Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30737 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million in any one year. 

Executive Order 12866 

OTS has determined that this 

extension is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

Plain Language 

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. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 585 

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: 

PART 585—PROHIBITED SERVICE AT 

SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING 

COMPANIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 12 CFR 

part 585 continues to read as follows: 

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: 

§ 585.100 Who is exempt from the 

prohibition under this part? 

* * * * * 

(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] 

BILLING CODE 6720–01–M 

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 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: 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
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. 

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 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 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
30740 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
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. 

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

Action Work hours Parts Cost per 

airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

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 

■ 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 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. 

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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 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 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, 

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: http://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 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES