Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10199 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

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

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

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

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

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. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2009–0212; 

Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–122–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by April 24, 

2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 

737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900 and 

–900ER series airplanes, certificated in any 

category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 27: Flight controls. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from reports of low 

rudder pedal forces that were caused by a 

broken inner spring in the rudder feel and 

centering unit; a broken inner spring in 

conjunction with a broken outer spring 

would significantly reduce rudder pedal 

forces. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

reduced rudder pedal forces, which could 

result in increased potential for pilot-induced 

oscillations and reduce the ability of the 

flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and 

landing of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

Test/Inspection 

(g) For Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

and –900 series airplanes identified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–27A1287, 

dated April 16, 2008: Within 30 days after 

the effective date of this AD, perform a test 

of the rudder pedal forces or a detailed 

inspection of the inner spring of the rudder 

feel and centering unit, by doing all the 

applicable actions, including all applicable 

corrective actions before further flight, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–27A1287, dated April 16, 2008. Repeat 

the test or inspection thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 120 days. 

Terminating Action 

(h) For Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

and –900 series airplanes identified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–27A1287, 

dated April 16, 2008: Within 36 months after 

the effective date of this AD, replace the 

spring assembly in the rudder feel and 

centering unit in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–27A1287, dated April 

16, 2008. Accomplishing the replacement 

ends the repetitive tests or inspections 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD. 

Parts Installation 

(i) For all airplanes: As of the effective date 

of this AD, no person may install, on any 

airplane, a rudder feel and centering unit 

having part number (P/N) 65C25410–7, serial 

numbers 3609 through 3820 inclusive, unless 

it has been modified according to paragraph 

(h) of this AD. 

No Reporting Required 

(j) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1287, dated April 16, 2008, specifies 

sending a data reporting sheet to Boeing; 

however, this AD does not require that 

action. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: 

Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6490; fax 

(425) 917–6590; has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, in the FAA Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO), or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local FSDO. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

27, 2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–5015 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0211; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–028–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330–200, A330–300, A340–200, and 

A340–300 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

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: 

* * * * * 

[B]ogie beam internal paint has been 

degraded, leading to a loss of cadmium 

plating and thus allowing development of 

corrosion pitting. 

If not corrected, this situation under higher 

speed could result in the aircraft departing 

the runway or in the bogie [beam] detaching 

from the aircraft or [main landing] gear 

collapses, which would constitute an unsafe 

condition. 

* * * * * 

The proposed AD would require 

actions that are intended to address the 

unsafe condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

10200 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. For Airbus service 

information identified in this proposed 

AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness 

Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; 

fax +33 5 61 93 45 80, e-mail 

airworthiness.A330-A340@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. For 

Messier-Dowty service information 

identified in this proposed AD, contact 

Messier Services Americas, Customer 

Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, 

Sterling, Virginia 20166–8910; 

telephone 703–450–8233; fax 703–404– 

1621; Internet https:// 

techpubs.services.messier-dowty.com. 

You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1138; fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2009–0211; Directorate Identifier 

2008–NM–028–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2008–0093, 

dated May 20, 2008 (referred to after 

this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

The operator of an A330 aircraft (which 

has a common bogie beam with the A340) 

has reported a fracture of the RH (right-hand) 

MLG (main landing gear) Bogie Beam whilst 

turning during low speed taxi maneuvers. 

The bogie [beam] fractured aft of the pivot 

point and remained attached to the sliding 

tube by the brake torque reaction rods. After 

this RH bogie [beam] failure, the aircraft 

continued for approximately 40 meters on 

the forks of the sliding member before 

coming to rest on the taxiway without any 

passenger injury. 

The preliminary investigations revealed 

that this event was due to corrosion pitting 

occurring on the bore of the bogie beam. 

Investigations are ongoing to determine why 

bogie beam internal paint has been degraded, 

leading to a loss of cadmium plating and thus 

allowing development of corrosion pitting. 

If not corrected, this situation under higher 

speed could result in the aircraft departing 

the runway or in the bogie [beam] detaching 

from the aircraft or [main landing] gear 

collapses, which would constitute an unsafe 

condition. 

To enable early detection and repair of any 

corrosion of the internal surfaces, EASA AD 

2007–0314 required a one-time inspection on 

all MLG Bogie Beams except Enhanced MLG 

Bogie Beams and the reporting of the results 

to AIRBUS. 

The Revision 1 of AD 2007–0314 aimed to 

clarify the compliance time of the inspection 

and to extend the reporting period. 

The present AD which supersedes the AD 

2007–0314R1: 

—Takes over the AD 2007–0314R1 

requirements and 

—Reduces the inspection threshold from 6 to 

4.5 years due to significant findings on the 

inspected aircraft. 

Required actions include applying 

protective treatments to the bogie beam 

and corrective actions. Corrective 

actions include repair of any damaged 

or corroded surfaces or surface 

treatments; and contacting MessierDowty for repair instructions and doing 

the repair. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus and Messier-Dowty have 

issued the service information described 

in the following table. The actions 

described in this service information are 

intended to correct the unsafe condition 

identified in the MCAI. 

SERVICE INFORMATION

Service Bulletin Date 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–32–3225, including Appendix 01 ............................................................................ November 21, 2007. 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–32–4268, including Appendix 01 ............................................................................ November 21, 2007. 

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–271, including Appendix A .................................................................................. September 13, 2007. 

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–272, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D ........................................................ November 16, 2007. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, we have been notified 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all pertinent 

information and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

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 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have proposed 

different actions in this AD from those 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10201 

in the MCAI in order to follow FAA 

policies. Any such differences are 

highlighted in a NOTE within the 

proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 29 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 22 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$51,040, or $1,760 per product. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

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

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

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

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2009–0211; 

Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–028–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by April 9, 

2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330– 

200, A330–300, A340–200, and A340–300 

series airplanes; certificated in any category; 

all certified models; all serial numbers, 

except those on which Airbus modification 

54500 has been embodied in production or 

Airbus Service Bulletin A330–32–3212 has 

been embodied in service. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 32: Landing Gear. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

‘‘The operator of an A330 aircraft (which 

has a common bogie beam with the A340) 

has reported a fracture of the RH (right-hand) 

MLG (main landing gear) Bogie Beam whilst 

turning during low speed taxi maneuvers. 

The bogie [beam] fractured aft of the pivot 

point and remained attached to the sliding 

tube by the brake torque reaction rods. After 

this RH bogie [beam] failure, the aircraft 

continued for approximately 40 meters on 

the forks of the sliding member before 

coming to rest on the taxiway without any 

passenger injury. 

‘‘The preliminary investigations revealed 

that this event was due to corrosion pitting 

occurring on the bore of the bogie beam. 

Investigations are ongoing to determine why 

bogie beam internal paint has been degraded, 

leading to a loss of cadmium plating and thus 

allowing development of corrosion pitting. 

‘‘If not corrected, this situation under 

higher speed could result in the aircraft 

departing the runway or in the bogie [beam] 

detaching from the aircraft or [main landing] 

gear collapses, which would constitute an 

unsafe condition. 

‘‘To enable early detection and repair of 

any corrosion of the internal surfaces, EASA 

AD 2007–0314 required a one-time 

inspection on all MLG Bogie Beams except 

Enhanced MLG Bogie Beams and the 

reporting of the results to AIRBUS. 

‘‘The Revision 1 of AD 2007–0314 aimed 

to clarify the compliance time of the 

inspection and to extend the reporting 

period. 

‘‘The present AD which supersedes the AD 

2007–0314R1: 

—Takes over the AD 2007–0314R1 

requirements and 

—Reduces the inspection threshold from 6 to 

4.5 years due to significant findings on the 

inspected aircraft.’’ 

Required actions include applying protective 

treatments to the bogie beam and corrective 

actions. Corrective actions include repair of 

any damaged or corroded surfaces or surface 

treatments; and contacting Messier-Dowty for 

repair instructions and doing the repair. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) At the applicable compliance time 

specified in paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this 

AD: Clean the internal bore and perform a 

detailed visual inspection of internal surfaces 

of the MLG bogie beam (right-hand and lefthand) for any damage to the protective 

treatments or any corrosion, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–32– 

3225 or A340–32–4268, both dated 

November 21, 2007; as applicable. 

(i) If no damage and corrosion is found, 

before further flight, apply the protective 

treatments of the bogie beam, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32– 

272, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, 

dated November 16, 2007. 

(ii) If any damage or corrosion is found, 

before further flight, do all applicable 

corrective actions and apply the protective 

treatments of the bogie beam, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32– 

272, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, 

dated November 16, 2007. 

(2) For airplanes with 54 months or less 

time-in-service since the date of issuance of 

the original French airworthiness certificate 

or the date of issuance of the original French 

export certificate of airworthiness as of the 

effective date of this AD: At the latest of the 

applicable times specified in paragraphs 

(f)(2)(i), (f)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) of this AD, do 

the actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of 

this AD. 

(i) Not before 54 months since the date of 

issuance of the original French airworthiness 

certificate or the date of issuance of the 

original French export certificate of 

airworthiness, but no later than 72 months 

since the date of issuance of the original 

French airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original French export 

certificate of airworthiness. 

(ii) Not before 54 months since the 

installation of a new bogie beam in-service 

10202 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

before the effective date of this AD, but no 

later than 72 months since the installation of 

a new bogie beam in-service before the 

effective date of this AD. 

(iii) Not before 54 months since the last 

overhaul of a bogie beam before the effective 

date of this AD, but no later than 72 months 

since the last overhaul of a bogie beam before 

the effective date of this AD. 

(3) For airplanes with more than 54 months 

time-in-service since the date of issuance of 

the original French airworthiness certificate 

or the date of issuance of the original French 

export certificate of airworthiness as of the 

effective date of this AD: At the applicable 

time specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), 

(f)(3)(iii), (f)(3)(iv), or (f)(3)(v) of this AD, do 

the actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of 

this AD. 

(i) For airplanes on which the bogie beam 

has not been replaced or overhauled since 

the date of issuance of the original French 

airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original French export 

certificate of airworthiness as of the effective 

date of this AD: Within 18 months after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(ii) For airplanes on which the bogie beam 

has been replaced in-service with a new 

bogie beam and the new bogie beam has more 

than 54 months time-in-service as of the 

effective date of this AD: Within 18 months 

after the effective date of this AD. 

(iii) For airplanes on which the bogie beam 

has been replaced in-service with a new 

bogie beam and the new bogie beam has 54 

months or less time-in-service as of the 

effective date of this AD: Not before 54 

months since the installation of a new bogie 

beam in-service before the effective date of 

this AD, but no later than 72 months since 

the installation of a new bogie beam inservice before the effective date of this AD. 

(iv) For airplanes on which the bogie beam 

has been overhauled and the overhauled 

bogie beam has more than 54 months timein-service as of the effective date of this AD: 

Within 18 months after the effective date of 

this AD, or at the next scheduled bogie beam 

overhaul, whichever occurs first. 

(v) For airplanes on which the bogie beam 

has been overhauled and the overhauled 

bogie beam has 54 months or less time-inservice as of the effective date of this AD: Not 

before 54 months since the last overhaul of 

a bogie beam before the effective date of this 

AD, but no later than 72 months since the 

last overhaul of a bogie beam before the 

effective date of this AD. 

(4) Within 30 days after accomplishment of 

the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of 

this AD or within 30 days after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later, 

report the results, including no findings, to 

Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; e-mail 

airworthiness.A330-A340@airbus.com. 

(5) Actions accomplished in accordance 

with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/ 

34–32–271, including Appendix A, dated 

September 13, 2007, are considered 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding requirements of this AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: The 

MCAI specifies repair and corrective actions 

in accordance with Airbus Mandatory 

Service Bulletin A330–32–3225 or A340–32– 

4268, both dated November 21, 2007; 

however, the Airbus service bulletins do not 

describe those actions. Paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 

and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD specify repair and 

corrective actions in accordance with 

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32– 

272, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, 

dated November 16, 2007. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Vladimir 

Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1138; fax (425) 227–1149. Before 

using any approved AMOC on any airplane 

to which the AMOC applies, notify your 

principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or 

principal avionics inspector (PAI), as 

appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, 

your local Flight Standards District Office. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

has approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 

2008–0093, dated May 20, 2008, and the 

service bulletins specified in Table 1 of this 

AD, for related information. 

TABLE 1—SERVICE INFORMATION

Service Bulletin Date 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–32–3225, including Appendix 01 ............................................................................ November 21, 2007. 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–32–4268, including Appendix 01 ............................................................................ November 21, 2007. 

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–271, including Appendix A .................................................................................. September 13, 2007. 

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–272, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D ........................................................ November 16, 2007. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

24, 2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–5062 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0213; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–224–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model MD–90–30 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

McDonnell Douglas Model MD–90–30 

airplanes. This proposed AD would 

require installing fuses and wire 

protection in certain wing and fuel tank 

spars. This proposed AD results from 

fuel system reviews conducted by the 

manufacturer. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent possible damage to the fuel 

level float or pressure switch wires. 

Such damage could become a potential 

ignition source inside the fuel tank, and, 

combined with flammable fuel vapors, 

could result in a fuel tank explosion and 

consequent loss of the airplane.