[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 104 (Thursday, May 29, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30737-30743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11467]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28389; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-171-AD; 
Amendment 39-15536; AD 2008-11-13]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and 
-300ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for 
certain Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series 
airplanes. This AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations 
(AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by 
incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special 
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD also requires 
the initial performance of certain repetitive inspections specified in 
the AWLs 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 fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the 
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 3, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 3, 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: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer, 
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 
(425) 917-6500; fax (425) 917-6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain 
Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. That 
supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 28, 
2008 (73 FR 10698). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require revising 
the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for 
Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by incorporating new limitations for fuel 
tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 
(SFAR 88) requirements. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to require 
the initial performance of certain repetitive inspections specified in 
the AWLs to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary.

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has issued Temporary Revision (TR) 
09-014, dated December 2007. Boeing TR 09-014 is published as Section 9 
of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) Document, 
D622W001-9, Revision February 2008 (hereafter referred to as ``Revision 
February 2008 of the MPD''). The supplemental NPRM referred to Revision 
October 2007 of the MPD as the appropriate source of service 
information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision February 
2008 of the MPD 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.
    Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this 
AD to refer to Revision February 2008 of the MPD. 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 Revision October 2007 or 
Revision December 2007 of the MPD are acceptable for compliance with 
the corresponding

[[Page 30738]]

requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    Operators should note that we have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this 
AD to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-
20 inclusive. AWLs No. 28-AWL-21 through No. 28-AWL-26 were added in 
Revision December 2007 of the MPD for Model 777-200LR series airplanes 
equipped with an auxiliary fuel tank. We might issue additional 
rulemaking to require the incorporation of those AWLs. However, as an 
optional action, operators may incorporate those optional AWLs as 
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. Operators should also note 
that we might issue a separate NPRM that proposes to incorporate AWL 
No. 28-AWL-19 and No. 28-AWL-20 into the AWLs section of the ICA and 
the associated design change.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the 
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Support for the Supplemental NPRM

    Boeing, American Airlines, and United Airlines (UAL) concur with 
the contents of the supplemental NPRM. The Air Transport Association 
(ATA) agrees with the intent of the supplemental NPRM.

Request for Clarification of Paragraph (g)

    The ATA, on behalf of UAL, submitted a comment stating that there 
might be a logic error in the proposed requirement of paragraph (g) of 
the supplemental NPRM. UAL states that it understands that the proposed 
action is to revise the AWLs section of the ICA to ``Incorporate the 
MPD into the MPD.''
    We infer that the commenters request that we clarify the 
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. We agree that clarification 
is necessary. The intent of paragraph (g) of this AD is to require the 
operator to incorporate Subsections D and E of Revision February 2008 
of the MPD into the operator's existing MPD. We have deleted the words 
``into the MPD'' from paragraph (g) of this AD to eliminate any 
confusion.

Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03

    The ATA, on behalf of Continental Airlines (CAL), submitted a 
request to revise the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of 
Revision October 2007 of the MPD to reflect the appropriate limits for 
in-service airplanes. CAL states that the limits in AWL No. 28-AWL-03 
reflect factory limits, and that mandating those limits would result in 
non-compliance and ground the Model 777 fleet. CAL states that the 
limits in AWL No. 28-AWL-03 should be harmonized with the limits in 
Tables 601 and 602 of Task 05-55-54-200-801 of the Boeing 777 Airplane 
Maintenance Manual (AMM), which contain bonding resistance values for 
in-service airplanes. CAL further requests that the new limits be 
published before May 2008, so that operators have adequate time to 
develop the necessary task cards before the required compliance time of 
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    We agree that the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of 
Revision October 2007 of the MPD needed to be revised. Boeing published 
Revision February 2008 of the MPD to specify the appropriate values, 
which agree with the AMM. As stated previously, we have revised this AD 
accordingly.

Request To Clarify Paragraph (i)

    The ATA, on behalf of UAL, requests that we clarify paragraph (i) 
of the supplemental NPRM. UAL interprets paragraph (i) to mean that, 
prior to the accomplishment of paragraphs (g) and (h) of the 
supplemental NPRM, an operator is allowed to use alternative 
inspections, inspection intervals, or critical design configuration 
control limitations (CDCCLs), which are not part of subsequent 
revisions of Revision October 2007 of the MPD. UAL states that, if this 
interpretation is true, then paragraph (i) might be in conflict with 
section 121.1113 (``Fuel tank system maintenance program'') of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1113). UAL asks us to clarify 
whether paragraph (i) suspends the intent of 14 CFR 121.1113 and allows 
deviations until paragraphs (g) and (h) are complied with.
    We disagree with UAL's interpretation that this AD conflicts with 
14 CFR 121.1113. The two requirements are entirely compatible. That 
section requires that, no later than December 16, 2008, operators must 
incorporate applicable inspections, procedures, and limitations for 
fuel tank systems that have been approved under SFAR 88. The AWLs 
required by this AD are a portion of the SFAR 88 documents approved for 
these airplanes. Since the compliance date for this AD was chosen to 
coincide with the compliance date for 14 CFR 121.1113, compliance with 
this AD by that date will also be partial compliance with 14 CFR 
121.1113, and neither that section nor this AD impose requirements 
before that date. Paragraph (i) of this AD is also consistent with 14 
CFR 121.1113 in that both prohibit changing the requirements unless the 
changes are approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), which is the oversight office for this airplane model. No change 
to this AD is necessary in this regard.

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 February 2008 of the MPD, 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 Delete Reference to Task Cards

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) requests that we delete the words ``and 
task card,'' unless the task card references are listed in Subsection D 
of the MPD 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 original 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

[[Page 30739]]

AMM and maintenance personnel always refer to the AMM. ANA further 
states that the applicable task card references are not listed in 
Subsection D of the MPD, or in Appendix 1 of the original 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 original 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 
original 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 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 16,000 flight cycles/3,000 days to only 6,000 days for 
Model 777 airplanes.
    We infer that KLM requests we revise paragraph (h) of this AD to 
extend the compliance time to 6,000 days for AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 and No. 
28-AWL-03. We disagree because we have determined that it would be 
inappropriate to extend the inspection intervals. Given the safety 
implications for these inspections, 6,000 days (approximately over 16 
years) is too long, especially since these areas are accessed more 
frequently than every 16 years for maintenance. Also, KLM did not 
include any reliability information showing that the systems can 
continue to safely operate between the proposed inspection periods. 
However, according to the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, we 
might approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request 
includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an 
acceptable level of safety. No change to this AD is necessary in this 
regard.

Request To Require Latest Revision of the AMM

    JAL requests that we revise the original 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 original 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 MPD 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 original 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 
February 2008 of the MPD. 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, 
all 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 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 original 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 MPD. 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 Revise AMM Task 28-11-00

    The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment regarding AWL No. 
28-AWL-01, which specifies doing

[[Page 30740]]

repetitive detailed inspections of the wire bundles routed over the 
center fuel tank and under the main deck floor boards to detect damaged 
clamps, wire chafing, and any wire bundle that is in contact with the 
surface of the center fuel tank. The AWL specifies doing the inspection 
in accordance with Task 28-11-00 of the Boeing 777 AMM. CAL states 
that, according to the definition for a detailed inspection in the 
Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems (EAPAS) Participant 
Guide, dated August 2007, a detailed inspection may include a tactile 
assessment in which a component or assembly is checked for tightness 
and security (to ensure continued integrity of installations such as 
bonding jumpers and terminal connectors). CAL states that the 
inspection for tightness and security might require the disassembly of 
the wire installation, but that there are no re-installation procedures 
in the current routine manuals. CAL also states that maintenance 
personnel have to disassemble the entire wire bundle installation to 
accomplish the detailed inspection in Task 28-11-00-210-801 of the 
Boeing 777 AMM. According to CAL, this action, in the past, has created 
more discrepancies with wire bundle installations.
    We infer the commenters request that Boeing revise Task 28-11-00 of 
the Boeing 777 AMM to include procedures for re-installation of the 
wire bundles. We do not agree that the Boeing 777 AMM needs to be 
revised. This inspection does not require any disassembly of wire 
bundle installations because, as CAL points out, disassembly might 
create an unsafe condition. The guidance for a detailed inspection 
provided by the Maintenance Steering Group 3 (MSG-3) and EAPAS includes 
a tactile assessment of bundle security, which uses the mechanic's 
hands to pull on the bundle. A visual inspection is not sufficient. The 
tactile assessment is intended to be a non-intrusive inspection. No 
change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise AMM Task 28-11-00-210-801

