Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 25977 

TABLE 1.—INITIAL INSPECTIONS

AWL No. Description 

Compliance time 

(whichever occurs later) 

Threshold Grace period 

(1) 28–AWL–01 .............................. 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.

Within 120 months since the date 

of issuance of the original 

standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of 

the original export certificate of 

airworthiness.

Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD. 

(2) 28–AWL–03 .............................. A special detailed inspection of 

the lightning shield to ground 

termination on the out-of-tank 

fuel quantity indicating system 

to verify functional integrity.

Within 120 months since the date 

of issuance of the original 

standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of 

the original export certificate of 

airworthiness.

Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD. 

(3) 28–AWL–14 .............................. A special detailed inspection of 

the fault current bond of the 

fueling shutoff valve actuator of 

the center wing tank to verify 

electrical bond.

Within 120 months since the date 

of issuance of the original 

standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of 

the original export certificate of 

airworthiness.

Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD. 

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a 

special detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. The examination is likely to 

make extensive use of specialized inspection 

techniques and/or equipment. Intricate 

cleaning and substantial access or 

disassembly procedure may be required.’’

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection 

Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration 

Control Limitations (CDCCLs) 

(i) After accomplishing the actions 

specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, 

no alternative inspections, inspection 

intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the 

inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of 

a later revision of ‘‘Revision March 2008 of 

the MPD’’ that is approved by the Manager, 

Seattle ACO; or unless the inspections, 

intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an 

AMOC in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. 

Credit for Actions Done According to 

Previous Revisions of the MPD 

(j) Actions done before the effective date of 

this AD in accordance with Section 9 of the 

Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001–9, 

Revision March 2006; Revision October 2006; 

Revision January 2007; or Revision 

November 2007; are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

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

AD. 

Terminating Action for AD 2008–06–03, 

Amendment 39–15415 

(k) Incorporating AWLs No. 28–AWL–23, 

No. 28–AWL–24, and No. 28–AWL–25 into 

the AWLs section of the ICA in accordance 

with paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the 

action required by paragraph (h)(2) of AD 

2008–06–03. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

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

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

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

FSDO. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(m) You must use Boeing Temporary 

Revision (TR) 09–008, dated March 2008, to 

the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning 

Document (MPD) Document, D622N001–9, to 

perform the actions that are required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

Boeing TR 09–008 is published as Section 9 

of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning 

Document (MPD) Document, D622N001–9, 

Revision March 2008. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–

2207, for a copy of this service information. 

(3) You may review copies 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/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29, 

2008. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–9917 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–28385; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–181–AD; Amendment 

39–15513; AD 2008–10–07] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B 

SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 

747–300, 747SR, and 747SP Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Boeing Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–

100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–

200F, 747–300, 747SR, and 747SP series 

airplanes. This AD requires revising the 

FAA-approved maintenance program by 

incorporating new airworthiness 

limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank systems 

to satisfy Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88 requirements. This 

AD also requires the initial inspection of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
25978 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

certain repetitive AWL inspections to 

phase in those inspections, and repair if 

necessary. This AD results from a design 

review of the fuel tank systems. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent the potential 

for ignition sources inside fuel tanks 

caused by latent failures, alterations, 

repairs, or maintenance actions, which, 

in combination with flammable fuel 

vapors, could result in a fuel tank 

explosion and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 

2008. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of June 12, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the Document Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sulmo Mariano, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6501; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an airworthiness 

directive (AD) that would apply to all 

Boeing Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–

100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–

200F, 747–300, 747SR, and 747SP series 

airplanes. That NPRM was published in 

the Federal Register on July 3, 2007 (72 

FR 36380). That NPRM proposed to 

require revising the FAA-approved 

maintenance program by incorporating 

new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) 

for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 

requirements. That NPRM also proposed 

to require the initial inspection of 

certain repetitive AWL inspections to 

phase in those inspections, and repair if 

necessary. 

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing 

has issued the Boeing 747–100/200/300/ 

SP Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) 

and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs), D6–13747–CMR, 

Revision March 2008 (hereafter referred 

to as ‘‘Revision March 2008 of 

Document D6–13747–CMR’’). (For the 

purposes of Revision March 2008 of 

Document D6–13747–CMR, the Model 

747SR series airplane is basically a 

Model 747–100 series airplane with 

certain modifications to improve fatigue 

life.) The NPRM referred to Revision 

March 2006 of Document D6–13747–

CMR as the appropriate source of 

service information for accomplishing 

the proposed actions. Revision March 

2008 of Document D6–13747–CMR 

includes the following changes: 

• Removes the repetitive task interval 

of 36,000 flight hours from AWLs No. 

