill joint. Missing 

fasteners could result in cracks in the 

adjacent exterior skin and internal 

doubler, which can propagate and result 

in loss of structural integrity and 

sudden in-flight decompression of the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 

2008. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of June 12, 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 http:// 

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: Ivan 

Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES