37834 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the on-condition actions or 

the optional terminating action 

specified in this AD. 

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), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) 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. 

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 airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2008–0617; Directorate Identifier 2007– 

NM–354–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by August 9, 

2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, 

and –900ER series airplanes, certificated in 

any category, with a date of issuance of the 

original airworthiness certificate or the date 

of issuance of the original export certificate 

of airworthiness before March 22, 2011. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of an 

in-service occurrence of total loss of boost 

pump pressure of the fuel feed system, 

followed by loss of fuel system suction feed 

capability on one engine, and in-flight 

shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct loss of the engine 

fuel suction feed capability of the fuel 

system, which in the event of total loss of the 

fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine 

flameout, inability to restart the engines, and 

consequent forced landing of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Initial/Repetitive Operational Tests 

Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first: Do the initial operational test 

identified in AWL No. 28–AWL–101, Engine 

Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of 

Section E., AWLS—Fuel Systems of Section 

9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs), D626A001–CMR, Revision August 

2011, of Boeing 737–600/700/700C/800/900/ 

900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document. Repeat the test thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight hours or 

36 months, whichever is earlier. If the test is 

not considered successful, as specified in 

AWL No. 28–AWL–101, before further flight, 

perform all related testing and corrective 

actions, using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (h) of this AD. Thereafter, except 

as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no 

alternative procedure or repeat test intervals 

will be allowed. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 18, 

2012. 

John P. Piccola, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15469 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2012–0035] 

16 CFR Part 1500 

Revocation of Certain Requirements 

Pertaining to Caps Intended for Use 

With Toy Guns and Toy Guns Not 

Intended for Use With Caps 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Section 106 of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) considers the 

provisions of ASTM International 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37835 

Standard F 963, ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Specifications for Toy Safety’’ 

(‘‘ASTM F 963’’), to be consumer 

product safety standards issued by the 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC,’’ ‘‘Commission,’’ 

or ‘‘we’’). Among other things, ASTM F 

963 contains provisions regarding 

sound-producing toys. The ASTM F 963 

provisions for sound-producing toys 

allow manufacturers to use more 

options with readily available test 

equipment for sound measurement to 

determine compliance than our existing 

regulations pertaining to caps intended 

for use with toy guns and toy guns not 

intended for use with caps, which were 

included in the regulations under the 

Federal Hazardous Substances Act 

(‘‘FHSA’’) that were transferred to the 

Commission’s jurisdiction in 1973. The 

test methodology also refers to obsolete 

equipment. Consequently, we are 

proposing to revoke our existing 

banning regulations pertaining to caps 

intended for use with toy guns and toy 

guns not intended for use with caps 

because they are obsolete and have been 

superseded by the requirements of 

ASTM F 963. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by 

Docket No. CPSC–2012–0035, may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (email) except through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this proposed 

rulemaking. All comments received may 

be posted without change, including 

any personal identifiers, contact 

information, or other personal 

information provided, to http://www.

regulations.gov. Do not submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information electronically. 

Such information should be submitted 

in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://www.

regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard McCallion, Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 5 Research 

Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 

(301) 987–2222; email: rmccallion@

cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Revocation of Certain Regulations 

Pertaining to Toy Caps and Toy Guns 

Not Intended for Use With Caps 

In September 1973, the FHSA and its 

implementing regulations, which 

included provisions pertaining to caps 

for use with toy guns and toy guns not 

intended for use with caps, were 

transferred from the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (‘‘FDA’’) to the CPSC. 

See 38 FR 27012 (September 27, 1973). 

One of the transferred regulations 

includes a ban on caps intended for use 

with toy guns and toy guns not intended 

for use with caps ‘‘if such caps when so 

used or such toy guns produce impulsetype sound at a peak pressure level at 

or above 138 decibels. * * *’’ See 16 

CFR 1500.18(a)(5). 

Another transferred regulation, 16 

CFR 1500.86(a)(6), contains provisions 

for exemptions from the classification of 

a banned toy under 16 CFR 

1500.18(a)(5) for toy caps with a sound 

level from 138 decibels up to a 

maximum decibel level of 158. 

Manufacturers participating in this 

decibel-reduction program are required 

to report their intention to participate in 

the program, include a specific warning 

statement on the product packaging, and 

report quarterly on the progress 

regarding the production of caps with a 

maximum noise level of 138 decibels. 

This exemption is included in the 

revocation because there are no 

manufacturers participating in this 

program. Additionally, a third 

transferred regulation, 16 CFR 1500.47, 

provides the test method for 

determining the sound pressure level 

produced by toy caps and toy guns. The 

method specifies the use of certain 

equipment, such as a microphone, 

preamplifier, and two types of 

oscilloscopes with specific response and 

calibration ranges, and it also addresses 

the manner in which one would 

measure peak sound pressure levels. 

Section 106 of the CPSIA considers 

the provisions of ASTM International 

Standard F 963, ‘‘Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Toy Safety,’’ to 

be consumer product safety standards 

issued by the Commission under section 

9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(‘‘CPSA’’). References to ASTM F 963 in 

this document refer to ASTM F 963–11, 

which became effective on June 12, 

2012. Section 4.5 of ASTM F 963 

establishes requirements for ‘‘soundproducing toys,’’ and section 8.19 of 

ASTM F 963 establishes ‘‘Tests for Toys 

Which Produce Noise.’’ In general, the 

ASTM F 963 requirements for soundproducing toys are at least equivalent to, 

and more reflective of potential damage 

to human hearing, than 16 CFR 

1500.18(a)(5) and 1500.47. For example, 

section 4.5.1.5 of ASTM F 963 states 

that the peak sound pressure level of 

impulsive sounds produced by a toy 

using percussion caps or other explosive 

action ‘‘shall not exceed 125’’ decibels 

at 50 centimeters, whereas, 16 CFR 

1500.18(a)(5) imposes a ban at or above 

138 decibels at 25 centimeters. As 

another example, section 8.19.2.4 of 

ASTM F 963 uses a weighted scale 

based on human hearing damage from 

the type of impulse noise being 

generated by the toy, whereas, 16 CFR 

1500.47 uses an unweighted scale for 

measuring pressure level generated by 

impulse-type sound. 

Additionally, the ASTM F 963 test 

method involves the use of modern 

equipment (microphones meeting a 

particular specification), whereas, 16 

CFR 1500.47 specifies the use of a 

microphone, a preamplifier (if required), 

and an oscilloscope. The equipment 

specifications in 16 CFR 1500.47 have 

never been updated. 

Consequently, because section 106 of 

the CPSIA mandates the provisions of 

ASTM F 963 to be consumer product 

safety standards, and because we 

believe that the provisions of ASTM F 

963, with respect to paper or plastic 

caps intended for use with toy guns, are 

at least equivalent to 16 CFR 

1500.18(a)(5), we propose to revoke 16 

CFR 1500.18(a)(5). Similarly, because 

ASTM F 963 establishes a test method 

for toys that produce sound, and 

because our existing regulation refers to 

obsolete or unnecessary test equipment, 

we propose to revoke 16 CFR 1500.47. 

Finally, because we are proposing the 

revocation of 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(5), we 

are also proposing the revocation of the 

exemptions from the requirements of 16 

CFR 1500.18(a)(5) contained in 16 CFR 

1500.86(a)(6). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule would not impose any 

information collection requirements. 

Accordingly, this rule is not subject to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37836 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3520. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We have examined the impacts of the 

proposed rule under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act requires 

agencies to analyze regulatory options 

that would minimize any significant 

impact of a rule on small entities. 

Because the proposed rule would revoke 

outdated regulatory requirements, the 

Commission certifies that the proposed 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

D. Environmental Considerations 

This rule falls within the scope of the 

Commission’s environmental review 

regulation at 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1), which 

provides a categorical exclusion from 

any requirement for the agency to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

an environmental impact statement for 

rules that revoke product safety 

standards. 

E. Executive Order 12988 

According to Executive Order 12988 

(February 5, 1996), agencies must state 

in clear language the preemptive effect, 

if any, of new regulations. The 

preemptive effect of regulations such as 

this proposal is stated in section 18 of 

the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261n. 

F. Effective Date 

The Commission is proposing that the 

rule revoking 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(5), 

1500.47, and 1500.86(a)(6) would 

become effective 30 days after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1500 

Consumer protection, Hazardous 

substances, Imports, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Toys. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, and under the authority of 15 

U.S.C. 1261–1262 and 5 U.S.C. 553, the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1500 as 

follows: 

PART 1500—HAZARDOUS 

SUBSTANCES AND ARTICLES; 

ADMINISTRATION AND 

ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for 16 CFR 

part 1500 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1261–1278. 

§ 1500.18 [Amended] 

2. Section 1500.18 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a)(5). 

§ 1500.47 [Removed] 

3. Section 1500.47 is removed 

entirely. 

§ 1500.86 [Amended] 

4. Section 1500.86 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a)(6). 

Dated: June 20, 2012. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15409 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket No. CPSC–2012–0034] 

Petition Requesting Commission 

Action Regarding Crib Bumpers 

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

received a petition (CPSC–2012–0034), 

requesting that the Commission initiate 

rulemaking to distinguish and regulate 

‘‘hazardous pillow-like’’ crib bumpers 

from ‘‘non-hazardous traditional’’ crib 

bumpers under sections 7 and 9 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’). 

The Commission invites written 

comments concerning the petition. 

DATES: The Office of the Secretary must 

receive comments on the petition by 

August 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2012– 

0034, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of 

the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rockelle Hammond, Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone (301) 504–6833. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has received 

correspondence from the Juvenile 

Products Manufacturers Association 

(JPMA), (‘‘petitioner’’), dated May 9, 

2012, requesting that the Commission 

initiate rulemaking to distinguish and 

regulate ‘‘hazardous pillow-like’’ crib 

bumpers from ‘‘non-hazardous 

traditional’’ crib bumpers under 

sections 7 and 9 of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’). The 

Commission is docketing this request as 

a petition under the Consumer Product 

Safety Act. 15 U.S.C. 2056 and 2058. 

Petitioner states that, despite 

information to the contrary regarding 

the safety of traditional crib bumpers, 

some are advocating banning bumpers 

altogether from the marketplace. 

Petitioner believes that banning 

traditional crib bumpers may lead to 

caregivers adding unsafe soft bedding to 

cribs to serve as a protective barrier 

from the tight dimensions and hard 

wooden surface of the crib slats. 

Petitioner includes a third party review 

of previous studies of crib bumper pads 

as support of the fact that claims of 

increased risk to infants from traditional 

crib bumper use are unfounded. 

Petitioner also includes a copy of 

proposed ASTM performance 

requirements that petitioner believes 

provide a reasonable basis for a 

mandatory crib bumper performance 

standard. 

By this notice, the Commission seeks 

comments concerning this petition. 

Interested parties may obtain a copy of 

the petition by writing or calling the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1