28–AWL–01, No. 28–AWL–03, and No. 

28–AWL–13. 

• 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, 

and removes the joint resistance values. 

• Revises AWL No. 28–AWL–06 to 

correct the numerical value given in 

milliohms for the bonding 

measurement. 

We have revised paragraphs (f), (g), 

and (h) of this AD to refer to Revision 

March 2008 of Document D6–13747–

CMR. We also have removed reference 

to 36,000 total flight cycles from Table 

1 of this AD and revised the initial 

threshold for accomplishing AWLs No. 

28–AWL–01, No. 28–AWL–03, and No. 

28–AWL–13 to within 144 months since 

the date of issuance of the original 

standard airworthiness certificate or the 

date of issuance of the original export 

certificate of airworthiness. (The NPRM 

incorrectly specified 36,000 total ‘‘flight 

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

We also have added a new paragraph 

(j) to this AD specifying that actions 

done before the effective date of this AD 

in accordance with Revisions March 

2006 through January 2008 of Document 

D6–13747–CMR are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) 

of this AD. 

Operators should note that we have 

revised paragraph (g) of this AD to 

require incorporating only AWLs No. 

28–AWL–01 through No. 28–AWL–19 

inclusive. AWLs No. 28–AWL–20, No. 

28–AWL–21, and No. 28–AWL–22 were 

added in Revision January 2007 of 

Document D6–13747–CMR, and AWL 

No. 28–AWL–23 was added in Revision 

September 2007 of Document D6–

13747–CMR. We issued a separate 

NPRM that proposes to incorporate 

AWL No. 28–AWL–20 into the FAAapproved maintenance program. That 

NPRM (Docket No. FAA–2008–0091) 

was published in the Federal Register 

on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5770). We 

also issued a separate NPRM (Docket 

No. FAA–2008–0090) that proposes to 

incorporate AWL No. 28–AWL–21 into 

the FAA-approved maintenance 

program. That NPRM was published in 

the Federal Register on January 31, 

2008 (73 FR 5773). We might issue 

additional rulemaking to require the 

incorporation of AWLs No. 28–AWL–22 

and No. 28–AWL–23. However, as an 

optional action, operators may 

incorporate those AWLs as specified in 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 

Other Changes Made to This AD 

We have revised paragraph (h) of this 

AD to clarify that the actions identified 

in Table 1 of this AD must be done at 

the compliance time specified in that 

table. Also, for standardization 

purposes, we have revised this AD in 

the following ways: 

• We have added a new paragraph (i) 

to this AD to specify that no alternative 

inspections, inspection intervals, or 

critical design configuration control 

limitations (CDCCLs) may be used 

unless they are part of a later approved 

revision of Revision March 2008 of 

Document D6–13747–CMR, or unless 

they are approved as an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC). 

Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is 

intended to ensure that the ADmandated airworthiness limitations 

changes are treated the same as the 

airworthiness limitations issued with 

the original type certificate. 

• We have revised Note 1 of this AD 

to clarify that an operator must request 

approval for an AMOC if the operator 

cannot accomplish the required 

inspections because an airplane has 

been previously modified, altered, or 

repaired in the areas addressed by the 

required inspections. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received from 

the six commenters. 

Request To Allow Inspections Done 

According to a Maintenance Program 

Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we 

revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM to 

allow an operator to update its FAAVerDate Aug<31>2005 16:31 May 07, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM 08MYR1

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 25979 

approved maintenance program to 

include the initial inspections and 

repair for certain AWLs. JAL states that 

the NPRM would require accomplishing 

the initial inspection and repair of 

certain AWLs, which would require JAL 

to establish a special inspection and 

special recordkeeping for the proposed 

requirement. 

The compliance times specified in 

paragraph (h) of this AD are intended to 

provide a grace period for those 

airplanes that have already exceeded the 

specified threshold in Document D6–

13747–CMR. To be in compliance with 

the recording requirements of this AD, 

operators must record their compliance 

with the initial inspection for those 

airplanes over the specified threshold. 

We have revised paragraph (h) of this 

AD to specify that accomplishing the 

applicable AWLs as part of an FAAapproved maintenance program before 

the applicable compliance time 

constitutes compliance with the 

applicable requirements of that 

paragraph. 

Request To Revise Intervals for Certain 

AWL Inspections 

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), on 

behalf of several operators, requests that 

we review a 45-page proposal to align 

certain airworthiness limitation item 

(ALI) intervals with the applicable 

maintenance significant item (MSI) and 

enhanced zonal analysis procedure 

(EZAP) intervals for Model 737, 747, 

757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The 

recommendations in that proposal 

ensure that the ALI intervals align with 

the maintenance schedules of the 

operators. Among other changes, the 

proposal recommends revising certain 

AWL inspection intervals from 12 years/ 

36,000 flight hours to only 12 years for 

Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B 

SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 

747–300, 747SR, and 747SP series 

airplanes. 

Qantas Airways also requests that the 

36,000-flight-hour parameter be 

removed from the inspection interval for 

AWL No. 28–AWL–01, No. 28–AWL–

03, and No. 28–AWL–13. The 

commenter states that the flight-hour 

parameter does not adequately take into 

account actual airplane usage, and that 

the long haul utilization of the airplane 

is 5,000 flight hours per year. Based on 

this number, the commenter states that 

the AWL tasks would be required at 7.2 

years instead of 12 years. 

Qantas Airways and TradeWinds 

Airlines both note an inconsistency 

between the inspection interval 

specified in Revision March 2006 of 

Document D6–13747–CMR and the 

compliance threshold specified in Table 

1 of the NPRM. Table 1 of the NPRM 

specifies accomplishing the initial 

inspection within 36,000 total flight 

cycles or 144 months since the date of 

issuance of the original standard 

airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original export 

certificate of airworthiness, whichever 

occurs first. TradeWinds Airlines 

requests that we revise the compliance 

threshold to 36,000 ‘‘total flight hours.’’

However, Qantas Airways would 

welcome the change from ‘‘flight hours’’

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

parameter is not deleted from the 

inspection intervals specified in 

Revision March 2006 of Document D6–

13747–CMR. 

We have reviewed the commenter’s 

requests, and we agree to revise the 

compliance threshold for certain AWLs 

identified by KLM and Qantas Airways. 

As stated previously, Revision March 

2008 of Document D6–13747–CMR 

specifies a repetitive interval of 144 

months. We have revised the threshold 

specified in Table 1 of this AD 

accordingly. 

Request To Harmonize Task 

Descriptions 

JAL states that, in Revision March 

2006 of Document D6–13747–CMR, the 

task descriptions defining the applicable 

area are different for AWLs Nos. 28–

AWL–01 and 28–AWL–02. (AWL No. 

28–AWL–01 is a repetitive inspection of 

the external wires over the center fuel 

tank, and AWL No. 28–AWL–02 is a 

CDCCL to maintain the original design 

features for the external wires over the 

center fuel tank.) JAL believes that the 

task descriptions for these AWLs should 

match. JAL presumes that, if one 

purpose for the inspection is to prevent 

a spark in the fuel vapor over the center 

fuel tank, then the applicable area 

should have a certain tolerance instead 

of defining the area by exact station 

number. 

We agree that the task descriptions for 

AWL Nos. 28–AWL–01 and 28–AWL–

02 should be harmonized. Revision 

March 2008 of Document D6–13747–

CMR includes a revised task description 

of AWL No. 28–AWL–01, which 

addresses JAL’s comments. As stated 

previously, we have revised this AD to 

refer to Revision March 2008 of 

Document D6–13747–CMR. 

Request To Revise the Loop Resistance 

Values for AWL No. 28–AWL–03 

Boeing, KLM, and Qantas Airways 

state that the loop resistance values for 

AWL No. 28–AWL–03 specified in 

Revision March 2006 of Document D6–

13747–CMR are going to be revised, 

since those values are relevant for 

production airplanes. The commenters 

also state that the revised values will be 

more representative of the expected 

values for in-service airplanes. Boeing 

points out that, according to paragraph 

(h) of the NPRM, the revised values 

should be able to be used in accordance 

with a later revision of Revision March 

2006 of Document D6–13747–CMR if 

the revision is approved by the Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA. 

We agree that operators may use the 

revised loop resistance values for AWL 

No. 28–AWL–03 in accordance with 

Revision March 2008 of Document D6–

13747–CMR. As stated previously, we 

have revised this AD accordingly. 

Request To Clarify Use of Equivalent 

Tools and Chemicals 

JAL requests that we provide 

guidelines for using equivalent tools 

and chemical materials according to the 

component maintenance manuals 

(CMMs). JAL states that normally 

operators can use equivalents without 

FAA approval when the CMM specifies 

that equivalents may be used. JAL also 

states that it has received further 

clarification from Boeing specifying that 

unless a CDCCL refers to a certain tool 

by part number or certain chemicals by 

name, an operator can continue to use 

equivalent tools or materials according 

to the CMMs. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

request and are working with Boeing to 

provide appropriate flexibility while 

still ensuring that items critical for 

maintaining safety continue to be 

specifically identified in the CMMs. 

However, to delay issuance of this AD 

would be inappropriate. 

We agree that when the CMMs allow 

use of equivalent tools or chemical 

materials, operators and repair stations 

may use equivalents. We have already 

approved the use of the CMMs at the 

revision levels specified in Revision 

March 2008 of Document D6–13747–

CMR, including the use of equivalent 

tools or chemicals where the CMMs 

state equivalents are allowed. If the 

CMM does not allow use of an 

equivalent, none may be used. No 

change to this AD is necessary in this 

regard. 

Request To Revise Appendix 1 

Boeing requests that we revise 

Appendix 1 of the NPRM as follows: (1) 

Correct the ATA section for AWL No. 

28–AWL–03, (2) add an airplane 

maintenance manual (AMM) task title 

for AWL No. 28–AWL–08, and (3) add 

an ATA section for AWL No. 28–AWL–

18. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
25980 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

JAL requests that we update 

Appendix 1 of the NPRM to include all 

AWLs specified in the CMR, and that 

we indicate how to maintain the latest 

version of Appendix 1. JAL also 

requests that we correct the following 

error in Appendix 1 of the NPRM: For 

AWL No. 28–AWL–04, change ‘‘SWPM 

20–10–15’’ to ‘‘SWPM 20–10–13.’’

We disagree with revising the AMM 

references, since we have deleted 

Appendix 1 from this AD. The purpose 

of Appendix 1 was to assist operators in 

identifying the AMM tasks that could 

affect compliance with a CDCCL. 

However, we have also received several 

similar comments regarding the 

appendices in other NPRMs that address 

the same unsafe condition on other 

Boeing airplanes. Those comments 

indicate that including non-required 

information in those NPRMs has caused 

confusion. Further, Revision March 

2008 of Document D6–13747–CMR 

contains most of the updated 

information that is listed in Appendix 1 

of the NPRM. Therefore, we have 

removed Appendix 1 from this AD. 

Request To Revise Note 1 

Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 

of the NPRM to clarify the need for an 

AMOC. Boeing states that the current 

wording is difficult to follow, and that 

the note is meant to inform operators 

that an AMOC to the required AWLs 

might be required if an operator has 

previously modified, altered, or repaired 

the areas addressed by the limitations. 

Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 as 

follows: 

• Add the words ‘‘according to 

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

sentence. 

• Replace the words ‘‘revision to’’

with ‘‘deviation from’’ in the last 

sentence. 

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

applicable’’ from the last sentence. 

As stated previously, we have 

clarified the language in Note 1 of this 

AD for standardization with other 

similar ADs. The language the 

commenter requests that we change 

does not appear in the revised note. 

Therefore, no additional change to this 

AD is necessary in this regard. 

Request To Extend the Grace Period for 

AWL No. 28–AWL–03 

KLM expects to have problems 

accomplishing the initial inspection of 

AWL No. 28–AWL–03 within the 24- 

month grace period. KLM states that if 

it does the check and does not reach the 

specified values, then tank entry outside 

of heavy maintenance would be 

necessary. KLM also states that it would 

be helpful to plan to do this inspection 

during an overhaul. 

We infer that KLM requests that we 

extend the grace period for AWL No. 

28–AWL–03 in Table 1 of this AD to 

allow accomplishing the initial 

inspection during a regularly scheduled 

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

with extending the grace period to 6 

years. In developing an appropriate 

compliance time for this action, we 

considered the safety implications, the 

rate of lightning strikes in the fleet, and 

the average age of the fleet. In 

consideration of these items, we have 

determined that an initial compliance 

time of 144 months (as discussed 

previously) with a grace period of 24 

months will ensure an acceptable level 

of safety. We have not changed the grace 

period for AWL No. 28–AWL–03 in this 

regard. 

Request To Extend the Exceptional 

Short-Term Extension 

Qantas Airways requests that we 

allow exceptional short-term extensions 

of 10 percent of the task interval or 6 

months, whichever is less, for AWL 

tasks. The commenter believes that the 

exceptional short-term extension of 30 

days, which is specified in Revision 

March 2006 of Document D6–13747–

CMR, is too small for AWL tasks having 

12-year intervals. The commenter states 

that, as part of the Boeing 747 Corrosion 

Prevention and Control Program 

mandated by AD 90–25–05, amendment 

39–6790 (55 FR 49268, November 27, 

1990), operators were given a provision 

to invoke exceptional short-term 

extensions of 10 percent of the task 

interval or 6 months, whichever is less. 

The commenter states that this is a more 

appropriate magnitude because 

operators are often permitted one-time 

exceptional extensions to maintenance 

checks and tasks of this proportion. The 

commenter also states that limiting the 

extension period to 30 days means that 

a ‘‘D’’ check can never be extended by 

more than 30 days, which would force 

operators to do certain AWL inspections 

outside of a ‘‘D’’ check. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request because exceptional short-term 

extensions are, in essence, pre-approved 

extensions without Seattle ACO review 

of the specifics of the situation. We 

consider that the ability to extend the 

interval without further approval for 30 

days should be sufficient for most 

circumstances. However, if an operator 

finds that it needs an extension longer 

than 30 days, with appropriate 

justification one may be requested from 

the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory 

authority. Longer extensions may be 

granted on a case-by-case basis because, 

as Qantas Airways points out, the task 

interval is long, and the FAA is 

interested in limiting out-of-sequence 

work. We have not changed this AD in 

this regard. 

Request To Require Latest Revision of 

the AMM 

JAL requests that we revise the NPRM 

to require incorporation of the latest 

revision of the manufacturer’s AMM. 

JAL asserts that we have allowed Boeing 

to include statements in the Boeing 

AMM allowing operators to use certain 

CMM revision levels or later revisions. 

JAL states that, with the exception of the 

CMM, operators cannot find what 

revision level of the AMM needs to be 

incorporated into the operator’s AMM 

in order to comply with the proposed 

requirements of the NPRM. JAL also 

states that it could take several weeks to 

incorporate the manufacturer’s AMM. 

JAL further requests that we clarify 

whether it is acceptable to change the 

procedures in the AMM with Boeing’s 

acceptance. JAL states that the CMR 

notes that any use of parts, methods, 

techniques, or practices not contained 

in the applicable CDCCL and AWL 

inspection must be approved by the 

FAA office that is responsible for the 

airplane model type certificate, or 

applicable regulatory agency. JAL also 

states that the Boeing AMM or CMM 

notes to obey the manufacturer’s 

procedures when doing maintenance 

that affects a CDCCL or AWL inspection. 

However, JAL believes that according to 

the NPRM it is acceptable to change the 

AMM procedures with Boeing’s 

acceptance. 

We disagree with the changes 

proposed by the commenter. This AD 

does not require revising the AMM. This 

AD does require revising your 

maintenance program to incorporate the 

AWLs identified in Revision March 

2008 of Document D6–13747–CMR. 

However, complying with the AWL 

inspections or CDCCLs will require 

other actions by operators including 

AMM revisions. In the U.S., operators 

are not required to use original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

maintenance manuals. Operators may 

develop their own manuals, which are 

reviewed and accepted by the FAA 

Flight Standards Service. In order to 

maintain that flexibility for operators, 

most of the AWLs contain all of the 

critical information, such as maximum 

bonding resistances and minimum 

separation requirements. The FAA 

Flight Standards Service will only 

accept operator manuals that contain all 

of the information specified in the 

AWLs, so there is no need to require 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 25981 

operators to use the OEM maintenance 

manuals. 

Regarding JAL’s request for 

clarification of approval of AWL 

changes, we infer JAL is referring to the 

following sentence located in the 

‘‘Changes to AMMs Referenced in Fuel 

Tank System AWLs’’ section of the 

NPRM: ‘‘A maintenance manual change 

to these tasks may be made without 

approval by the Manager, Seattle ACO, 

through an appropriate FAA principal 

maintenance inspector (PMI) or 

principal avionics inspector (PAI), by 

the governing regulatory authority, or by 

using the operator’s standard process for 

revising maintenance manuals.’’ If 

changes need to be made to tasks 

associated with an AWL, they may be 

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 CMR. 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 Delete Reference to Task 

Cards 

All Nippon Airways (ANA) requests 

that we delete the words ‘‘and task 

cards,’’ unless the task card references 

are listed in Section D of Document D6–

13747–CMR or Appendix 1 of the AD. 

Those words are located in the 

following sentence in the ‘‘Ensuring 

Compliance with Fuel Tank System 

AWLs’’ section of the NPRM: 

‘‘Operators that do not use Boeing’s 

revision service should revise their 

maintenance manuals and task cards to 

highlight actions tied to CDCCLs to 

ensure that maintenance personnel are 

complying with the CDCCLs.’’ ANA 

believes that if a task card refers to the 

AMM, which includes the CDCCL note, 

then highlighting the CDCCL items is 

not necessary because they are already 

highlighted in the AMM and 

maintenance personnel always refer to 

the AMM. ANA further states that the 

applicable task card references are not 

listed in Section D of Document D6–

13747–CMR, or in Appendix 1 of the 

NPRM; they refer only to the AMM. 

ANA, therefore, states that it is difficult 

to find out or distinguish the affected 

task card. 

JAL believes that the proposed 

requirement regarding the CDCCLs is to 

incorporate the manufacturer’s 

maintenance manuals into an operator’s 

maintenance manual. If the description 

of a CDCCL is missing from the 

manufacturer’s AMM, then JAL believes 

that operators are not responsible for the 

requirements of the AD. 

We agree that the task cards might not 

need to be revised because an operator 

might find that the AMM notes are 

sufficient. However, we disagree with 

deleting the reference to the task cards 

since some operators might need to add 

notes to their task cards. This AD does 

not require any changes to the 

maintenance manuals or task cards. The 

AD requires incorporating new AWLs 

into the operator’s maintenance 

program. It is up to the operator to 

determine how best to ensure 

compliance with the new AWLs. In the 

‘‘Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank 

System AWLs’’ section of the NPRM, we 

were only suggesting, not requiring, 

ways that an operator could implement 

CDCCLs into its maintenance program. 

We have not changed this AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Clarify Meaning of Task 

Cards 

JAL requests that we clarify whether 

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

Compliance with Fuel Tank System 

AWLs’’ section of the NPRM, means 

Boeing task cards only or if they also 

include an operator’s unique task cards. 

We intended that ‘‘task cards’’ mean 

both Boeing and an operator’s unique 

task cards, as applicable. The intent is 

to address whatever type of task cards 

are used by mechanics for maintenance. 

This AD would not require any changes 

to the AMMs or task cards relative to the 

CDCCLs. We are only suggesting ways 

an operator might implement CDCCLs 

into its maintenance program. No 

change to this AD is necessary in this 

regard. 

Request To Delete Reference to Parts 

Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts 

ANA requests that we delete the 

words ‘‘Any use of parts (including the 

use of parts manufacturer approval 

(PMA) approved parts),’’ unless a 

continuous supply of CMM specified 

parts is warranted or the FAA is open 

24 hours to approve alternative parts for 

in-house repair by the operator. Those 

words are located in the following 

sentence in the ‘‘Changes to CMMs 

Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs’’

section of the NPRM: ‘‘Any use of parts 

(including the use of parts manufacturer 

approval (PMA) approved parts), 

methods, techniques, and practices not 

contained in the CMMs needs to be 

approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, 

or governing regulatory authority.’’

ANA states that in some cases the 

parts specified in the CMMs cannot be 

obtained from the parts market or 

directly from the component vendor, so 

an operator is forced into using 

alternative parts to keep its schedule. 

ANA requests that we direct the 

component vendor to ensure a 

continuous supply of CMM parts and to 

direct the component vendor to remedy 

a lack of parts if parts are not promptly 

supplied. ANA further requests that we 

direct the component vendor to 

promptly review the standard parts and 

allow use of alternative fasteners and 

washers listed in Boeing D590. ANA 

asserts that, in some cases, a component 

vendor specifies the uncommon part to 

preserve its monopoly. 

We disagree with revising the 

‘‘Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank 

System AWLs’’ section of the NPRM. 

We make every effort to identify 

potential problems with the parts 

supply, and we are not aware of any 

problems at this time. The impetus to 

declare overhaul and repair of certain 

fuel tank system components as CDCCLs 

arose from in-service pump failures that 

resulted from repairs not done 

according to OEM procedures. We have 

approved the use of the CMMs—

including parts, methods, techniques, 

and practices—at the revision levels 

specified in Revision March 2008 of 

Document D6–13747–CMR. Third-party 

spare parts, such as parts approved by 

PMA, have not been reviewed. 

An operator may submit a request to 

the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory 

authority, for approval of an AMOC if 

sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that use of an alternative 

part would provide an acceptable level 

of safety. The CDCCLs do not restrict 

where repairs can be performed, so an 

operator may do the work in-house as 

long as the approved CMMs are 

followed. If operators would like to 

change those procedures, they can 

request approval of the changes. The 

FAA makes every effort to respond to 

operators’ requests in a timely manner. 

If there is a potential for disrupting the 

flight schedule, the operator should 

include that information in its request. 

Operators should request approval for 

the use of PMA parts and alternative 

procedures from the FAA or the 

governing regulatory authority in 

advance in order to limit schedule 

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 CMR and that 

additional equipment should also be 

designated. For example, AWL No. 28–

AWL–03 would require using loop 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
25982 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

747 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 Document 

D6–13747–CMR, AWL No. 28–AWL–02 

contains two limitations: maintaining 

the existing wire bundle routing and 

clamping, and installing any new wire 

bundle per the Boeing standard wiring 

practices manual (SWPM). Therefore, 

JAL believes it is not necessary to 

inspect the external wires over the 

center fuel tank according to AMM 28–

11–00 before installing the floor panel 

over the center wing tank, unless that 

wire bundle routing and clamping are 

changed. 

We point out that AWL No. 28–AWL–

02 also contains a third limitation: 

Verifying that all wire bundles over the 

center fuel tank are inspected according 

to AWL No. 28–AWL–01, which refers 

to AMM 28–11–00 for accomplishing 

the inspection. We do not agree that the 

inspection should be required only if 

the wire bundle routing and clamping 

are changed while maintenance is 

accomplished in the area. If any of the 

other bundles have a clamp or routing 

failure, it must be detected and 

corrected. After accomplishing the 

inspection required by AWL No. 28–

AWL–01, an operator would not need to 

repeat the inspection for another 12 

years. No change to this AD is necessary 

in this regard. 

Request for Clarification for Recording 

Compliance With CDCCLs 

JAL requests that we clarify the 

following sentence: ‘‘An entry into an 

operator’s existing maintenance record 

system for corrective action is sufficient 

for recording compliance with CDCCLs, 

as long as the applicable maintenance 

manual and task cards identify actions 

that are CDCCLs.’’ That sentence is 

located in the ‘‘Recording Compliance 

with Fuel Tank System AWLs’’ section 

of the NPRM. Specifically, JAL asks 

whether an operator must indicate the 

CDCCL in their recording documents or 

whether it is sufficient for the recording 

document to call out the applicable 

AMMs that are tied to the CDCCLs. 

We have coordinated with the FAA 

Flight Standards Service and it agrees 

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

applicable AMMs and task cards 

identify the CDCCL, then the entry into 

the recording documents does not need 

to identify the CDCCL. However, if the 

applicable AMMs and tasks cards do not 

identify the CDCCL, then they must be 

identified. Other methods may be 

accepted by the appropriate FAA PMI or 

PAI, or governing regulatory authority. 

No change to this AD is necessary in 

this regard. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We also determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 308 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs, at an average labor rate 

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

to comply with this AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work 

hours Parts Cost per airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Maintenance program revision ..................................... 8 None ................................. $640 93 $59,520 

Inspections .................................................................... 8 None ................................. 640 93 59,520 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and 

(3) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance in the AD Docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 25983 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

2008–10–07 Boeing: Amendment 39–15513. 

Docket No. FAA–2007–28385; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–181–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective June 12, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 

747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–

200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747SR, 

and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in 

any category. 

Note 1: 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 a fuel 

tank explosion and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Service Information Reference 

(f) The term ‘‘Revision March 2008 of 

Document D6–13747–CMR,’’ as used in this 

AD, means Boeing 747–100/200/300/SP 

Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs), D6–13747–CMR, Revision March 

2008. (For the purposes of Revision March 

2008 of Document D6–13747–CMR, the 

Model 747SR series airplane is basically a 

Model 747–100 series airplane with certain 

modifications to improve fatigue life.) 

Maintenance Program Revision 

(g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the 

FAA-approved maintenance program to 

incorporate the information in Section D, 

‘‘AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—

SYSTEMS,’’ AWLs No. 28–AWL–01 through 

No. 28–AWL–19 inclusive, of Revision 

March 2008 of Document D6–13747–CMR; 

except that the initial inspections required by 

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

applicable compliance time specified in that 

paragraph. As an optional action, AWLs No. 

28–AWL–20 through No. 28–AWL–23 

inclusive, as identified in Section D of 

Revision March 2008 of Document D6–

13747–CMR, also may be incorporated into 

the FAA-approved maintenance program. 

Accomplishing the revision in accordance 

with a later revision of Document D6–13747–

CMR is an acceptable method of compliance 

if the revision is approved by the Manager, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA. 

Initial Inspections and Repair if Necessary 

(h) Do the inspections specified in Table 1 

of this AD at the compliance time specified 

in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any 

discrepancy, in accordance with Section D of 

Revision March 2008 of Document D6–

13747–CMR. The repair must be done before 

further flight. Accomplishing the actions 

required by this paragraph in accordance 

with a later revision of Document D6–13747–

CMR is an acceptable method of compliance 

if the revision is approved by the Manager, 

Seattle ACO. Accomplishing the inspections 

identified in Table 1 of this AD as part of an 

FAA-approved maintenance program before 

the applicable compliance time specified in 

Table 1 of this AD constitutes compliance 

with the requirements of this paragraph. 

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a 

special detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. The examination is likely to 

make extensive use of specialized inspection 

techniques and/or equipment. Intricate 

cleaning and substantial access or 

disassembly procedure may be required.’’

TABLE 1.—INITIAL INSPECTIONS

AWL No. Description 

Compliance Time 

(whichever occurs later) 

Threshold Grace period 

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

the center fuel tank for damaged clamps, 

wire chafing, and wire bundles in contact 

with the surface of the center fuel tank.

Within 144 months since the date of issuance 

of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.

Within 72 months after 

the effective date of 

this AD. 

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

shield to ground termination on the out-oftank fuel quantity indicating system to 

verify functional integrity.

Within 144 months since the date of issuance 

of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.

Within 24 months after 

the effective date of 

this AD. 

28–AWL–13 ................. A special detailed inspection of the fault current bond of the fueling shutoff valve actuator of the center wing tank to verify electrical bond.Within 144 months since the date of issuance 

of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.

Within 60 months after 

the effective date of 

this AD. 

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection 

Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration 

Control Limitations (CDCCLs) 

(i) After accomplishing the actions 

specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, 

no alternative inspections, inspection 

intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the 

inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of 

a later revision of Revision March 2008 of 

Document D6–13747–CMR that is approved 

by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the 

inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are 

approved as an AMOC in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of 

this AD. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
25984 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Credit for Actions Done According to 

Previous Revisions of the Service 

Information 

(j) Actions done before the effective date of 

this AD in accordance with Boeing 747–100/ 

200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations 

(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance 

Requirements (CMRs), D6–13747–CMR, 

Revision March 2006; Revision May 2006; 

Revision December 2006; Revision January 

2007; Revision September 2007; or Revision 

January 2008; 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, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

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

FSDO. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(l) You must use Boeing 747–100/200/300/ 

SP Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs), D6–13747–CMR, Revision March 

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 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207. 

(3) You may review copies of the service 

information incorporated by reference at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.

gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 

2008. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–9896 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0118; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–289–AD; Amendment 

39–15502; AD 2008–09–21] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault 

Model Mystere-Falcon 50 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: 

This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is 

issued following the discovery of a risk of 

chafing between an electrical feeder bundle 

and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel. 

Most of the time, this possible chafing would 

be dormant and would lead to an uneventful 

loss of segregation within the different 

electrical system components. However, 

missing segregation combined with 

additional electrical failures may impair 

flight safety. 

* * * * * 

Chafing between an electrical feeder 

bundle and a bus bar under the circuit 

breaker panel could lead to electrical 

arcing, which could result in smoke and 

fire in the cockpit. We are issuing this 

AD to require actions to correct the 

unsafe condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 

12, 2008. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of June 12, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: 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: Tom 

Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1137; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

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 February 5, 2008 (73 FR 

6620). That NPRM proposed to correct 

an unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is 

issued following the discovery of a risk of 

chafing between an electrical feeder bundle 

and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel. 

Most of the time, this possible chafing would 

be dormant and would lead to an uneventful 

loss of segregation within the different 

electrical system components. However, 

missing segregation combined with 

additional electrical failures may impair 

flight safety. 

This AD mandates inspection of the 

electrical feeder bundle, and modification of 

its routing under the circuit breaker panel 

through implementation of modification 

M3093. 

Chafing between an electrical feeder 

bundle and a bus bar under the circuit 

breaker panel could lead to electrical 

arcing, which could result in smoke and 

fire in the cockpit. 

The corrective action includes 

repairing or replacing damaged wiring; 

re-routing the feeder cables above the 

wiring of the ‘‘Avionic Master’’ and 

‘‘Aux Bat’’ relays; installing a protective 

sheath on the feeder cables; adding 

spacers to separate the bus bar wiring 

assemblies from the feeder cables; and 

adding Teflon protection on the feeder 

cables and securing the feeder cables 

with wiring retaining strips. 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 

received no comments on the NPRM or 

on the determination of the cost to the 

public. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the available data and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

as proposed. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES