10658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 11. In § 56.10, the introductory text of 

paragraph (a) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 56.10 Initial State response and 

containment plan. 

(a) In order for poultry owners within 

a State to be eligible for indemnity for 

100 percent of eligible costs under 

§ 56.3(b), the State in which the poultry 

participate in the Plan must have in 

place an initial State response and 

containment plan that has been 

approved by APHIS. The initial State 

response and containment plan must be 

developed by the Official State Agency. 

In States where the Official State 

Agency is different than the Cooperating 

State Agency, the Cooperating State 

Agency must also participate in the 

development of the plan. The plan must 

be administered by the Cooperating 

State Agency of the relevant State. This 

plan must include: 

* * * * * 

PART 146—NATIONAL POULTRY 

IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR 

COMMERCIAL POULTRY 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 146 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 13. In § 146.1, a new definition of 

Cooperating State Agency is added and 

the definition of H5/H7 LPAI virus 

infection (infected) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 146.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cooperating State Agency. Any State 

authority recognized by the Department 

to cooperate in the administration of the 

provisions of part 56 of this chapter. 

This may include the State animal 

health authority or the Official State 

Agency. 

* * * * * 

H5/H7 LPAI virus infection (infected). 

(1) Poultry will be considered to be 

infected with H5/H7 LPAI for the 

purposes of this part if: 

(i) H5/H7 LPAI virus has been 

isolated and identified as such from 

poultry; or 

(ii) Viral antigen or viral RNA specific 

to the H5 or H7 subtype of AI virus has 

been detected in poultry; or 

(iii) Antibodies to the H5 or H7 

subtype of the AI virus that are not a 

consequence of vaccination have been 

detected in poultry. If vaccine is used, 

methods should be used to distinguish 

vaccinated birds from birds that are both 

vaccinated and infected. In the case of 

isolated serological positive results, H5/ 

H7 LPAI infection may be ruled out on 

the basis of a thorough epidemiological 

investigation that does not demonstrate 

further evidence of H5/H7 LPAI 

infection, as determined by APHIS. 

(2) The official determination that H5/ 

H7 LPAI virus has been isolated and 

identified, viral antigen or viral RNA 

specific to the H5 or H7 subtype of AI 

virus has been detected, or antibodies to 

the H5 or H7 subtype of AI virus have 

been detected may only be made by the 

National Veterinary Services 

Laboratories. 

* * * * * 

§ 146.2 [Amended] 

■ 14. In § 146.2, paragraph (f) is 

amended by removing the word ‘‘States’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘Cooperating 

State Agencies’’ in its place. 

§ 146.4 [Amended] 

■ 15. Section 146.4 is amended by 

adding the OMB citation ‘‘(Approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under control number 0579-0007)’’ at 

the end of the section. 

§ 146.11 [Amended] 

■ 16. Section 146.11 is amended by 

adding the OMB citation ‘‘(Approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under control number 0579-0007)’’ at 

the end of the section. 

§ 146.13 [Amended] 

■ 17. Section 146.13 is amended by 

adding the OMB citation ‘‘(Approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under control number 0579-0007)’’ at 

the end of the section. 

§ 146.14 [Amended] 

■ 18. Section 146.14 is amended by 

adding the OMB citation ‘‘(Approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under control number 0579-0007)’’ at 

the end of the section. 

§ 146.24 [Amended] 

■ 19. Section 146.24 is amended by 

adding the OMB citation ‘‘(Approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under control number 0579-0007)’’ at 

the end of the section. 

§ 146.44 [Amended] 

■ 20. Section 146.44 is amended by 

adding the OMB citation ‘‘(Approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under control number 0579-0007)’’ at 

the end of the section. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day 

of March 2010. 