    The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment regarding Task 28-
11-00-210-801 of the Boeing 777 AMM for accomplishing a detailed 
inspection of the wire bundles between the main deck and the top 
surface of the center fuel tank. (Task 28-11-00 is referenced in AWL 
No. 28-AWL-01 of Revision February 2008 of the MPD.) CAL states that 
the task procedures do not provide specific details or information for 
the wire bundle installation to ensure that maintenance personnel can 
comply with the design requirements. CAL also states that the wire 
bundle installation has been modified according to Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 777-57A0050, dated January 26, 2006; and Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 777-57A0051, dated May 15, 2006. CAL states that it provided 
comments to the NPRM that propose to mandate the accomplishment of 
those service bulletins. (That NPRM (Docket No. FAA-2007-27042) was 
published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2007 (72 FR 3956).)
    We infer the commenters request that Boeing revise Task 28-11-00-
210-801 of the Boeing 777 AMM to provide specific details for the wire 
bundle installation. We do not agree that the Boeing 777 AMM needs to 
be revised because specific design information is not needed for 
accomplishing this inspection. The type and location of the wiring over 
the center fuel tank can vary among airplanes, and these details are 
not necessary to complete the inspection. AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is 
concerned with wire installation failures that will eventually lead to 
arcing through the top surface of the tank. That AWL and the referenced 
AMM provide for the type of failures that might progress to arcing, and 
any wire bundle in that area needs to be inspected. No change to this 
AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise AMM by Including Warning Statements

    The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment regarding Tasks 28-
11-00-210-801 and 05-55-54-200-801 of the Boeing 777 AMM. CAL states 
that these tasks do not contain CDCCL warning statements to alert 
maintenance personnel of their importance to regulatory compliance 
requirements.
    We infer the commenters request that Boeing revise the Boeing 777 
AMM to include warning statements as stated by CAL. We do not agree 
that the Boeing 777 AMM needs to be revised because Step A.(1) of the 
relevant AMM sections contains notes about the CDCCLs. The FAA and 
Boeing chose to use notes, not warning statements, because we did not 
want to undermine other sections of the AMM, which are not tied to AWLs 
but are still necessary for maintaining the airplane. If CAL determines 
that a different approach would work better for its maintenance 
program, it can develop a different system with the help of its PMI or 
PAI. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Publish Manuals for Maintenance Personnel

    The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment stating that CAL is 
concerned that not enough attention has been given to ensure that 
specific detailed inspections are preserved for the long-term operation 
of its Model 777 fleet. CAL states that, other than some generic 
information found in Revision October 2007 of the MPD, there are no 
published maintenance documents for continuous airworthiness available 
to show each specific requirement as detailed in the airplane 
production drawings, such as Task 05-55-54-200-801 of the Boeing 777 
AMM. CAL further states that information detailed by the airplane 
production drawing must be available in manuals that are routinely used 
by the maintenance personnel. CAL asserts that making this information 
available will prevent the inadvertent reversal of the designated 
configuration, which could lead to violation of the supplemental NPRM, 
in addition to compromising the higher level of safety intended for the 
Model 777 fleet.
    CAL believes the current program, as provided by AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 
and No. 28-AWL-03 of Revision October 2007 of the MPD, is not ready to 
be implemented. CAL states that, if those AWLs are mandated as 
proposed, CAL would not be able to incorporate those AWLs in its Model 
777 fleet, and a high risk of future de-modification of the wire 
bundles would exist for airplanes on which those AWLs could be 
implemented. CAL recommends that we coordinate with Boeing regarding 
the changes it requests in the previous comments.
    We infer the commenters request that we delay issuance of the final 
rule until Boeing publishes manual(s) containing detailed information 
for maintenance personnel to accomplish the required AWL inspections. 
We disagree. To delay this action would be inappropriate, since we have 
determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the actions 
required by this AD must be mandated to ensure continued safety.
    The amount of detail within the Boeing 777 AMM needs to be 
balanced, and it might not be the same for every operator. The FAA and 
Boeing have worked together to define what design requirements need to 
be included in the AMMs for fuel tank ignition prevention features. If 
the AMMs are overly specific, they might be too voluminous to be used 
effectively and would be prone to errors, since wiring installations 
vary among airplanes. The amount of information needed to be

[[Page 30741]]

included in the AMMs will also vary among operators, depending on the 
processes and training for a given operator. If CAL determines more 
detailed design information needs to be included in its AMMs, CAL can 
work with its PMI or PAI and Boeing to add that information. 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 
original 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 original 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 February 2008 of the MPD. Third-party spare parts, such as 
parts approved by PMA, have not been reviewed. We expect that such 
parts might be found to be acceptable alternatives.
    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 MPD and 
that additional equipment should also be designated. For example, AWL 
No. 28-AWL-03 would require using loop 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 777 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 the MPD, 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 16,000 flight cycles or 3,000 days, whichever is first. 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 original 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.

Request To Clarify Approval of CMM Changes

    JAL requests that we clarify whether FAA approval is required for 
changes to the CMM. JAL states that, when it finds incorrect 
instructions, typographical

[[Page 30742]]

errors, or vague instructions in the CMM, it usually contacts the 
component manufacturer about those issues and revises the instructions 
in its own manuals. JAL states that those changes are not reflected in 
the CMM until the component manufacturer revises the CMM. JAL requests 
that we provide guidelines for CMM errors that do not require FAA 
approval.
    Changes to the CMMs must be approved by the FAA, or governing 
regulatory authority, before the revised CMMs can be used. No change to 
this AD is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the 
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public 
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. 
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the 
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 127 airplanes of U.S. registry. 
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Number of
                                                                             Cost per      U.S.-
               Action                  Work hours           Parts            airplane    registered   Fleet cost
                                                                                         airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWLs revision.......................            8  None..................         $640          127      $81,280
Inspection..........................            8  None..................          640          127       81,280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to 
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES 
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, 
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by 
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2008-11-13 Boeing: Amendment 39-15536. Docket No. FAA-2007-28389; 
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-171-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective July 3, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -
300ER series airplanes; certificated in any category; with an 
original standard airworthiness certificate or original export 
certificate of airworthiness issued before December 5, 2007.

    Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard airworthiness 
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued 
on or after December 5, 2007, must be already in compliance with the 
airworthiness limitations (AWLs) specified in this AD because those 
limitations were applicable as part of the airworthiness 
certification of those airplanes.


    Note 2: 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 fuel tank explosions and 
consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

Service Information

    (f) The term ``Revision February 2008 of the MPD,'' as used in 
this AD, means Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-014, dated December 
2007. Boeing TR 09-014 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 777 
Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) D622W001-9, Revision February 
2008.

[[Page 30743]]

Revision of Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Section

    (g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the AWLs section of the 
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by incorporating the 
information in the subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and 
(g)(2) of this AD; except that the initial inspections specified in 
paragraph (h) of this AD must be done at the compliance times 
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,'' of 
Revision February 2008 of the MPD.
    (2) Subsection E, ``PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS 
LIMITATIONS,'' AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-20 inclusive, 
of Revision February 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs 
No. 28-AWL-21 through No. 28-AWL-26 inclusive, as identified in 
Subsection E of Revision February 2008 of the MPD, also may be 
incorporated into the AWLs section of the ICA.

Initial Inspections and Repair

    (h) Do the inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) 
of this AD at the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) 
and (h)(2), in accordance with the applicable AWLs described in 
Subsection E of Revision February 2008 of the MPD. If any 
discrepancy is found during these inspections, repair the 
discrepancy before further flight in accordance with Revision 
February 2008 of the MPD.
    (1) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 
and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, do 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, and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-
01. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-01 as part of an FAA-approved 
maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified 
in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD constitutes 
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or 
within 3,000 days 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.
    (ii) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

    Note 3: 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.''

    (2) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) 
and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection 
(resistance test) of the lightning shield-to-ground termination of 
the out tank wiring of the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) 
and, as applicable, repair (restore) the bond to ensure the shield-
to-ground termination meets specified resistance values, in 
accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03 
as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable 
compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of 
this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this 
paragraph.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or 
within 3,000 days 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.
    (ii) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    Note 4: 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 February 2008 of 
the MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (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.

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 777 MPD Document, D622W001-
9, Revision October 2007; or Revision December 2007; 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, FAA, ATTN: Margaret Langsted, 
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue, 
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6500; 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 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 Temporary Revision (TR) 09-014, dated 
December 2007, to the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) 
Document, D622W001-9, to do the actions required by this AD, unless 
the AD specifies otherwise. Boeing TR 09-014 is published as Section 
9 of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) Document, 
D622W001-9, Revision February 2008. (The List of Effective Pages for 
Section 9 of Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) 
Document, D622W001-9, Revision February 2008, contains numerous 
errors. However, the revision/date identified on the individual 
pages of the document are correct.)
    (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 May 14, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-11467 Filed 5-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P