Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15069 

satisfies the inspection requirements for the 

first rotating probe inspection which is 

specified at the inspection threshold of this 

AD. 

Note 1: In order to prevent large repairs or 

heavy maintenance, Airbus recommends to 

perform the above inspection according to 

recommended thresholds mentioned in 

paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin 

A340–57–4089, Revision 02; or Airbus 

Service Bulletin A330–57–3081, Revision 02; 

both dated January 24, 2006. 

(2) In case of any crack finding, before 

further flight, contact Airbus in order to get 

repair instructions before next flight, and 

repair before further flight. 

(3) Should no crack be detected: 

(i) Before further flight: Follow up the 

actions indicated in the flow charts, figure 7, 

8, or 9, of Airbus Service Bulletin A340–57–

4089, including Appendix 01, Revision 02, 

dated January 24, 2006; or figure 5, 6, or 7, 

of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–57–3081, 

including Appendix 01, Revision 02, dated 

January 24, 2006; in accordance with the 

instructions of the applicable service 

bulletin. 

(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date 

of this AD, or within 30 days after doing the 

inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of 

this AD, whichever occurs later: Send the 

report of actions carried out in paragraph 

(e)(3)(i) of this AD to Airbus. 

(iii) Renew the inspection at mandatory 

intervals given in paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A340–57–4089, Revision 02, 

dated January 24, 2006; or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A330–57–3081, Revision 02, dated 

January 24, 2006; as applicable; in 

accordance with the instructions of Service 

Bulletin A340–57–4089, Revision 02, or 

Service Bulletin A330–57–3081, Revision 02; 

as applicable, and send the inspection results 

to Airbus. 

Note 2: In order to prevent large repairs or 

heavy maintenance, Airbus recommends to 

perform the above repetitive inspection 

according to recommended intervals 

mentioned in paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A340–57–4089, Revision 02, 

dated January 24, 2006; or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A330–57–3081, Revision 02, dated 

January 24, 2006. 

(4) Upon detection of a crack during a 

repetitive inspection, before further flight, 

contact Airbus to get repair instructions, and 

repair before further flight. 

(5) No additional work is required for 

aircraft inspected in accordance with the 

instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–

57–3081, dated October 30, 2003, or Revision 

01, dated May 18, 2004; or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A340–57–4089, dated October 30, 

2003, or Revision 01, dated March 2, 2004. 

Nevertheless, the operators must check that 

their inspection program is in accordance 

with paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service 

Bulletin A340–57–4089, Revision 02, dated 

January 24, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin 

A330–57–3081, Revision 02, dated January 

24, 2006, for the repetitive inspection. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: 

(1) The MCAI did not have a required 

action if cracks are found during a repetitive 

inspection. This AD requires contacting 

Airbus for repair instructions before further 

flight. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(f) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, ATTN: 

Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Before 

using any AMOC approved in accordance 

with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the 

AMOC applies, notify the appropriate 

principal inspector in the FAA Flight 

Standards Certificate Holding District Office. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer or other source, 

use these actions if they are FAA-approved. 

Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State 

of Design Authority (or their delegated 

agent). You are required to assure the product 

is airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

has approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(g) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2006–0315, dated October 13, 2006; 

Airbus Service Bulletin A340–57–4089, 

Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006; and 

Airbus Service Bulletin A330–57–3081, 

Revision 02, dated January 24, 2006; for 

related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

23, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5909 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–21701; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–086–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747 and 767 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain Boeing Model 747 and 767 

airplanes. The original NPRM would 

have required reworking the electrical 

bonding between the airplane structure 

and the pump housing of the outboard 

boost pumps in the main fuel tank of 

certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes, and 

between the airplane structure and the 

pump housing of the override/jettison 

pumps in the left and right wing center 

auxiliary fuel tanks of certain Boeing 

Model 767 airplanes. The original 

NPRM would also have required related 

investigative actions and corrective 

actions if necessary. The original NPRM 

resulted from fuel system reviews 

conducted by the manufacturer. This 

action revises the original NPRM by 

adding an inspection requirement for 

certain Model 747 airplanes, and by 

specifying cold-working the fastener 

holes for certain other Model 747 

airplanes. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to prevent 

insufficient electrical bonding, which 

could result in a potential of ignition 

sources inside the fuel tanks, and 

which, in combination with flammable 

fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank 

explosions and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by April 24, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

supplemental NPRM. 

• DOT Docket web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207, for service 

information identified in this proposed 

AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Philip Sheridan, Aerospace Engineer, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
15070 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6441; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this supplemental NPRM. 

Send your comments to an address 

listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include 

the docket number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–

2005–21701; Directorate Identifier 

2005–NM–086–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We 

will consider all comments received by 

the closing date and may amend this 

supplemental NPRM in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments submitted, 

without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, 

including any personal information you 

provide. We will also post a report 

summarizing each substantive verbal 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this supplemental NPRM. Using the 

search function of that Web site, anyone 

can find and read the comments in any 

of our dockets, including the name of 

the individual who sent the comment 

(or signed the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level in the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in ADDRESSES. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) (the ‘‘original NPRM’’) for an 

AD for certain Boeing Model 747 and 

767 airplanes. The original NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 29, 2005 (70 FR 37293). The 

original NPRM proposed to require 

reworking the electrical bonding 

between the airplane structure and the 

pump housing of the outboard boost 

pumps in the main fuel tank of certain 

Boeing Model 747 airplanes, and 

between the airplane structure and the 

pump housing of the override/jettison 

pumps in the left and right wing center 

auxiliary fuel tanks of certain Boeing 

Model 767 airplanes. The original 

NPRM also proposed to require related 

investigative actions and corrective 

actions if necessary. 

Actions Since Original NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the original NPRM, 

Boeing has issued Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 747–28–

2259, Revision 1, dated October 5, 2006 

(for Boeing Model 747–100, 747–100B, 

747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 

747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–

400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP 

series airplanes). The original NPRM 

referred to Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–28–2259, dated 

November 4, 2004, as the appropriate 

source of service information for 

accomplishing certain actions. 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 747–28–2259, Revision 1, adds, 

for Group 1 airplanes, a high frequency 

eddy current (HFEC) inspection for 

cracks, corrosion, and damage of the 

fastener holes. Revision 1 also indicates 

reaming to repair those conditions, and 

gives an additional structural repair 

manual reference for doing the repair; 

but also specifies contacting Boeing if 

the repair does not eliminate cracks, 

corrosion, or damage when reamed to 

0.2942- to 0.2962-inch in diameter. 

Revision 1 also adds a step that specifies 

cold-working the fastener holes for 

Group 2 airplanes; adds and revises 

certain part numbers for certain rivets; 

removes the step that specifies emptying 

fuel from the outboard main fuel tanks; 

clarifies an illustration of the new 

bonding rivets; and clarifies the 

measurements of the bonding resistance. 

Comments 

We have considered the following 

comments on the original NPRM. 

Support for the Original NPRM 

US Airways supports the original 

NPRM. 

Request To Use New Revision of 

Service Bulletin 

Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we 

refer to Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–28–2259, Revision 

1, rather than the original issue of the 

service bulletin (Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 747–28–

2259, dated November 4, 2004, was 

referred to as the appropriate source of 

service information for accomplishing 

the required actions). JAL also would 

like to confirm that it is acceptable to 

use the original issue of the service 

bulletin for compliance with the 

original NPRM, if the actions are done 

before the effective date of the AD. 

We agree with JAL’s requests. We 

have revised this supplemental NPRM 

to refer to Revision 1 of the service 

bulletin. We have also added a new 

paragraph (g) to this supplemental 

NPRM to give operators credit for 

accomplishing the applicable actions 

before the effective date of the AD in 

accordance with the original issue of the 

service bulletin. We have also reidentified subsequent paragraphs 

accordingly. 

Requests To Extend Compliance Time 

Boeing, British Airways, Royal Dutch 

Airlines (KLM), and the Air Transport 

Association (ATA) on behalf of one of 

its members, Delta Airlines, all request 

that we extend the 60-month 

compliance time for reworking the 

electrical bonding, as described below. 

Boeing, British Airways, and KLM 

request a 72-month compliance time 

because it is the threshold that the 

manufacturer recommends. British 

Airways and KLM discussed this issue 

with Boeing and advise that the 60- 

month compliance time pre-dates 

Boeing’s latest risk management 

guidelines for Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) 88 issues and is, 

therefore, out of step with current 

Boeing analyses. Boeing confirms that it 

initially recommended a 60-month 

compliance time before the completion 

of a formal compliance recommendation 

process. As such, the 60-month 

compliance time does not reflect current 

analyses. Boeing subsequently 

submitted a letter to the FAA that 

proposes a 72-month compliance time 

for all SFAR 88 design changes, with the 

exception of those associated with fuel 

pump inlet protection. 

British Airways supports its request to 

extend the compliance time from 60 

months to 72 months by asking us to 

consider an interim action. The 

proposed interim action would be any 

fuel pump housing replacement that is 

mounted and electrically bonded to the 

AD-affected under-wing housing. British 

Airways proposes an alternate ground 

path through the fasteners of the pump 

housing. If this bond can be verified, 

British Airways states that it justifies a 

12-month extension to the compliance 

time. 

Delta Airlines requests an 84-month 

compliance time because it would allow 

operators to accomplish the proposed 

actions during scheduled substantial 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15071 

aircraft maintenance visits due to 

complete de-fueling requirements. Delta 

states that an 84-month compliance time 

would also prevent undue financial and 

scheduling burdens. 

We disagree with the requests to 

change the compliance time from 60 

months to 72 or 84 months. In 

establishing the proposed compliance 

time, we considered not only the 

manufacturer’s recommendation, but 

also the labor required to accomplish 

the actions, and the risks to the airplane 

if these actions are not done in a timely 

manner. We also considered that the 

alternate ground path proposed by 

British Airways does not have sufficient 

current-carrying capability (as stated in 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 747–28–2259); and we have 

taken into account the fact that there is 

a primary bond path. We determined 

that a 60-month compliance time is 

adequate for operators to schedule the 

task during heavy maintenance visits, 

and that it will provide an adequate 

level of safety. In further discussions, 

Boeing agrees with the 60-month 

compliance time for this supplemental 

NPRM. 

However, operators may request 

approval of an alterative method of 

compliance (AMOC) in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph 

(h) of this supplemental NPRM. The 

AMOC request must contain appropriate 

rationale to substantiate that the AMOC 

will maintain an acceptable level of 

safety. Operators outside the United 

States must work with the applicable 

regulatory authority regarding this 

process. 

We have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Use Operator’s Equivalent 

Procedures for Certain Repairs 

ATA, on behalf of one of its members, 

Northwest Airlines, is concerned that 

the requirement to obtain FAA or 

authorized Boeing representative 

approval for repairs of crack or 

corrosion findings could have 

additional cost and schedule 

implications. Northwest Airlines states 

that obtaining this approval is outside 

the intent of the modification, and 

should be addressed with existing 

Northwest Airlines procedures, which 

may or may not require FAA approval. 

Northwest Airlines states that it would 

perform the specified bonding 

resistance checks to verify that there are 

still proper ground paths and currentcarrying capabilities. 

We disagree with changing the 

supplemental NPRM to remove the 

requirement to contact the FAA or 

authorized Boeing representative. 

Structural repair manual (SRM) repair 

procedures are spelled out in both 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 747–28–2259, dated November 

4, 2004; and Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–28–2259, Revision 

1, dated October 5, 2006. Revision 1 also 

adds an additional SRM reference, and 

specifies contacting a Boeing 

representative for the repairs only if the 

SRM repair is not clean of cracks, 

corrosion, or damage when reamed to 

0.2942- to 0.2962-inch in diameter. 

Approval of any deviation from the 

requirements of this supplemental 

NPRM, such as operator’s equivalent or 

existing procedures, may be requested 

in accordance with the AMOC 

procedures specified in paragraph (h) of 

this supplemental NPRM. The AMOC 

request must contain appropriate 

rationale to substantiate that the AMOC 

will maintain an acceptable level of 

safety. We have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Clarify HFEC Inspection for 

Group 1 Airplanes 

British Airways points out that Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–

28–2259, dated November 4, 2004, 

specifies an HFEC inspection for defects 

after rework only for Group 2 airplanes, 

but for Group 1 airplanes the service 

bulletin does not state what inspections, 

if any, are necessary after reworking the 

holes. British Airways normally would 

expect, for all airplanes, to oversize the 

rivet holes, follow the SRM 

specifications, and progressively remove 

any damage. If it is the FAA’s intent to 

subject Group 1 airplanes and Group 2 

airplanes to the HFEC inspection, 

British Airways requests that we 

include a statement indicating that it 

affects both groups. However, British 

Airways believes that this statement 

would be best published in the service 

bulletin. 

We agree that the inspection applies 

to both Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes. 

As stated previously, Boeing has issued 

Revision 1 of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–28–2259, which 

makes the change that British Airways 

requests. We have changed the 

supplemental NPRM to refer to Revision 

1 of the service bulletin. 

Clarification of AMOC Paragraph 

We have revised this action to clarify 

the appropriate procedure for notifying 

the principal inspector before using any 

approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

After the original NPRM was issued, 

we reviewed the figures we have used 

over the past several years to calculate 

AD costs to operators. To account for 

various inflationary costs in the airline 

industry, we find it necessary to 

increase the labor rate used in these 

calculations from $65 per work hour to 

$80 per work hour. The cost 

information, below, reflects this 

increase in the specified hourly labor 

rate. 

FAA’s Determination and Proposed 

Requirements of the Supplemental 

NPRM 

The changes discussed above expand 

the scope of the original NPRM; 

therefore, we have determined that it is 

necessary to reopen the comment period 

to provide additional opportunity for 

public comment on this supplemental 

NPRM. 

Difference Between the Supplemental 

NPRM and Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–28–2259, Revision 

1 

Although Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–28–2259, Revision 

1, specifies contacting the manufacturer 

if any crack, corrosion, or damage that 

exceeds certain limits is found during 

the open-hole HFEC inspection, this 

supplemental NPRM would require 

operators to repair those conditions in 

one of the following ways: 

• Using a method that we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Delegation Option Authorization 

Organization whom we have authorized 

to make those findings. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 3,401 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this supplemental NPRM. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
15072 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Cost per 

airplane 

Number 

of U.S.- 

registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Rework electrical bonding for Boeing Model 747 airplanes .................... 10 $80 $800 1,115 $892,000 

Rework electrical bonding for Boeing Model 767 airplanes .................... 9 80 720 921 663,120 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

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 supplemental NPRM 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, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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): 

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2005–21701; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–086–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by April 24, 2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the Boeing airplane 

models identified in Table 1 of this AD, 

certificated in any category. 

TABLE 1.—AIRPLANES AFFECTED BY THIS AD 

Model— As identified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin—

747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 

747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.

747–28–2259, Revision 1, dated October 5, 

2006. 

767–200, –300, and –300F series airplanes .................................................................................. 767–57–0092, dated November 4, 2004. 

767–400ER series airplanes ........................................................................................................... 767–57–0093, dated November 4, 2004. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by the results 

of fuel system reviews conducted by the 

manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent insufficient electrical bonding, 

which could result in a potential of ignition 

sources inside the fuel tanks, and which, in 

combination with flammable fuel vapors, 

could result in fuel tank explosions and 

consequent loss of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Rework Electrical Bonding 

(f) Within 60 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Do the actions specified in 

paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as 

applicable, by accomplishing all the actions 

specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the applicable service bulletin 

in Table 1 of this AD. Do any related 

investigative and corrective actions before 

further flight. 

(1) For Boeing Model 747–100, 747–100B, 

747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–

200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747–

400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes: 

Rework the electrical bonding between the 

airplane structure and the pump housing of 

the outboard boost pumps in the main fuel 

tank, and do related investigative and 

applicable corrective actions. If any crack, 

corrosion, or damage is found during the 

open-hole high-frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspection specified in Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–28–

2259, Revision 1, dated October 5, 2006, and 

the special attention service bulletin specifies 

contacting Boeing for repair instructions: 

Before further flight, repair in accordance 

with a method approved by the Manager, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA; or in accordance with data meeting the 

certification basis of the airplane approved 

by an Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation 

Option Authorization Organization who has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15073 

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 reference this AD. 

(2) For Boeing Model 767–200, –300, 

–300F, and –400ER series airplanes: Rework 

the electrical bonding between the airplane 

structure and the pump housing of the 

override/jettison pumps in the left and right 

wing center auxiliary fuel tanks, and do the 

related investigative and applicable 

corrective actions. 

Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously 

(g) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 747–28–2259, 

dated November 4, 2004, are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested in accordance with the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

23, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5928 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27740; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–290–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800 and 

–900 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Boeing Model 737–600, –700, 

–700C, –800 and –900 series airplanes. 

This proposed AD would require an 

inspection of the fillet sealant at the 

inboard and outboard sides of the 

receptacles in the wheel wells of the 

main landing gear, and related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. This proposed AD results 

from reports of in-production airplanes 

with missing or insufficient fillet sealant 

around the receptacles at the disconnect 

bracket. We are proposing this AD to 

prevent corrosion damage due to 

missing or insufficient fillet sealant. 

Such corrosion could result in 

insufficient electrical bonding between 

the connectors and the disconnect 

bracket, and consequent loss of the 

shielding that protects the wire bundles 

from lightning, electromagnetic 

interference (EMI), and high intensity 

radiated field (HIRF). Loss of lightning, 

EMI, and HIRF protection at those 

receptacles could cause failure of 

multiple electrical systems and 

subsequent loss of several critical 

control systems that are necessary for 

safe flight. In addition, a lightning strike 

could cause arcing in the fuel tank; this 

potential ignition source, in 

combination with flammable fuel 

vapors, could result in a fuel tank 

explosion and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 14, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207, for the service 

information identified in this proposed 

AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Binh Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems 

and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6485; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number ‘‘FAA–2007–27740; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–290–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

We have received a report indicating 

that 333 Boeing Model 737–600, –700, 

–700C, –800 and –900 series airplanes 

in the production factory had missing or 

insufficient fillet sealant around the 

receptacles in the wheel wells of the 

main landing gear (MLG). Missing or 

insufficient fillet sealant could result in 

corrosion damage, and consequent 

insufficient electrical bonding between 

the connectors and the disconnect 

bracket. The loss of electrical bonding 

could result in loss of the shielding that 

protects the wire bundles from 

lightning, electromagnetic interference 

(EMI), and high intensity radiated field 

(HIRF). The loss of lightning, EMI, and 

HIRF protection at those receptacles 

could cause multiple electrical systems 

failures. Those failures could result in 

the loss of several critical control 

systems that are necessary for safe flight. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS