AD/B737/321 - Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations & Motor Operated valves

The directive rests on a small set of technical and regulatory concepts that determine its scope and mechanics.

Applicability via ASB: The AD applies to Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series aeroplanes “as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 737-28A1207, dated 15 February 2007.” The ASB is therefore the controlling document for aircraft identification and for the list of affected part numbers used in the inspections. The AD does not itself enumerate part numbers; it delegates that level of technical specificity to the ASB’s Accomplishment Instructions.

MOVs and fuel system AWLs: The three MOVs specified , left engine fuel shutoff (spar) valve, right engine fuel shutoff (spar) valve, and the fuel crossfeed valve , are identified as potential paths for electrical energy to enter the fuel tank via the actuator shaft. The AD combines hardware-focused inspection/corrective measures with a required update to the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness so future maintenance planning must include the relevant fuel-system AWLs (28-AWL-21, 28-AWL-22, 28-AWL-24). The AWL insertion points are specified as Section F of Boeing MPD Document D626A001-CMR, Section 9, Revision November 2006 R1.

Acceptable compliance alternatives and approvals: The AD permits a maintenance-records review in place of a physical inspection only when the maintenance records allow a conclusive determination of the part number. It also accepts later revisions of the ASB if approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2008-06-03; and it accepts later revisions of the MPD document if that revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. These provisions create two approval gates: FAA approval for AMOCs to the ASB, and Manager, Seattle ACO approval for MPD revisions.

Timing and sequencing: The compliance times and sequence are explicit. Requirement 1 (inspection/record review) is due within 60 months of the AD effective date; Requirement 2 (investigative/corrective actions) must be done before further flight after the Requirement 1 inspection/determination; Requirement 3 (AWL revision) is to be done concurrently with Requirement 1.

Safety mechanism: The AD explicitly states the safety failure mode it seeks to mitigate. The Background links the inspection/corrective programme and AWL revisions to preventing electrical energy ingress into fuel tanks through MOV actuator shafts, which the AD describes as a potential cause of fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

Regulatory reference structure: The AD operates as an instrument that references, and is cross-referenced by, other documents: the Boeing ASB 737-28A1207, Boeing MPD Document D626A001-CMR Section 9 Revision Nov 2006 R1, and FAA AD 2008-06-03 Amdt 39-15415. The AD thereby forms part of a network of manufacturer technical publication, airworthiness limitations, and an FAA AD that are treated as the compliance pathway.

The AD names the set of aeroplane models and links applicability to the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin. Primary legal and practical stakeholders are:

Aircraft operators and owners of Boeing 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series aeroplanes as identified in ASB 737-28A1207 dated 15 February 2007. The AD’s applicability language confines the directive to aircraft identified in the ASB; therefore operators should confirm whether their specific airframe serial numbers appear in that ASB’s applicability table. The AD does not extend automatically beyond that ASB identification.

Maintenance organisations and engineers responsible for carrying out inspections and rectification. Requirement 1 directs inspection (or records review), and Requirement 2 mandates investigative and corrective actions “in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-28A1207.” The technical work therefore falls to those qualified organisations that implement ASB procedures and document compliance.

Continuing airworthiness and planning staff. Requirement 3 requires that the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness be revised by incorporating specific MPD content; the people responsible for maintenance planning and MPD/AMM/Instructions for Continued Airworthiness revisions will undertake that administrative change.

Regulators and approval authorities. The AD references two approval gates outside the immediate national authority that issued the AD. It accepts later revisions of ASB 737-28A1207 as AMOCs to FAA AD 2008-06-03, and it accepts later MPD revisions if approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA. Practically, this places decision-making authority for certain alternative compliance paths with the FAA Manager, Seattle ACO and the FAA’s AMOC process, in addition to the originating regulator’s enforcement of the AD itself.

Documentation custodians. Because the AD allows a maintenance-records review in lieu of physical inspection only when the part number can be conclusively determined from records, persons responsible for record-keeping, traceability of parts and parts-number tracking are affected. The AD converts the conclusiveness of records into an enforcement hinge.

Operators’ flight operations. Requirement 2 ties remedial work to “before further flight” following an inspection/determination. That sequencing affects operational decisions about whether aircraft may continue to fly while awaiting corrective action and imposes an immediate ground/repair obligation in the event affected parts are identified.

Other stakeholders indirectly affected include insurers and lessors who will want documentary evidence of compliance for airworthiness and lease conditions, and any personnel responsible for audits that verify incorporation of the specified AWLs into the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

The AD is signed by a CASA delegate (James Coyne, 21 April 2008) and becomes effective 5 June 2008. These dates should be checked against operators’ internal compliance calendars to schedule the Requirement 1 completion within the 60-month window.

Duties

• Identification duty (Requirement 1): Operators must inspect the three specified MOV locations or carry out a maintenance-records review to determine whether MOVs with the affected part numbers identified in the ASB are installed. The AD places a positive obligation to either physically inspect or confidently establish part numbers from records within the compliance window.

• Corrective and investigative duty (Requirement 2): If affected parts are present, operators must “accomplish all applicable related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-28A1207.” The AD makes compliance with the ASB’s Accomplishment Instructions mandatory where affected parts are present.

• AWL incorporation duty (Requirement 3): Operators must revise the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating the specified Section F content from Boeing MPD Document D626A001-CMR, Section 9, Revision November 2006 R1, to include AWL No 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22 and No. 28-AWL-24. This is a change to the airline’s maintenance planning data and, by extension, scheduled maintenance tasks.

• Timing duties: Requirement 1 is due within 60 months of the AD effective date. Requirement 2 must be performed “before further flight after the Requirement 1 inspection/determination.” Requirement 3 is to be done concurrently with Requirement 1. These timing constraints convert the substantive duties into scheduling obligations.

Rights and permitted alternatives

• Records-review alternative to inspection: The AD explicitly accepts a maintenance-records review instead of a physical inspection on the condition that “the part number of the part can be conclusively determined from that review.” This is a permissive compliance route that reduces physical infrastructure burden if records are sufficiently granular and reliable.

• Use of later ASB revisions approved as AMOCs: The AD permits compliance using “later revisions of the ASB 737-28A1207, approved by the FAA as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-06-03.” In practical terms, if the FAA approves a later ASB revision as an AMOC, operators may use that later revision as the compliance standard for the equivalent requirements of this directive.

• Use of later MPD revisions with FAA approval: The AD accepts “accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD document ... if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), United States FAA.” This creates an authorised route for updated MPD content to satisfy Requirement 3, subject to FAA Manager approval.

• Discretionary approval pathways reside with FAA authorities: The AD delegates some discretionary compliance determinations to the FAA Manager, Seattle ACO and the FAA AMOC process. That means operators can seek alternative compliance methods or later revised technical documents approved by those FAA bodies.

Prescriptive references

• The AD ties the technical content of Required corrective action and AWL changes directly to named documents and specified sections: ASB 737-28A1207 Accomplishment Instructions for inspection/corrective work, and Boeing MPD Document D626A001-CMR, Section 9 Revision Nov 2006 R1 for AWL content. The AD therefore prescribes specific source material rather than setting implicit performance standards.

Decision and approval authorities

• The AD identifies the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, as the requisite approver for certain MPD revisions, and it recognises FAA AMOCs for later ASB revisions. The delegate of the issuing authority (James Coyne) signed the AD on 21 April 2008, and the AD takes effect on 5 June 2008.

The AD text supplied does not contain a schedule of penalties, monetary fines, or an express enforcement procedure within the document. It is an airworthiness directive that sets clear mandatory compliance requirements and deadlines, but it does not specify sanctions. The AD therefore imposes no self-contained statutory penalty mechanism in its text; rather it establishes mandatory technical and procedural obligations.

What the AD does provide relevant to enforcement:

• Mandatory compliance dates and sequencing: The AD sets enforceable compliance times , Requirement 1 due within 60 months, Requirement 2 before further flight after Requirement 1, Requirement 3 concurrent with Requirement 1. These prescribed times create discrete compliance checkpoints that an enforcing authority would use to determine whether an operator has complied.

• Documented compliance paths and approvals: The AD references specific documents (ASB 737-28A1207, Boeing MPD Document D626A001-CMR) and outside approval gates (FAA AMOC approvals, Manager Seattle ACO approval) as acceptable routes of compliance. An enforcement authority would assess whether an operator used an approved path or sought an appropriate approval for an alternative method.

• Operational hinge points: The AD makes certain obligations operationally enforceable by tying corrective action to flight status: if, as a result of Requirement 1, affected parts are found, Requirement 2 requires corrective actions before further flight. This creates an immediately actionable compliance requirement which an authority could enforce through grounding or refusal to issue certificates of airworthiness pending correction, if such powers are available under the regulator’s broader enforcement framework (the AD text itself does not state those powers).

Absence of statutory sanctions in the text implies an enforcement gap in the document itself: enforcement, investigation of non‑compliance and any penalties would be exercised under the remit of the issuing regulator’s broader statutory powers and regulatory processes, not by this AD text. The document’s Note that “FAA AD 2008-06-03 Amdt 39-15415 refers” signals a cross-jurisdictional link but does not itself add enforcement detail.

For compliance tracking and audit, the AD’s explicit timing, document references, and “before further flight” condition provide concrete, auditable obligations. The AD’s effectiveness date (5 June 2008) and the signature date (21 April 2008) provide fixed points for measuring late compliance: the Requirement 1 window starts from the AD’s effective date. The AD does not record appeals procedures or dispute resolution mechanisms for contested compliance findings.

Users of this AD should therefore expect enforcement and penalties, if any, to be derived from the broader regulatory regime under which CASA (the issuing authority) operates, including its powers to enforce AD compliance, but those mechanisms are not described within the AD text itself.

The AD is a technical regulatory instrument that explicitly references other technical and regulatory documents, rather than independent statutes, as its points of interface. Within the supplied text, two cross-document interactions are explicit.

Interaction with FAA AD and AMOC process: The AD contains a formal reference to FAA AD 2008-06-03 Amdt 39-15415. It states that “Later revisions of the ASB 737-28A1207, approved by the FAA as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-06-03, are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive.” That clause creates a direct operational relationship between this AD and FAA processes: later ASB revisions that receive FAA AMOC approval can be relied upon for compliance with this AD’s equivalent requirements. Practically that means an operator may, subject to FAA AMOC approval, adopt newer ASB content rather than the exact ASB version named in the directive.

Interaction with Boeing Maintenance Planning Data (MPD): Requirement 3 directs incorporation of section F of Boeing 737 MPD Document D626A001-CMR, Section 9 Revision November 2006 R1, into the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate specified AWL numbers. The AD allows that “Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD document is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).” Thus, the AD’s required change to the AWL is directly tied to a named manufacturer MPD document, and the AD accepts later MPD revisions only with FAA Manager approval.

Interaction through delegation and approvals: The AD’s acceptance of FAA approvals and AMOCs means that FAA administrative decisions and engineering approvals have legal effect for compliance with this AD. The AD does not, within this text, delegate approval authority to the issuing national regulator for MPD variations; it routes those approvals to the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA.

Interaction with an operator’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: The AD requires a specific revision to the operator’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, creating a regulatory overlap between the AD and the operator’s continuing airworthiness obligations. The AWL insertion point specified in the Boeing MPD must be reflected in the operator’s maintenance planning data.

No statutory cross‑references inside the AD: The supplied text does not cite specific domestic statutes, penalties, licensing rules or certification regulations. The AD is framed as a technical mandatory instrument that references ASBs, MPD, and FAA ADs and approvals but does not list or invoke domestic aviation statutes by section. Enforcement and penalty processes are therefore external to the AD text and would be implemented under the issuing regulator’s statutory powers.

Practical implication: Operators must navigate not only the AD text but also the ASB and MPD documents and, where reliance on later revisions is desired, secure FAA approvals. That produces an interactional web: the AD imposes obligations that are satisfied by compliance with manufacturer publications and FAA approvals, and implementing those changes requires operators to manage both technical tasks and inter‑jurisdictional approval workflows.

The AD text itself contains limited explicit amendment history, but it does record the documents and approval pathways by which future amendments to the technical instructions may be recognised for compliance.

Document-dated references: The AD requires compliance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1207 dated 15 February 2007 for the inspection and corrective actions. It requires insertion of content from Boeing MPD Document D626A001-CMR, Section 9, Revision November 2006 R1 into the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Those dates identify the versions the AD references at the time of issuance.

FAA AD cross-reference: The AD includes a note that “FAA AD 2008-06-03 Amdt 39-15415 refers.” That establishes a contemporaneous FAA AD which the AD expects operators to consider and which serves as a point of alignment.

Acceptance of later revisions (amendment pathway): The AD expressly provides two amendment pathways:

• For ASB revisions: “Later revisions of the ASB 737-28A1207, approved by the FAA as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-06-03, are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive.” This clause identifies that subsequent ASB versions can be used to comply with this AD if they obtain FAA AMOC approval, effectively allowing later ASB amendments to be treated as acceptable updates.

• For MPD revisions: “Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD document is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).” This clause sets out that later MPD revisions may substitute for the specified MPD Revision Nov 2006 R1 if the FAA Manager approves the later revision.

No recorded internal amendments to the AD text: The supplied AD does not record any internal amendment history of the directive itself (for example, as an AD superseding an earlier AD or being amended by a subsequent AD). The AD’s effective date is 5 June 2008, and it is signed by the CASA delegate on 21 April 2008. The document does not contain later amendment entries.

Implication for compliance records: Because the AD accepts later ASB and MPD revisions only via FAA approvals, the operative method for amendment is to secure those external approvals rather than rely on an automatic acceptance of manufacturer updates. Operators who rely on later ASB or MPD editions should retain evidence of FAA AMOC approvals or Seattle ACO approvals showing that the later revision was accepted as a compliant method for this AD.

No transitional amendment or grandfathering language: The AD does not contain language about transition measures beyond the 60‑month compliance window for Requirement 1, nor does it describe grandfathering of actions taken before the AD’s effective date. The AD does not state whether earlier voluntary incorporation of the specified AWLs or earlier inspections performed prior to the AD satisfy Requirement 1, except insofar as a maintenance-records review can establish conclusive part-number determination.

The AD text supplied contains no litigation history, court references, appeals, or judicial decisions. It does not name any cases, nor does it indicate that it has been the subject of legal proceedings, challenges to its legal validity, or judicial interpretation. The only legal and administrative references within the text are to FAA AD 2008-06-03 Amdt 39-15415 and to the Boeing ASB and MPD documents used for technical compliance.

What the absence of litigation history in the AD text implies for practitioners:

• No precedent cited: Because the AD itself does not include references to litigation, there are no in-text precedents or judicial interpretations to rely on for construing ambiguous obligations set out by this directive.

• Enforcement and challenge records are external: Any actions, sanctions, or disputes that may have arisen from operators’ compliance or non-compliance would be recorded elsewhere and are not reflected in the AD text. Practitioners seeking judicial or quasi-judicial outcomes (for example, judicial review of regulator enforcement decisions related to this AD) must search external records; nothing in the AD documents litigation outcomes.

• Reliance on documentary approvals: Given the AD’s acceptance of FAA AMOCs and Manager Seattle ACO approvals as compliance pathways, any disputes about whether a later ASB or MPD revision lawfully satisfied the AD would turn on the administrative record of those approvals rather than on any text within the AD itself.

• Auditable obligations remain technical and documentary: Because the AD sets out concrete documentary and technical obligations with discrete compliance deadlines, litigation (if it occurred) would likely centre on factual compliance with those obligations rather than on statutory interpretation of the AD itself, but the AD text does not illuminate such litigation.

Practitioners needing litigation history for due diligence will therefore need to inspect regulatory enforcement records, court filings, or tribunal decisions outside the AD text. The AD document as supplied contains no litigation material and identifies no named cases.

The AD contains a number of specific features and conditional approvals that can create unintended compliance pitfalls if treated as routine. These caution points derive directly from the AD’s text.

Applicability tied to ASB identification: The AD applies to “Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series aeroplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 737-28A1207, dated 15 February 2007.” The AD does not automatically apply to every 737-700 or -800; applicability depends on the ASB’s list. If an operator assumes model inclusion without verifying the ASB’s applicability table and serial numbers, they may incorrectly assess their obligations.

Records-review substitution requires conclusive part-number determination: The AD permits a maintenance-records review rather than a physical inspection “if the part number of the part can be conclusively determined from that review.” The word “conclusively” is a strict evidentiary standard. In practice, ambiguous or incomplete parts documentation, aftermarket part-number changes, or older records could preclude using the records-review alternative and require a physical inspection. Operators should avoid assuming records are “good enough” without explicit confirmation that the part number is conclusive.

Sequencing creates immediate grounding risk: Requirement 2 says corrective actions must be completed “before further flight after the Requirement 1 inspection/determination.” If affected parts are identified during the Requirement 1 activity and corrective action is not available immediately, the aircraft may be effectively grounded until the corrective action is done. Operators should plan for parts, engineering support and maintenance slots to avoid operational disruption.

Timing window is long but binding: Requirement 1 may be done “within 60 months after the effective date of this Directive.” Sixty months is a long compliance window relative to many ADs; however the requirement is binding and the timing starts from the AD effective date (5 June 2008). Do not presume the AD remains applicable only to new findings; records or later inspections must still be updated in that window. Additionally, Requirement 2’s “before further flight” obligation remains immediate once an affected part is found.

AWL incorporation must follow a specified MPD or an FAA-approved later MPD: Requirement 3 requires incorporation of specific information from Boeing MPD Document D626A001-CMR, Section 9 Revision Nov 2006 R1. The AD accepts a later MPD revision only if approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA. Operators should ensure they have the right MPD revision and any FAA approval documentation if using a later revision. Reliance on a later MPD without FAA Manager approval is not authorised by the AD.

AMOC dependence on FAA approvals: The AD permits later ASB revisions if “approved by the FAA as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-06-03.” That means operators cannot unilaterally adopt a newer ASB version and treat it as compliant for this AD unless it has specific FAA AMOC approval tied to the FAA AD. The AD therefore requires administrative follow-through to secure legal acceptance of otherwise technically updated documents.

No specified penalties in the AD text: The absence of stated penalties or enforcement actions in the text could lead to misunderstandings about the consequences of non-compliance. Operators should not construe silence on penalties as permissiveness; enforcement will be under the issuing regulator’s broader powers, which are not described in the AD.

Document-version traps: The AD names specific versions/dates of ASB and MPD documents. Implementers must match the exact edition unless they have the authorised FAA approvals for later editions. Mistaking an earlier or later draft for the specified document may lead to non‑compliance.

Administrative record retention: Because the AD refers to maintenance-records reviews as a permissible alternative to inspection when conclusive, operators must retain clear, auditable maintenance records that demonstrate the part-number determination. Losing or failing to contemporaneously document such determinations can force rework or trigger enforcement questions.

Cross-jurisdictional approval process: The AD routes some approvals to FAA entities. Operators who are not US carriers or who operate under non‑US registries may still need to engage with FAA approval processes to secure AMOCs or MPD approvals recognised by this AD. Assume some administrative overhead and possible delay in securing those approvals.

This section sets out a practical, source-grounded compliance checklist based on the AD’s requirements, timing and approved alternatives. Each step references the AD text.

1. Confirm applicability

   • Obtain Boeing ASB 737-28A1207 dated 15 February 2007 and check its applicability table for the operator’s airframe serial numbers and model variants (the AD specifies models “as identified in Boeing ASB 737-28A1207”). Do not assume applicability by model name alone.

2. Plan timing and scheduling

   • Note the AD effective date is 5 June 2008. Requirement 1 (inspection or records review) must be completed within 60 months of that date. Schedule the inspection/records-review workflow within that 60-month window.
   • Prepare for Requirement 2 to be completed “before further flight” if affected parts are found; ensure parts and maintenance resources are available to avoid prolonged grounding.

3. Carry out Requirement 1 , Inspection or records review

   • For each affected aeroplane, inspect the three MOVs specified in the AD: left engine fuel shutoff (spar) valve, right engine fuel shutoff (spar) valve, and fuel crossfeed valve. The AD requires determining whether MOVs with the affected part numbers (as identified in the ASB’s Accomplishment Instructions) are installed.
   • If choosing the maintenance-records review route, confirm that the records allow a conclusive determination of the part number. Document the evidentiary basis for “conclusive” determinations so that the inspector or regulator can verify the finding.

4. If affected parts are found , accomplish Requirement 2

   • Follow the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-28A1207 to perform all “applicable related investigative and corrective actions.” The AD makes these ASB procedures mandatory where the affected parts are identified.
   • Completion of Requirement 2 must be before further flight after the Requirement 1 inspection/determination. Keep records of the corrective action steps, parts installed, certificates of release to service, and any engineering approvals used.

5. Accomplish Requirement 3 , AWL revision

   • Revise the airworthiness limitations (AWL) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating the content specified in Section F “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS-FUEL SYSTEM AWLs” of Boeing MPD Document D626A001-CMR, Section 9, Revision November 2006 R1.
   • The specified objective is to incorporate AWL No 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22 and No. 28-AWL-24 into the Maintenance Planning Data (MPD).
   • Perform this revision concurrently with Requirement 1 (the AD explicitly requires Requirement 3 to be concurrent with Requirement 1). Ensure that the person authorised to amend the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness executes and signs the revision, and retain the record.

6. If using later ASB or MPD revisions, secure approvals

   • If you intend to use a later revision of ASB 737-28A1207 for inspection or corrective actions, secure FAA AMOC approval of that later ASB as an Alternate Method of Compliance to FAA AD 2008-06-03. Only ASB revisions with FAA AMOC approval are acceptable for compliance with this AD’s equivalent requirements.
   • If you intend to use a later MPD revision for Requirement 3, secure approval of that revision from the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA. Maintain documentary proof of that approval in the airworthiness file.

7. Documentation and audit trail

   • Retain: the ASB edition used; copies of executed Accomplishment Instructions; records demonstrating conclusive part-number determination if relying on records review; parts-change documentation; the revised Instructions for Continued Airworthiness showing incorporation of the named AWLs; and any FAA approvals or AMOCs relied upon.
   • Keep contemporaneous evidence that Requirement 2 corrective actions were completed before further flight when required.

8. Liaise with regulator and third parties

   • Where operators rely on FAA AMOCs or Seattle ACO approvals, ensure regulatory liaison channels are used to obtain approvals and to inform the issuing authority that the required FAA approvals are in place if requested.
   • Inform lease companies, lessors, and insurers as appropriate and provide evidence of AWL incorporation and inspection/corrective action completion.

9. Internal controls and risk mitigation

   • Validate maintenance records’ ability to show conclusive part numbers before electing the records-review route. If there is any doubt, prefer a physical inspection.
   • Pre-position parts and maintenance resources where possible to avoid prolonged grounding if affected parts are found.
   • Schedule AWL incorporation as a discrete deliverable in the maintenance planning process to ensure the MPD/Instructions for Continued Airworthiness reflect the new AWLs within the required timeframe.

10. Audit and re-inspection considerations

• Consider including the MOV part-number checks and AWL confirmation in routine maintenance audits to ensure ongoing compliance.
• Monitor for any FAA AMOCs and MPD approvals relevant to these items and update the aircraft’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness as approved alternatives become available.

Following these steps aligns directly with the AD’s text: inspections or records-review tied to ASB 737-28A1207, corrective work according to the ASB’s Accomplishment Instructions, and AWL incorporation per Boeing MPD Document D626A001-CMR Section 9 Revision Nov 2006 R1, with specified FAA approval gates for later document revisions. The AD’s effective date (5 June 2008) and delegate signature (James Coyne, 21 April 2008) provide fixed dates from which the compliance timeline is measured.