John Ferrell, 

Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4874 Filed 3–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0452; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–326–AD; Amendment 

39–16223; AD 2010–05–13] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, 

–300, –400, and –500 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to all Model 737–100, –200, 

–200C, –300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. That AD currently requires a 

one-time inspection for scribe lines and 

cracks in the fuselage skin at certain lap 

joints, butt joints, external repair 

doublers, and other areas; and related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. This new AD expands the 

area to be inspected and, for certain 

airplanes, requires earlier inspections 

for certain inspection zones. This AD 

results from additional detailed analysis 

of fuselage skin cracks adjacent to the 

skin lap joints on airplanes that had 

scribe lines. The analysis resulted in 

different inspection zones, thresholds 

and repetitive intervals, and airplane 

groupings. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent rapid decompression of the 

airplane due to fatigue cracks resulting 

from scribe lines on pressurized 

fuselage structure. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 

13, 2010. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of April 13, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10659 

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: 

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6447; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that 

supersedes AD 2006–07–12, 

Amendment 39–14539 (71 FR 16211, 

March 31, 2006). The existing AD 

applies to all Model 737–100, –200, 

–200C, –300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. That NPRM was published in 

the Federal Register on May 20, 2009 

(74 FR 23664). That NPRM proposed to 

expand the area to be inspected and, for 

certain airplanes, require earlier 

inspections for certain inspection zones. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments that have 

been received on the NPRM. 

Support for the NPRM 

Air Transport Association (ATA), on 

behalf of its members Alaska Airlines 

and United Airlines (United), agrees 

with the assessment and states that 

those two members will comply with 

the requirements of the NPRM. 

Request To Change Reference in 

Paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM 

Boeing requests that we change 

paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM to refer to 

paragraph (i) of the NPRM instead of 

paragraph (h) of the NPRM. Boeing 

notes that this section is in the 

Restatement of Requirements of AD 

2006–07–12, and making this change 

matches the original AD requirements. 

We agree to change the reference from 

paragraph (h) to paragraph (i) of this AD 

for the reasons stated previously. 

Request To Clarify Area of Inspection 

in Paragraph (r) of the NPRM 

Boeing requests that we remove the 

parenthetical phrase ‘‘(adjacent to lap 

joints on skin panels that do not have 

bonded doublers)’’ from paragraph (r) of 

the NPRM. Boeing states that this 

statement is not true in all cases. Boeing 

notes that in some cases the skins under 

the lap joints in Zones 4 and 5 are 

bonded, but they are closed pockets that 

are not chem-milled all the way through 

the thickness. 

We agree to remove the parenthetical 

phrase from paragraph (r) of this AD for 

the reasons stated previously. 

Request To Clarify Instructions for 

Inspections Under the Edge of Hinges 

on the Main Cargo Door 

Boeing requests that we clarify the 

instructions for inspections under the 

edge of hinges on the main cargo door. 

Boeing notes that Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008, does not give 

specific instructions for inspections of 

scribe lines found under the edge of the 

hinge on the main cargo door. Boeing 

requests that we add a statement to 

provide instructions for inspections in 

this area. Boeing states that the lap joint 

inspection method specified in Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008, 

applies to the hinge detail. 

We agree that additional clarification 

is necessary. We have added paragraph 

(s)(4)(iv) to the AD to provide additional 

instructions for inspections along the 

lower edge of the main cargo door for 

the reasons that the commenter 

provided. We also determined that this 

change does not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of the AD. 

Request To Revise Paragraph (t) of the 

NPRM 

Lufthansa requests that we revise 

paragraph (t) of the NPRM. Lufthansa 

requests that we clarify whether Zones 

4 and 5 are derived from the former 

Zones 1, 2, and 3 as identified in the 

initial release of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated December 

9, 2004. Lufthansa requests that we 

accept inspections performed in Zones 

1, 2, and 3 in accordance with Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

dated December 9, 2004, as acceptable 

for compliance with the requirements of 

paragraphs (q) and (r) of the NPRM. 

We agree. The new zones were 

created by moving specific areas from 

the existing Zones 1, 2, and 3, and have 

been inspected as required by AD 2006– 

07–12. We have revised paragraph (t) of 

this AD to give credit for inspections 

accomplished before the effective date 

of this AD as acceptable for compliance 

for the requirements of paragraphs (q) 

and (r) of this AD. 

Request To Provide an Additional 

Grace Period 

Lufthansa requests that we provide an 

additional grace period. Lufthansa notes 

that areas that were shifted to a more 

critical zone must be inspected within 

4,500 flight cycles after the effective 

date of the AD or before reaching the 

applicable zonal inspection threshold, 

whichever occurs later. For any of the 

new critical zones that are inspected in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

full Limited Return to Service (LRTS) 

program because of previous scribe line 

findings in the adjacent zone on the 

same lap splice between two butt joints, 

Lufthansa requests that we extend the 

grace period to reach the next heavy 

maintenance event to do the inspection. 

Lufthansa states that this may be valid 

only for airplanes and areas where the 

requirements of the full LRTS are 

applied. 

We disagree with the request to 

extend the grace period. The 4,500- 

flight-cycle grace period applies only to 

the initial scribe line inspections and 

does not apply to airplanes with scribe 

lines that are currently being monitored 

in the LRTS program. Operators may 

request an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) in accordance with 

the requirements of paragraph (y) of this 

AD. We have not changed the AD in 

regard to this issue. 

Request To Clarify Procedures for 

Scribe Lines Outside Structural Repair 

Manual (SRM) Limits 

Lufthansa requests that we clarify 

procedures for areas with scribe lines 

that have become ‘‘no zone’’ (i.e., areas 

on the fuselage where scribe line 

inspections are not required) and are 

inspected in accordance with the LRTS 

program described in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 

3, dated October 16, 2008. Lufthansa 

notes that the scribe damage in the ‘‘no 

zone’’ may be out of the SRM limits and 

may need to be repaired before further 

flight because the LRTS is no longer 

applicable. 

We disagree that additional 

procedures are necessary. Note 5 in 

paragraph 3.A. in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008, provides 

instructions on how to proceed with 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
10660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

scribe lines in any area that is not 

shown in Zone 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. We have 

not changed the AD in regard to this 

issue. 

Request To Verify Inspection Threshold 

ATA, on behalf of its member United, 

requests that we verify the inspection 

threshold. United notes that the 

inspection threshold specified in FAA 

Approval Letter 120S–06–141 is the 

accumulation of 40,000 to 50,000 flight 

cycles. United states that neither the 

AMOC nor Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008, requires this 

terminating inspection to be 

accomplished after the accumulation of 

40,000 flight cycles. United requests 

that we verify that this inspection 

cannot be performed before the 

accumulation of 40,000 flight cycles. 

We agree that clarification may be 

necessary, and we agree to verify the 

threshold. This inspection cannot be 

performed for credit before the 

accumulation of 40,000 total flight 

cycles. After reviewing the scribe line 

damage adjacent to the lap joints, we 

determined that the terminating 

inspection performed in accordance 

with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53– 

1179, Revision 2, dated October 25, 

2006, mandated by AD 2003–14–06, 

Amendment 39–13225 (68 FR 42956, 

July 21, 2003), should be accomplished 

again in accordance with AD 2003–14– 

06 in the areas of known scribe lines 

after the accumulation of 40,000 total 

flight cycles. This inspection is 

designed to ensure that the underlying 

substructure is intact and would have 

no effect on the LRTS program. We have 

not changed the AD regarding this issue. 

Request To Clarify Whether Inspection 

is Required 

ATA, on behalf of its member United, 

asks that we clarify whether the 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of 

the NPRM is required if operators have 

accomplished the terminating action in 

accordance with AMOC 120S–06–209 

for AD 2003–14–06. 

We agree that clarification is 

necessary. We have approved the 

inspection methods specified in FAA 

Approval Letter 120S–06–209, dated 

April 13, 2006, as an AMOC to the 

terminating action requirements of 

paragraph (b) of AD 2003–14–06. 

Paragraph 12.a.(2), of Part 12 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 

1, dated March 1, 2007; Revision 2, 

dated September 20, 2007; and Revision 

3, dated October 16, 2008; specify 

internal inspections in accordance with 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1179, 

Revision 2, dated October 25, 2001, 

except for airplanes inspected internally 

in accordance with paragraph (b) of AD 

2003–14–06. Inspections accomplished 

in accordance with FAA Approval 

Letter 120S–06–209, dated April 13, 

2006, are approved as an acceptable 

alternative method of compliance to the 

internal inspections specified in 

Paragraph 12.a.(2) of Part 12 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 

1, dated March 1, 2007; Revision 2, 

dated September 20, 2007; and Revision 

3, dated October 16, 2008; and required 

by paragraph (b) of AD 2003–14–06. We 

have added a reference to previously 

approved AMOCs in paragraph (x) of 

this AD. 

Request To Clarify Butt-to-Butt 

Inspection Requirements 

ATA, on behalf of its member United, 

requests that we clarify that the butt-tobutt inspection is only for areas where 

a scribe line is found within 0.063 

inches of the upper skin areas in a zone. 

We agree that clarification may be 

necessary. Figure 128 of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 

3, dated October 16, 2008, indicates that 

butt-to-butt inspections are required for 

all scribe lines within 0.10 inch of the 

lap joint upper skin. We have not 

changed the AD regarding this issue. 

Request To Issue Similar Rulemaking 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) notes that while the 

NPRM addresses scribe-type damage on 

Model 737 airplanes, it is concerned 

that this type of damage is not limited 

to Model 737 airplanes. The NTSB urges 

that we conduct similar analyses and 

issue similar rulemaking for other 

makes and models of airplanes. 

We acknowledge the NTSB’s 

concerns. This issue is a long-term 

durability issue that is not limited to 

any particular airplane model. We are 

currently working to address scribe line 

issues on other airplanes. The effect on 

each airplane model varies with each 

model’s design characteristics and the 

conditions under which they have been 

operated. We have been in contact with 

other governing regulatory agencies and 

manufacturers, and we may consider 

further rulemaking as a result of these 

efforts. We have not changed the AD in 

regard to this issue. 

Explanation of Change Made to This 

AD 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes has 

received an Organization Designation 

Authorization (ODA), which replaces 

their previous designation as a 

Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) 

holder. We have revised paragraph 

(y)(3) of this AD to delegate the 

authority to approve an alternative 

method of compliance for any repair 

required by this AD to the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes ODA. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

that have been 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. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the NPRM, we have 

increased the labor rate used in the 

Costs of Compliance from $80 per workhour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of 

Compliance information, below, reflects 

this increase in the specified hourly 

labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 2,685 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs, including the costs for 

the new inspection areas in Zones 4 and 

5, for U.S. operators to comply with this 

AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS REQUIRED BY AD 2006–07–12 

Zone Action Work hours Average labor 

rate per hour 

Cost per 

airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

1 ........................ Sealant removal .................................... 66 $85 $5,610 787 $4,415,070 

Inspection .............................................. 4 85 340 87 267,580 

2 ........................ Sealant removal .................................... 38 85 3,230 787 2,542,010 

Inspection .............................................. 29 85 2,465 787 1,939,955 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10661 

ESTIMATED COSTS REQUIRED BY AD 2006–07–12—Continued 

Zone Action Work hours Average labor 

rate per hour 

Cost per 

airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

3 ........................ Sealant removal .................................... 88 85 7,480 787 5,886,760 

Inspection .............................................. 38 85 3,230 787 2,542,010 

ESTIMATED COSTS REQUIRED BY NEW ACTIONS OF THIS AD 

Zone Action Work hours Average labor 

rate per hour 

Cost per 

airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

4 ........................ Sealant removal .................................... 15 $85 $1,275 787 $ 1,003,425 

Inspection .............................................. 1 85 85 787 66,895 

5 ........................ Sealant removal .................................... 31 85 2,635 787 2,073,745 

Inspection .............................................. 2 85 170 787 133,790 

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 removing amendment 39–14539 (71 

FR 16211, March 31, 2006) and by 

adding the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2010–05–13 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–16223. Docket No. 

FAA–2009–0452; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–326–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective April 13, 

2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2006–07–12, 

Amendment 39–14539. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, 

–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53: Fuselage. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from reports of fuselage 

skin cracks adjacent to the skin lap joints on 

airplanes that had scribe lines. Scribe line 

damage can also occur at many other 

locations, including butt joints, external 

doublers, door scuff plates, the wing-to-body 

fairing, and areas of the fuselage where 

decals have been applied or removed. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent rapid 

decompression of the airplane due to fatigue 

cracks resulting from scribe lines on 

pressurized fuselage structure. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006– 

07–12 

Inspection 

(g) Do a detailed inspection for scribe lines 

and cracks in the fuselage skin at certain lap 

joints, butt joints, external repair doublers, 

and other areas, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated 

December 9, 2004, except as provided by 

paragraphs (h), (k), (l), (m), (n), and (o) of this 

AD. Except as required by paragraph (q) of 

this AD, do the actions at the time specified 

in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated 

December 9, 2004, except as required by 

paragraph (j) of this AD. Acceptable 

inspection exemptions are described in 

paragraph 1.E.1. of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated December 9, 

2004. 

(1) If no scribe line is found, no further 

work is required by this paragraph. 

(2) If any scribe line is found: Do all 

applicable investigative and corrective 

actions at the time specified in paragraph 1.E. 

of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1262, dated December 9, 2004, by doing 

all applicable actions specified in Boeing 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
10662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated 

December 9, 2004, except as required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD. 

Note 1: A detailed inspection is defined in 

Note 10 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1262, dated December 9, 2004, under 

paragraph 3.A., ‘‘General Information.’’ 

Specific magnification requirements may be 

specified in the steps of the Work 

Instructions. 

Exceptions to and Clarification of Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262 Procedures 

(h) Paragraph (g) of this AD requires 

accomplishment of Parts 1 through 11 of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

dated December 9, 2004. Parts 12 and 13 of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

dated December 9, 2004, may be 

accomplished, if applicable, to allow 

temporary return to service. This AD does 

not require accomplishment of Part 14 of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

dated December 9, 2004, although the FAAapproved procedures described in Part 14 are 

acceptable for continued operation with 

scribe lines found before the applicable 

compliance time. 

(i) If any scribe line or crack is found 

during any inspection required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD, and Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated December 9, 

2004, specifies to contact Boeing for 

appropriate action: Before further flight, 

inspect or repair scribe lines and repair 

cracks using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (y) of this AD. 

(j) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1262, dated December 9, 2004, 

specifies a compliance time after the issuance 

of that service bulletin, this AD requires 

compliance within the specified compliance 

time after May 5, 2006 (the effective date of 

AD 2006–07–12). 

(k) Certain figures are incorrectly identified 

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1262, dated December 9, 2004. The figure 

cited in Part 8, step 3, should be Figure 39, 

not Figure 38. The figure cited in Part 9, step 

4, should be Figure 38, not Figure 39. 

(l) If the operator’s records show that the 

airplane has never been stripped and 

repainted under the dorsal fin fairing since 

delivery from The Boeing Company, then this 

AD does not require inspections of the butt 

joint, lap joint, and repair, as specified in 

paragraph (g) of this AD, in the areas under 

the dorsal fin fairing. 

(m) Figure 37 of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated December 9, 

2004, defines ‘‘Restricted Zones’’ at door 

cutouts as the only affected structure. 

Paragraph (g) of this AD considers this area 

to also include Zone 1B. 

(n) In Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated 

December 9, 2004, the first condition for the 

initial compliance threshold for Areas B, C, 

and E is for areas where the cutout 

modification shown in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1177 was accomplished. 

Paragraph (g) of this AD considers this 

condition to also include Zone 1B. 

(o) In Figure 1, sheets 2 and 3, of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated 

December 9, 2004, the second condition for 

the initial compliance threshold for Areas B, 

C, and E is for areas where the cutout 

modification shown in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1177 was not 

accomplished. Paragraph (g) of this AD 

considers this condition to apply only to 

Zone 1A. 

Reporting Requirement 

(p) For airplanes on which inspections 

have been done in accordance with Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, dated 

December 9, 2004: At the applicable time 

specified in paragraph (p)(1) or (p)(2) of this 

AD, submit a report of positive findings of 

cracks found during the inspection required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD to the Boeing 

Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

Alternatively, operators may submit reports 

to their Boeing Company field service 

representatives. The report shall contain, as 

a minimum, the following information: 

Airplane serial number, flight cycles at time 

of discovery, location(s) and extent of 

positive crack findings. Under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements contained in this AD and has 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056. 

