5748 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

29, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–2675 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–57–AD; Amendment

39–9922; AD 97–03–17]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 and 757 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Boeing Model 747 and

757 series airplanes, that requires

repetitive visual inspections to detect

discrepancies of the wire terminal

assembly, electrical connector, and wire

insulation on the fuel pump; and

replacement of the fuel pump with a

new fuel pump, if necessary. This

amendment also requires repetitive

insulation resistance tests of the fuel

pump wiring. This amendment is

prompted by reports of fuel leaks at the

fuel boost and override/jettison pumps

due to corrosion. The actions specified

by this AD are intended to prevent such

a fuel leakage, which could result in a

fire at the location of the affected fuel

pump.

DATES: Effective March 14, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of March 14,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.

Michael Collins, Aerospace Engineer,

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2689;

fax (206) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to all Boeing Model

747 and 757 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

August 14, 1996 (61 FR 42195). That

action proposed to require a visual

inspection to detect discrepancies of the

wire terminal assembly, electrical

connector, and wire insulation on the

fuel pump; and replacement of the fuel

pump with a new fuel pump, if

necessary. That action also proposed to

require repetitive insulation resistance

tests of the fuel pump wiring.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

One commenter supports the

proposed AD.

Request To Allow Credit for Use of

Previous Versions of Service Bulletins

Several commenters request that the

proposal be revised to provide credit to

those operators who have already

initiated the inspections in accordance

with the original versions of Boeing

Service Bulletins 747–28A2194 and 757

28A0043. One of these commenters,

states that Revision 1 of both of these

service bulletins, which are referenced

in the proposal, contain essentially the

same inspection and test procedures of

the subject fuel pumps as is contained

the original versions.

The FAA concurs partially with the

commenters’ request:

The FAA finds that both the original

version and Revision 1 of Boeing

Service Bulletin 757 28A0043, which is

applicable to Model 757 series

airplanes, contain essentially identical

inspection procedures. Therefore,

operators of those airplanes will be

given credit for any inspections

conducted in accordance with the

original version of the service bulletin

accomplished prior to the effective date

of this AD. The final rule has been

revised to indicate this.

However, the FAA finds that Revision

1 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–

28A2194, which is applicable to Model

747 series airplanes, is substantively

different from the original version, in

that Revision 1 adds a continuity check

of the pin 4 bonding strap internal to the

pump (the pump ground wire).

Although the manufacturer asserts that

this continuity check ‘‘does not affect

the result of the key insulation

resistance test which determines the

condition of the pump connector,’’ the

FAA maintains that the continuity

check is an important step, without

which the resistance test cannot be

considered adequate. Therefore,

operators who previously have

performed the resistance tests in

accordance with the original version of

that service bulletin will not be granted

credit for those tests as compliance with

the applicable requirements of this AD.

Request To Clarify Applicability of

Requirements to New Airplanes

One commenter requests that the

proposal be revised to clarify what

inspection actions would be required of

new airplanes that are delivered after

the effective date of the AD. The

commenter states that the proposal is

not clear whether the AD applies to

these new airplanes or not, and, if it

does apply, when the first inspection is

required.

The FAA does not consider that any

further clarification of the applicability

of the AD is necessary. The applicability

statement of the AD clearly indicates

that it is applicable to ‘‘all Model 747

and 757 airplanes.’’ This includes

airplanes delivered now or in the future;

it is not limited to any range of existing

airplanes. Since the configuration of the

subject area on all of these airplanes,

from the earliest manufactured to the

most recent, is similar, all are subject to

the unsafe condition addressed by this

AD.

To clarify the commenter’s concern as

to when the first inspection of new

airplanes is required, the FAA points

out that any airplane that is

manufactured and/or delivered after 120

days after the effective date of this AD,

will have to be inspected in accordance

with the AD prior to its delivery, as

required by the Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR). The AD stipulates in

its compliance provisions that the

actions are required at the time

specified in the AD, ‘‘unless [those

actions have been] accomplished

previously.’’ The inspection of the

pumps that is conducted previous to the

delivery of the new airplanes is

considered to be the initial inspection

required by the AD.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

for Initial Inspection

Several commenters request that the

proposal be revised to extend the

proposed compliance time of 120 days

for the initial inspection to as much as

9 months. Most of these commenters are

airline operators, and request the

extension in order to accommodate the

inspection during their regular

maintenance schedules. One of these
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5749

commenters requests that the initial

inspection interval be based on how

many hours have accumulated on the

affected fuel pump. Another commenter

requests that the compliance time be

stated as ‘‘the operator’s next ‘C’-check’’

for new airplanes delivered after the

effective date of the AD. Several

commenters request an extension

because they are concerned that an

ample number of spare fuel pumps will

not be available to support the affected

fleet, should it be necessary to replace

all pumps within the proposed 120-day

compliance period.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ requests to extend the

compliance time. In developing an

appropriate compliance time for this

action, the FAA considered not only the

degree of urgency associated with

addressing the subject unsafe condition,

but the availability of necessary parts

and the practical aspect of conducting

the required inspections within an

interval of time that parallels normal

scheduled maintenance for the majority

of affected operators. The FAA also took

into account the manufacturer’s

recommendation (specified in the

referenced Boeing service bulletin) that

the first inspection to be conducted ‘‘at

the next maintenance time when

manpower and equipment are

available.’’ The FAA finds that, for the

majority of affected operators, some

scheduled maintenance will occur

within the 120-day compliance period.

As for the commenters’ concern that

the availability of an ample number of

replacement parts will be a problem, the

FAA has received no indication to

substantiate that parts will not be

available during the compliance period.

The FAA has been advised that there is

a 60-day turnaround time for ordering

retrofit pumps from at least one vendor;

this should provide enough time for

operators to obtain parts within the 120-

day compliance time for the initial

inspection.

In light of these factors, the FAA finds

no technical justification for delaying

the initiation of inspections any further.

The FAA has determined that the 120-

day compliance time for accomplishing

the initial inspection is not only

appropriate, but warranted.

Request To Extend Repetitive

Inspection Intervals

Several commenters request that the

proposal be revised to extend the

intervals for repetitive visual

inspections of the pumps from the

proposed ‘‘5,000 hours or 18 months,

whichever occurs first.’’ Some

commenters request that the interval be

specified as ‘‘every ‘C’-check;’’ others

request that it be ‘‘every 8,000 flight

hours.’’ The commenters indicate that

such extensions would allow the

inspections to be conducted during

regularly scheduled maintenance

intervals. One commenter requests that

the repetitive inspection interval be

extended for airplanes equipped with

permanently mounted fuel vapor

sensors that can detect leaked fuel and

fuel vapor in the vicinity of the pump.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ requests to extend the

repetitive inspection interval. Based on

the fact that the subject problem is

associated with corrosion, the FAA

considers that a 5,000 flight hour/18-

month interval represents the maximum

time allowable for the affected airplanes

to continue to operate prior to

accomplishing the required inspections

without compromising safety. Since

maintenance schedules may vary from

operator to operator, there would be no

assurance that the inspection (and any

necessary replacement) would be

accomplished during that maximum

interval. Therefore, to specify the

interval as a ‘‘C’’-check would not be

appropriate.

The FAA cannot concur with the

commenter who requested an extension

if a permanently mounted fuel vapor

sensor is installed, since the device has

not been approved by the FAA for use

in the affected airplanes for the specific

purpose of detecting fuel leaks near a

fuel booster pump. Since the

certification process for approval of

such a device may take many months,

the FAA considers that, for the time

being, revising the requirements of the

AD in relation to the use of such a

device is not appropriate.

Request To Specify Flight Hours in

Compliance Time Intervals

One commenter requests that the

proposal be revised to indicate that the

various inspections and tests are

required to be performed at intervals

stated in terms of ‘‘flight hours.’’ The

proposal stated these compliance times

in terms of ‘‘hours.’’

The FAA concurs, since this was the

intent of those requirements. (The word

‘‘flight’’ was inadvertently omitted from

the published version of the proposal.)

The final rule has been corrected to

indicate that the initial inspection is to

be repeated at intervals not to exceed

5,000 flight hours or 18 months,

whichever occurs first; and the

insulation resistance test is to be

repeated at intervals not to exceed 500

flight hours.

Request To Allow Replacement With

Other Than ‘‘New’’ Fuel Pumps

Several commenters request that the

proposal be revised to allow the

installation of other than ‘‘new’’ fuel

pumps whenever replacement of the

pump is required. These commenters

point out that the reference to ‘‘new’’

fuel pump in the provisions of the

proposed AD literally excludes the use

of a refurbished or overhauled pump.

Since both an overhauled and a new

pump are airworthy, the commenters

request that either be allowed to be

installed as replacement parts. Another

commenter points out that the use of the

word ‘‘new’’ may create the

misunderstanding that a replacement

pump must be a ‘‘new model’’ or a later

configuration.

The FAA concurs with the

commenters’ request, and has revised

the provisions in the final rule to

indicate that discrepant fuel pumps

must be replaced with ‘‘new or

serviceable’’ pumps.

Request To Delete Resistance Test on

Replacement Pumps

Several commenters request that the

proposal be revised to delete the

requirement to perform an insulation

resistance test of the fuel pump wiring

after a fuel pump is replaced. The

commenters maintain that the

insulation resistance test provided in

the Component Maintenance Manual

(CMM) is more stringent than that

provided in the referenced Boeing

service bulletins. Several of these

commenters (both U.S. and non-U.S.

operators) state that all of the spare

pumps in their inventories must pass an

insulation resistance test in accordance

with the CMM before they are put on

the shelf. The commenters assert that, to

require another resistance test

immediately after a spare is installed as

a replacement pump, is needlessly

redundant.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ request. While some

operators may be conducting the

resistance tests on the spares in their

inventory, the FAA has no assurance

that all operators are doing so. The FAA

cannot assume that all operators,

worldwide, are following such

procedures. Further, the FAA has

determined that the resistance test

procedures described in the referenced

Boeing service bulletins are both

adequate and appropriate for detecting

the sort of reduced resistance that

would pose safety concerns. In light of

these factors, the FAA finds no reason

to delete the requirement for a
5750 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

resistance test of replaced fuel pumps

prior to flight.

Request To Allow Continued Flight if

Replacement Pump is Unavailable

One commenter requests that

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the proposal be

revised to allow continued flight if the

resistance measurement is less than or

equal to 1 megohms and a new unit is

not available. The proposal would

require that the fuel pump be replaced

prior to further flight. This commenter

suggests that a pump that fails the

insulation resistance test could be

deactivated and the airplane be allowed

to continue in service in accordance

with the Minimum Equipment List

(MEL) under the guidelines contained in

sections 2–28–22–1 and 2–28–22–2 of

the Boeing Dispatch Deviation Guide,

Document D630N002. The failed pump

should then be replaced as soon as a

new unit is available.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent fuel leakage in the area of the

fuel boost and override pumps; such

leakage could result in a fire at the

location of the affected fuel pump.

Based on the safety implications

associated with this unsafe condition,

the FAA has determined that, if a pump

is found to be defective during the

inspections required by this AD, that

pump must be replaced and the airplane

must not continue to operate until the

pump is replaced. The FAA finds no

technical justification to permit further

flight without an operative pump.

Where there are differences between an

AD and an MEL, the AD prevails.

Further, as indicated earlier, the FAA

is not aware of any problem regarding

obtaining replacement pumps as needed

to comply with this AD. If operators are

concerned about the availability of

replacement parts, they should schedule

the required inspections so that another

pump is always available if needed for

replacement.

Request To Clarify Need for Fuel Pump

Ground Continuity Check

One commenter requests clarification

as to whether a continuity check of the

fuel pump ground wire is required as

part of the insulation resistance test.

The commenter does not consider the

proposal to be clear on this.

The FAA considers that the

requirement to conduct the continuity

check was implicit in the proposal. The

procedures for conducting the

continuity check are clearly iterated in

the same paragraph of the

Accomplishment Instructions (of both

Boeing service bulletins referenced in

the proposal) as the procedures for the

insulation resistance test. Since the

continuity check of the ground wire is

unquestionably a part of the required

resistance test, it is required to be

conducted for compliance with this AD.

(As stated previously, the FAA

considers the check to be an important

step, without which the resistance test

cannot be considered adequate.) To

make this eminently clear to operators,

however, the FAA has added NOTE 3 to

paragraph (a) of the final rule to indicate

that the continuity check of the pump

ground wire is part of the insulation

resistance test.

Request To Revise Criteria of Insulation

Resistance Test

One commenter requests that

paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(ii),

and (a)(2)(iii) be revised to specify that

‘‘all’’ resistance measurements must be

greater than the indicated value in order

to allow the continuation of inspections

(rather than replacement of the fuel

pump). There are three resistances to be

measured, one per power pin, and all of

them should register between 1 and 5

megohms or more than 5 megohms to be

considered acceptable for remaining on

the airplane. However, the wording in

the proposal states that inspections are

to be repeated if ‘‘any’’ resistance

measurement is greater than the specific

value; this implies that only one of the

three power pins must meet this

resistance requirement. The referenced

service bulletin instructions specify that

‘‘all‘‘ of the pins should meet the

requirement.

The FAA concurs that revision is

necessary. It was the intent of the FAA

to make the requirements of the AD as

parallel as possible to the instructions

and recommendations of the

manufacturer’s reference service

bulletin. The final rule has been revised

accordingly.

Request To Allow Use of Alternative

Equipment for Testing

One commenter requests that the

proposal be revised to indicate that use

of testing equipment, other than that

specified in the referenced Boeing

service bulletins, is permitted when

accomplishing the required inspections.

The commenter first points out that the

AVTRON Model T477W bonding meter

called out in the Accomplishment

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin

757–28A0043, Revision 1, does not

measure the full range of acceptable

resistance values (10 megohms or less).

The commenter requests that use of this

meter not be required. Additionally, the

commenter states that it is nearly

impossible to accomplish the resistance

checks by pressing the meter probes

against the electrical contacts of the

motor. To facilitate obtaining these

measurements, the commenter

recommends, instead, the use of a breakout box with a connector that mates to

the pump; the commenter has used this

method successfully on eight airplanes

in its fleet. The commenter also states

that other options are available, such as

adapter leads for meter probes, and the

proposal should reference these.

The FAA does not consider that a

revision to the requirements of the AD

is necessary. As for use of the AVTRON

bonding meter, Boeing has reiterated to

the FAA that this ohmmeter is perfectly

appropriate for measuring low

resistances, and is currently the only

ohmmeter that can be used in areas

where there is the potential existence of

flammable fluids. As for the use of a

break-out box or other equipment not

specified in the referenced Boeing

service bulletins, the FAA cannot

comment without further data.

However, under the provisions of

paragraph (c) of the final rule, the FAA

may approve requests for use of

alternative methods of compliance if

data are submitted to substantiate that

such methods would provide an

acceptable level of safety.

Request for Terminating Action

Two commenters request that the

proposed rule be revised to include

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections.

The FAA cannot concur with these

commenters, since a terminating action

does not currently exist. The addressed

unsafe condition is related to the

problems associated with corrosion that

occurs in the fuel pump assembly;

unless the materials of the components

themselves are changed to more

corrosion-resistant materials, or unless

the design of the assembly itself is

totally reconfigured, there likely will be

no terminating action in the very near

future. However, via the reporting

requirement included in this AD, the

FAA will continue to monitor the ongoing condition of this area within the

fleet. If conditions warrant, the FAA

may consider additional rulemaking

action to ensure further improvements

of the pump assembly.

Request for Extension of Reporting

Requirement

Two commenters request that

paragraph (b) of the proposal be revised

to extend the time for submitting the

initial inspection results from the

proposed 10 days to 30 days.These

commenters indicate that, due to the

sheer volume of data required,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5751

especially of operators with large fleets,

additional time will be needed to

prepare a complete and comprehensive

report of findings.

The FAA concurs and has revised

paragraph (b) of the final rule

accordingly.

The FAA has also revised paragraph

(b) to indicate that operators who

already accomplished the initial

inspection prior to the effective date of

the AD should submit the report within

30 days after the effective date.

Request To Specify Additional Service

Information

Crane Company, Hydro-Aire Division,

which the manufacturer of the fuel

boost and override pumps, requests that

the proposal be revised to cite Crane’s

Service Information Letter (SIL) 989–9–

8, dated July 22, 1996, as an additional

source of appropriate service

instructions. This commenter states that

the SIL provides detailed instructions

regarding replacement of the connectors

that exhibit resistance lower than the

acceptable limits specified in the

referenced Boeing service bulletins.

The FAA does not concur. The SIL

provides instructions for repairing

existing fuel pumps that require the

replacement of electrical connectors.

This information could be used for

pump repair, but the FAA does not

consider it necessary for accomplishing

the actions required by this AD. The

FAA finds that the information

contained in the reference Boeing

service bulletins is sufficient for

conducting those actions properly.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,084 Model

747 series airplanes and 716 Model 757

series airplanes of the affected design in

the worldwide fleet. Of these airplanes,

242 Model 747 series airplanes and 462

Model 757 series airplanes are of U.S.

registry and will be affected by this AD.

For the 242 Model 747 series

airplanes, it will take approximately 18

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the AD

on U.S. operators of Model 747 series

airplanes is estimated to be $261,360, or

$1,080 per airplane.

For the 462 Model 757 series

airplanes, it will take approximately 12

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the AD

on U.S. operators of Model 757 series

airplanes is estimated to be $332,640, or

$720 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

97–03–17 Boeing: Amendment 39–9922.

Docket 96–NM–57–AD.

Applicability: All Model 747 and 757 series

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fuel leakage at the fuel boost

and override/jettison pumps, which could

result in a fire at the location of the affected

fuel pump, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 120 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform a visual inspection to

detect discrepancies (i.e., fuel leak, heat

discoloration, and damage) of the wire

terminal assembly, electrical connector, and

wire insulation on the fuel pump, in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

747–28A2194, Revision 1, dated January 18,

1996 (for Model 747 series airplanes), or

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–28A0043,

Revision 1, dated January 18, 1996 (for Model

757 series airplanes), as applicable.

Note 2: Inspections accomplished prior to

the effective date of this AD in accordance

with Boeing Service Bulletin 757–280043,

dated November 7, 1995, are considered

acceptable for compliance with the

requirements of this paragraph.

(1) If no discrepancy is detected, prior to

further flight, perform an insulation

resistance test of the fuel pump wiring, in

accordance with the Accomplishment

Instructions of the applicable service

bulletin.

Note 3: Each insulation resistance test of

the fuel pump wiring includes a continuity

check of the fuel pump ground wire, as

specifically indicated in the Accomplishment

Instructions of the applicable Boeing service

bulletin(s).

(i) If any resistance measurement is less

than or equal to 1 megohms, prior to further

flight, replace the fuel pump with a new or

serviceable fuel pump, in accordance with

the applicable service bulletin. Prior to

further flight following accomplishment of

the replacement, repeat the insulation

resistance test.

(ii) If all resistance measurements are

greater than 1 megohm, but one or more are

less than 5 megohms: Repeat the visual

inspection and insulation resistance test

within 500 flight hours, or replace the fuel
5752 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

pump with a new or serviceable fuel pump.

Prior to further flight following

accomplishment of the replacement, repeat

the insulation resistance test.

(iii) If all resistance measurements are

greater than or equal to 5 megohms, repeat

the visual inspection and insulation

resistance test within 5,000 flight hours or 18

months, whichever occur first.

(2) If any discrepancy is detected, prior to

further flight, replace the fuel pump with a

new or serviceable fuel pump, in accordance

with the applicable service bulletin. Prior to

further flight following accomplishment of

the replacement, perform an insulation

resistance test of the fuel pump wiring, in

accordance with the Accomplishment

Instructions of the applicable service

bulletin.

(i) If any resistance measurement is less

than or equal to 1 megohms, prior to further

flight, replace the fuel pump with a new or

serviceable fuel pump, in accordance with

the applicable service bulletin. Prior to

further flight following accomplishment of

the replacement, repeat the insulation

resistance test.

(ii) If all resistance measurements are

greater than 1 megohm, but one or more are

less than 5 megohms: Repeat the visual

inspection and insulation resistance test

within 500 flight hours, or replace the fuel

pump with a new or serviceable fuel pump.

Prior to further flight following

accomplishment of the replacement, repeat

the insulation resistance test.

(iii) If all resistance measurements are

greater than or equal to 5 megohms, repeat

the visual inspection and insulation

resistance test within 5,000 flight hours or 18

months, whichever occur first.

(b) Within 30 days after accomplishing the

initial visual inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, or within 30 days

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

is later, submit a report of the inspection

results (both positive and negative findings)

to the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification

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

Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2180; fax (206) 227–1181.

Information collection requirements

contained in this regulation have been

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2120–0056.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(e) Except as specified in NOTE 2 of this

AD, the actions shall be done in accordance

with Boeing Service Bulletin 747–28A2194,

Revision 1, dated January 18, 1996 (for Model

747 series airplanes); or Boeing Service

Bulletin 757–28A0043, Revision 1, dated

January 18, 1996 (for Model 757 series

airplanes); as applicable. This incorporation

by reference was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register in accordance with 5

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

be obtained from Boeing Commercial

Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

March 14, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

30, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–2854 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–124–AD; Amendment

39–9920; AD 97–03–15]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and Model DC–9–

80 Series Airplanes, Model MD–88

Airplanes, and C–9 (Military) Series

Airplanes Equipped With BFGoodrich

Evacuation Slides

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and Model DC–9–

80 series airplanes, Model MD–88

airplanes, and C–9 (military) series

airplanes, that requires modification of

the girt and firing lanyard stowage. This

amendment is prompted by reports of

in-cabin inflation of certain evacuation

slides due to the impingement of the

galley service cart on the slide girt and

firing lanyard. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent

inadvertent inflation of the evacuation

slides inside the cabin, which could

contribute to injury of passengers and/

or flightcrew in the passenger cabin.

DATES: Effective March 14, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of March 14,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from BFGoodrich Company, Aircraft

Evacuation Systems, Department 7916,

Phoenix, Arizona 85040. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tracy Ton, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712;

telephone (310) 627–5352; fax (310)

627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and Model DC–9–

80 series airplanes, Model MD–88

airplanes, and C–9 (military) series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on November 5, 1996 (61 FR

56919). That action proposed to require

modification of the girt and firing

lanyard stowage.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the two

comments received.

Both commenters support the

proposed rule.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 300

BFGoodrich evacuation slides installed

on 100 McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

9 and Model DC–9–80 series airplanes,

Model MD–88 airplanes, and C–9

(military) series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 180

BFGoodrich evacuation slides installed

on 60 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 2 work hours per slide to

accomplish the required actions, and