(1) If the inspection was done before May 

5, 2006: Send the report within 30 days after 

May 5, 2006. 

(2) If the inspection was done after May 5, 

2006: Send the report within 30 days after 

the inspection is done. 

New Requirements of This AD 

Inspection 

(q) As of the effective date of this AD, the 

actions for Zones 1, 2, and 3, as specified in 

paragraph (g) of this AD, must be done in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1262, Revision 3, dated October 16, 

2008, and at the applicable times specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008, except as specified 

in paragraph (s) of this AD. 

Note 2: Paragraph 1.E.5. of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008, provides a grace 

period for airplanes that have exceeded the 

revised thresholds. 

Inspection of Zones 4 and 5 

(r) Do a detailed inspection for scribe lines 

and cracks in Zones 4 and 5, as specified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008. Except as 

provided by paragraph (s) of this AD, do the 

actions in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008, and at the applicable 

time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, dated 

October 16, 2008, or within 4,500 flight 

cycles after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs later. 

(1) If no scribe line or crack is found: No 

further work is required by this paragraph. 

(2) If any scribe line or crack is found: Do 

all applicable investigative and corrective 

actions at the time specified in paragraph 1.E. 

of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1262, Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008, 

by doing all applicable actions specified in 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008, except as 

required by paragraph (s)(1) of this AD. 

Exceptions to Specifications of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008 

(s) The following exceptions to Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008, apply to 

this AD: 

(1) If any scribe line or crack is found 

during any inspection required by this AD, 

and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1262, Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008, 

specifies to contact The Boeing Company for 

appropriate action: Before further flight, 

inspect or repair scribe lines and repair 

cracks using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (y) of this AD. 

(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1262, Revision 3, dated October 16, 

2008, specifies a compliance time after the 

issuance of that service bulletin, this AD 

requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(3) If the operator’s records show that the 

airplane has never been stripped and 

repainted under the dorsal fin fairing since 

delivery from The Boeing Company, then this 

AD does not require inspections of the butt 

joint, lap joint, and repair, as specified in 

paragraphs (g), (q), and (r) of this AD, in the 

areas under the dorsal fin fairing. 

(4) For airplanes in Groups 3 and 29, as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1262, Revision 3, dated October 16, 

2008: At the applicable times specified in 

paragraphs (s)(4)(i), (s)(4)(ii), and (s)(4)(iii) of 

this AD, perform a detailed inspection for 

scribe lines and cracks on the main cargo 

door along the lower edge of the upper hinge, 

around external repairs, and around decals, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1262, Revision 3, dated October 16, 

2008, except as provided by paragraph 

(s)(4)(iv) of this AD, or using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (y) of this AD. If no 

scribe line or crack is found, no further work 

is required by this paragraph. If any scribe 

line or crack is found, do all applicable 

related investigative and corrective actions at 

the time specified in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008, by doing 

all applicable actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008, except as required by 

paragraphs (s)(1), (s)(2), and (s)(3) of this AD. 

(i) For areas along the lower edge of the 

door hinge from body station (BS) 360 to BS 

500, the initial compliance threshold is to be 

determined using Zone 1B. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10663 

(ii) For external repairs, the initial 

compliance threshold is to be determined 

using Zone 1B. 

(iii) For decals, the initial compliance 

threshold is to be determined using Zone 2. 

(iv) When accomplishing scribe line 

inspections along the lower edge of the main 

cargo door hinge, consider the hinge-to-skin 

detail inspection to be equivalent to a lap 

joint detail inspection and use the lap joint 

inspection methods in accordance with 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008. 

(5) For Group 11 airplanes, as specified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008: Stringer 

20R between BS 727C and BS 727D+10 is in 

Zone 1B. 

Actions Accomplished in Accordance With 

Previous Service Information 

(t)(1) Actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance with 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

dated December 9, 2004, are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of paragraphs (q) and (r) of this 

AD. 

(2) Actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance with 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 1, dated March 1, 2007; or Revision 

2, dated September 20, 2007; are acceptable 

for compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of paragraphs (g), (q), and (r) of 

this AD. 

Clarification of Procedures in the Service 

Bulletin 

(u) For airplanes on which inspections are 

done as of the effective date of this AD: This 

AD requires accomplishment of Parts 1 

through 11, 15, and 16 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008. Parts 12 and 13 of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008, may be 

accomplished, if applicable, to allow 

temporary return to service. This AD does 

not require accomplishment of Part 14 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008, although the FAAapproved procedures described in Part 14 are 

acceptable for continued operation with 

scribe lines found before the applicable 

compliance time. 

Report 

(v) For airplanes on which inspections are 

done in accordance with the service 

information identified in Table 1 of this AD: 

At the applicable time specified in paragraph 

(v)(1) or (v)(2) of this AD, submit a report of 

positive findings of cracks found during the 

inspections required by paragraphs (q), (r), 

and (s)(4) of this AD to the Boeing 

Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

Alternatively, operators may submit reports 

to their Boeing Company field service 

representatives. The report must contain, as 

a minimum, the following information: 

airplane serial number, flight cycles at time 

of discovery, location(s) and extent of 

positive crack findings. Under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has approved the information 

collection requirements contained in this AD 

and has assigned OMB Control Number 

2120–0056. 

(1) For an inspection done before the 

effective date of this AD: Send the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(2) For an inspection done after the 

effective date of this AD: Send the report 

within 30 days after the inspection is done. 

TABLE 1—SERVICE INFORMATION

Boeing Service Information Revision Date 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262 ............................................................................................... 3 October 16, 2008. 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1262 ........................................................................................................ 1 March 1, 2007. 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1262 ........................................................................................................ 2 September 20, 2007. 

Repair Plan in Lieu of Required Inspections 

(w) A repair plan approved by a Boeing 

Company Authorized Representative or 

Designated Engineering Representative before 

the effective date of this AD is acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraphs (g)(2), (i), (q), (r), (s)(1), and (s)(4) 

of this AD, provided the approval was 

documented via FAA Form 8110–3 or 8100– 

9, and scribe line damage identified in the 

title of the form. 

Exceptions and Clarification 

(x) Paragraph 12.a.(2) of Part 12 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 1, 

dated March 1, 2007; Revision 2, dated 

September 20, 2007; and Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008; specifies internal 

inspections in accordance with Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–53–1179, Revision 2, 

dated October 25, 2001, except for airplanes 

inspected internally in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of AD 2003–14–06, 

Amendment 39–13225. Inspections 

accomplished in accordance with AMOCs 

previously approved to paragraph (b) of AD 

2003–14–06, are approved as an acceptable 

alternative method of compliance to the 

internal inspections specified in Part 12 of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 1, dated March 1, 2007; Revision 2, 

dated September 20, 2007; and Revision 3, 

dated October 16, 2008. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) 

(y)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

917–6447; fax (425) 917–6590. Or, e-mail 

information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(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 principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(z) You must use Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1262, Revision 3, dated 

October 16, 2008; to do the actions required 

by this AD, unless the AD specifies 

otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1262, 

Revision 3, dated October 16, 2008, under 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766– 

5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
10664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 February 

24, 2010. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4511 Filed 3–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0609; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–037–AD; Amendment 

39–16222; AD 2010–05–12] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier 

Model DHC–8–102, DHC–8–103, DHC– 

8–106, DHC–8–201, and DHC–8–202 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

During a puncture voltage test of the 

aluminum-loaded paint on an in-service 

DHC–8 aircraft, conducted to validate an 

SFAR 88 [Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88] related task, Bombardier 

Aerospace (BA) discovered that the top wing 

fuel tank skin between Yw171.20 and 

Yw261.00 was painted with a nonaluminized enamel coating * * *. 

With this type of paint application, it is 

possible that, in the worst case scenario, a 

lightning strike could puncture the wing skin 

and create an ignition source in the fuel tank. 

Ignition sources inside fuel tanks, in 

combination with flammable fuel 

vapors, could result in fuel tank 

explosions and consequent loss of the 

airplane. We are issuing this AD to 

require actions to correct the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 

13, 2010. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of April 13, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle 

Williams, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics 

and Flight Test Branch, ANE–172, FAA, 

New York Aircraft Certification Office, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, 

Westbury, New York 11590; telephone 

(516) 228–7347; fax (516) 794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31891). 

That NPRM proposed to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

During a puncture voltage test of the 

aluminum-loaded paint on an in-service 

DHC–8 aircraft, conducted to validate an 

SFAR 88 [Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88] related task, Bombardier 

Aerospace (BA) discovered that the top wing 

fuel tank skin between Yw171.20 and 

Yw261.00 was painted with a nonaluminized enamel coating due to a 

misinterpretation of the painting instructions 

in the Structural Repair Manual (SRM). 

With this type of paint application, it is 

possible that, in the worst case scenario, a 

lightning strike could puncture the wing skin 

and create an ignition source in the fuel tank. 

Ignition sources inside fuel tanks, in 

combination with flammable fuel 

vapors, could result in fuel tank 

explosions and consequent loss of the 

airplane. Required actions include 

performing a functional check of the 

dielectric properties of the fuel tank 

skin for aluminum-loaded primer and 

aluminum-loaded enamel coating. For 

airplanes on which the aluminumloaded primer and aluminum-loaded 

enamel coating have been properly 

applied, the required actions include 

restoring the protective finish on the 

areas where the surface finish was 

removed. For airplanes on which the 

aluminum-loaded primer and 

aluminum-loaded enamel coating have 

not been applied or have not been 

properly applied, the required actions 

include stripping the affected wing skin 

surfaces to bare metal and applying 

alodine coating to those areas, 

performing a detailed visual inspection 

of the stripped areas for any sign of 

corrosion or deterioration of the 

protective alodine coating and reapplying the protective alodine coating, 

and painting the affected wing skin 

surfaces with aluminum-loaded primer 

and aluminum-loaded enamel coating. 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comment received. 

Request To Extend Compliance Time 

Mesa Airlines asks that the 

compliance time in the NPRM be 

extended to correspond with certain 

compliance times specified in related 

AD 2008–13–09, Amendment 39–15572 

(73 FR 47029, August 13, 2008), which 

requires revising the Airworthiness 

Limitations Section (ALS) of the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness to incorporate certain 

fuel system limitations. 

Mesa Airlines states that the 

compliance time for fuel systems 

limitations (FSL) Task FSL–07 (a 

functional check of the aluminum 

loaded primer and enamel on the wing 

skin) is 18,000 flight hours or 108 

months, with a repetitive interval not to 

exceed 18,000 flight hours. Mesa 

Airlines notes that AD 2008–13–09 set 

the initial inspections for that task at 

6,000 flight hours or 36 months, with a 

repetitive interval not to exceed 18,000 

flight hours, which corresponds with its 

heavy maintenance checks. Mesa 

Airlines adds that the NPRM makes no 

mention of the related AD or 

compliance times in that AD, and the 

compliance time specified in the NPRM 

is within 18 months after the effective 

date of the AD. 

Mesa Airlines states that the proposed 

compliance time constraint will require 

it to do massive rescheduling to move 

its current inspections forward 

approximately 254 days, and adds that 

this will cause an undue burden. Mesa 

Airlines adds that the NPRM is to be 

accomplished in accordance with 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–57–46, 

Revision A, dated February 6, 2009, 

which states that it contains a procedure 

that is a fuel tank safety-critical item 

and is classified as a Critical Design 

Configuration Control Limitations 

(CDCCL); that CDCCL is FSL–07, which 

was added by AD 2008–13–09. 

We do not agree that the compliance 

time should be extended. AD 2008–13– 

09 was issued to mandate the FSL tasks 

identified as part of the fuel system 

safety assessment. Task FSL–07 was 

identified as necessary to ensure that 

the aluminum-loaded primer and 

enamel is protecting the fuel tank skin 

from burn-through during lightning 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES