38000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the services will be completed. After a 

final audit at the conclusion of each 

shipping season, any overpayment of 

funds would be returned to the 

Government of Costa Rica or its 

designated representative or held on 

account until needed. 

Done in Washington, DC, this June 20, 

2012. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15542 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0102; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–004–AD; Amendment 

39–17072; AD 2012–11–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Various 

Transport Category Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain transport category airplanes. 

That AD currently requires either 

activating all chemical oxygen 

generators in the lavatories until the 

generator oxygen supply is expended, or 

removing the oxygen generator(s); and, 

for each chemical oxygen generator, 

after the generator is expended (or 

removed), removing or restowing the 

oxygen masks and closing the mask 

dispenser door. This new AD requires 

installing a supplemental oxygen system 

in affected lavatories, which terminates 

the requirements of the existing AD. 

This AD was prompted by reports that 

the current design of the oxygen 

generators presents a hazard that could 

jeopardize flight safety. We are issuing 

this AD to eliminate a hazard that could 

jeopardize flight safety, and to ensure 

that all lavatories have a supplemental 

oxygen supply. 

DATES: This AD is effective August 10, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: 

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 (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

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: Jeff 

Gardlin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–115, 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

227–2136; fax: 425–227–1149; email: 

jeff.gardlin@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2011–04–09, 

Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, 

March 8, 2011). That AD applies to the 

specified products. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11418). That 

NPRM proposed to continue to require 

either activating all chemical oxygen 

generators in the lavatories until the 

generator oxygen supply is expended, or 

removing the oxygen generator(s); and, 

for each chemical oxygen generator, 

after the generator is expended (or 

removed), removing or restowing the 

oxygen masks and closing the mask 

dispenser door. That NPRM also 

proposed to require installing a 

supplemental oxygen system in affected 

lavatories, which would terminate the 

requirements of the existing AD. 

Change to NPRM (77 FR 11418, 

February 27, 2012) 

We have redesignated Note 1 of the 

NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) 

as new paragraph (h) of this AD, 

reidentified Note 2 as Note 1, and 

reidentified subsequent paragraphs 

accordingly. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal (77 FR 11418, 

February 27, 2012) and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Extend Compliance Time 

Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Embraer, 

American Airlines (AA), Delta Air 

Lines, Southwest Airlines (SWA), 

United Airlines (UA), and All Nippon 

Airways (ANA) requested that we revise 

the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 

2012) to extend the 24-month 

compliance time. Airbus, Embraer, Air 

Line Pilots Association (ALPA) 

International, AA, and Boeing noted 

that the Lavatory Oxygen Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC) chartered 

on this subject established some 

notional life-cycle times from the 

initiation of a design through a fleet 

retrofit. The requested compliance time 

ranged from 36 to 60 months. The ARC 

considered even a 4-year compliance 

time aggressive. Commenters also noted 

that there are no actual designs at 

present; any schedule is at risk until the 

design is proven and validated. 

We partially agree with the request. 

Because of the lack of a retrofit design 

and the magnitude of the retrofit, and 

new configuration(s), on such a large 

number of affected airplanes, we agree 

that the proposed compliance time of 24 

months is insufficient. We also agree 

that the ARC’s detailed assessment 

would not have supported a 24-month 

compliance time. We disagree, however, 

to extend the compliance time to 48 

months, or longer. Some of the 

commenters’ concerns, as identified by 

the ARC, have been alleviated in the AD 

(for example, streamlining the 

compliance process), and it is clear 

there are workable design approaches 

that can be implemented without taking 

airplanes out of service. Nonetheless, 

since no actual designs are yet 

approved, the retrofit process cannot 

begin until a design is approved. We 

have extended the compliance time in 

paragraph (l) of this final rule to 37 

months after the effective date of the 

AD. 

Request To Retain Proposed 

Compliance Times 

The Association of Flight Attendants 

(AFA) and ALPA encouraged the 

issuance of the final rule with the 

compliance times as proposed. AFA 

requested that we also incorporate 

interim measures. The commenters 

noted that the total time that lavatories 

will have been without oxygen would 

be about 3.5 years, even with a 24- 

month compliance time. AFA pointed 

out that the FAA’s assessment of the 

safety risk was based on a finite time, 

and that we originally estimated a twoto four-year period to restore oxygen. 

Thus, retaining the proposed 24-month 

compliance time is appropriate. 

With respect to the compliance time, 

we disagree with the request. Based on 

the number of affected airplanes and the 

lack of a design solution yet approved 

for any of them, a 24-month compliance 

time is not feasible. On the other hand, 

we acknowledge that compliance will 

be due later than the original estimate 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38001 

of a maximum of 4 years. But the 

adjusted compliance time is still within 

the confidence level of the risk 

assessment—which was conservative— 

conducted in support of AD 2011–04– 

09, Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 

12556, March 8, 2011). As explained 

previously, we have extended the 

compliance time to 37 months. With 

respect to interim measures, we 

understand the rationale for the request, 

and operators may, in fact, elect to 

employ some interim measures. 

However, any interim measures that 

would be required would take resources 

away from implementing the 

terminating action, and we believe 

available resources should be directed at 

restoring oxygen to the lavatories. We 

have therefore determined that interim 

measures should not be mandated, and 

that a 37-month compliance time will 

provide an adequate level of safety. 

Request To Delay AD Issuance Pending 

Service Information Issuance 

ANA and AA requested that we delay 

issuing the AD until service information 

is available. ANA stated that, 

considering lead time for parts and 

preparation for the modification, the 

compliance time should be determined 

after the service information is released. 

ANA suggested it would need at least 36 

months for appropriate maintenance 

planning after the service information is 

released. 

We disagree with the request. 

Although there are no specific designs 

available for the affected airplanes, there 

are system types in service that will 

satisfy the requirements of the AD. 

Airframe manufacturers and aftermarket 

modifiers are working on acceptable 

designs, and we expect that there will 

be more than one solution available. 

The FAA’s goal is to retrofit 

supplemental oxygen systems as quickly 

as practical. Waiting for service 

information would unnecessarily delay 

that retrofit. We therefore find it 

necessary to proceed with issuing this 

final rule. 

Request To Mandate Development of 

Service Information and Parts 

Delta Air Lines requested that we 

require design approval holders to 

develop and make available the 

necessary modification instructions and 

hardware. Delta noted that other largescale retrofit projects have been 

complicated by a lack of readily 

available modification hardware and 

service instructions. 

We disagree with the request. At this 

point, the FAA is confident that there 

will be several modification options 

available to operators. All affected 

airframe manufacturers, as well as 

oxygen system suppliers and airplane 

modifiers, have discussed their 

intended approaches with the FAA and 

appear to have viable solutions. In 

addition, Section 21.99 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.99) 

already requires design approval 

holders to make design information 

available to correct an unsafe condition. 

Thus, the additional regulatory burden 

of tracking and enforcing a design 

approval holder requirement is not 

justified in this case. But if this situation 

changes, we may consider additional 

rulemaking to extend the time to 

comply with the requirements of the 

AD. We have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise Applicability 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

applicability of the NPRM (77 FR 11418, 

February 27, 2012). Specifically, Boeing 

requested removing airplanes that have 

systems without chemical oxygen 

generators (COGs) installed in the 

lavatory, and by limiting the 

applicability to airplanes modified in 

accordance with AD 2011–04–09, 

Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, 

March 8, 2011), those with COGs not 

installed per Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) 111, Amendment 

Nos. 21–94, 25–133, 121–354, and 129– 

50 (76 FR 12550, March 8, 2011), and 

those with COGs installed in the 

lavatory. Since AD 2011–04–09 already 

proposed to permit installation of nonCOG systems using normally available 

approval means, Boeing considered the 

continued tracking of AD compliance 

for that type of system unwarranted. 

Further, Boeing stated there might be 

confusion as to whether AD 2011–04–09 

would apply to any airplane with such 

a system installed. 

We partially agree with the request. 

We agree that continued tracking of the 

non-COG installation as an AD-related 

action is overly burdensome. Such 

systems were not the subject of AD 

2011–04–09, Amendment 39–16630 (76 

FR 12556, March 8, 2011) (which 

required removal of the supplemental 

oxygen). We disagree, however, to 

change the applicability of this AD, 

because the AD already captures the 

intent of the request in terms of 

identifying affected airplanes based on 

whether they are in compliance with 

AD 2011–04–09 or have a chemical 

oxygen generator installed in any 

lavatory. An operator wishing to install 

a COG system at a later date will need 

to use the alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) process. But we 

agree that, with appropriate limitations, 

subsequent modifications to a non-COG 

system can be handled under part 43 of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 

CFR part 43). We have added a 

provision in paragraph (l)(2) in this final 

rule that permits alterations and repairs 

to an approved non-COG system in 

accordance with 14 CFR part 43, 

provided the operator’s maintenance 

program contains an airworthiness 

limitation that prohibits the installation 

of COGs in lavatories. 

Request To Utilize Alternative Oxygen 

Dosage Measurement 

AVOX Systems (AVOX) requested 

that we build in a streamlined process 

for oxygen systems using the blood 

oxygen saturation level (SaO2) as the 

means of determining adequate oxygen 

dosage. This method will likely result in 

somewhat smaller oxygen supplies, 

which will in turn allow the systems to 

more easily fit into the existing spaces, 

with little or no modification. 

The regulations characterize oxygen 

dosage in terms of tracheal partial 

pressure, an indirect method of 

determining adequate oxygen supply. 

We infer that AVOX requested this 

because the FAA has approved SaO2 via 

equivalent level of safety findings in 

accordance with Section 21.21(b)(1) of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 

CFR 21.21(b)(1)), but this has required 

extensive testing on the part of the 

applicants to show that the approach 

meets the intent of the requirements. It 

appears that AVOX would like the FAA 

to use the knowledge gained from those 

actions to allow approval of future 

projects in an expedited manner, 

without the same level of testing. We 

agree that, in this case, use of the SaO2

method can be useful; this method is 

specifically discussed in FAA Policy 

Statement PS ANM–25–04—which was 

mentioned in the NPRM (77 FR 11418, 

February 27, 2012) as a possible method 

of compliance with the requirements of 

this AD. FAA Policy Statement PS– 

ANM–25–04, issued December 21, 2011 

(http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatoryand

GuidanceLibrary/rgPolicy.nsf/0/06EE1C

EFE9804A2F8625796E005C017F?Open

Document&Highlight=ps-anm-25-04), is 

based on the recommendations of an 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) 

and provides guidance to applicants 

that want to begin restoring oxygen to 

lavatories in advance of rulemaking. 

This policy will be used in making 

approvals of COG installations that will 

be used to comply with this AD. The 

FAA may also propose new 

airworthiness standards for the safe 

installations of COGs using the ARC 

recommendations. It is not necessary to 

change the AD because the information 

that we can provide is already available 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

in the policy statement. We have not 

changed the final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Request To Clarify Certain References 

Boeing noted that not all regulations 

affecting a supplemental oxygen system 

are identified in paragraph (k) of the 

NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 

2012), and could lead operators to 

conclude that only the identified 

paragraphs need to be complied with. 

Boeing requested that we revise 

paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM to refer to 

all of part 25 and part 121 (14 CFR part 

25 and 14 CFR part 121), rather than 

specific sections. 

We partially agree with the request. 

We agree that the current listing of rules 

could be misinterpreted, because there 

is already regulatory relief provided, 

and the listing is not complete. The 

listing matches the regulations for 

which relief was granted, both in AD 

2011–04–09, Amendment 39–16630 (76 

FR 12556, March 8, 2011), and Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation No. 111, 

Amendment Nos. 21–94, 25–133, 121– 

354, and 129–50 (76 FR 12550, March 

8, 2011), and so in that sense this list 

is consistent. But to avoid any 

confusion, we have revised paragraph (l) 

in this final rule (which was paragraph 

(k) in the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 

27, 2012)) to refer to ‘‘all applicable’’ 

regulations. In actual practice, this will 

not change the compliance 

requirements, so there is no additional 

burden on any operator to comply with 

the requirements of this AD. 

Request To Include Training 

Requirements 

AFA requested that we revise the 

NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) 

to include additional requirements that 

mandate communication and training 

for crewmembers on the proper 

procedures to follow in the event of a 

rapid decompression before the ADmandated actions have been 

accomplished on the airplane. AFA also 

recommended that crew members be 

notified of the progress of operators 

toward showing compliance; many 

operators have already done something 

similar, but a number have not. 

We disagree with the request. As 

previously determined, the risks are 

very low for the time periods involved. 

The resources needed to implement 

AFA’s recommended interim steps 

could be better used in rapidly 

incorporating a final design solution. 

We have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise Cost Estimate 

Delta Air Lines requested that we 

revise the cost analysis to be more 

specific to different airplane types and 

system options, and to characterize the 

costs per lavatory. The current cost 

estimate is an average over the entire 

fleet, and so by definition is not 

accurate for each affected airplane. 

We disagree with the request. The 

variation in cost per airplane over the 

fleet is typical of any cost assessment. 

While the costs could be presented on 

a per-lavatory basis, this would also be 

an average, and not necessarily correct 

for any given lavatory. In addition, the 

cost estimates are based on the 

forecasted most cost-effective approach. 

An operator can use a more expensive 

approach, but the cost estimate would 

not account for that increased cost. We 

have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Clarify Configuration 

ANA noted that paragraph (k) of the 

NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) 

would allow operators to choose 

between two methods of compliance: 

with or without chemical oxygen 

generators. ANA requested that we 

clarify what configuration will be 

selected on production airplanes. 

We disagree with the request. The 

decision on which configuration to use 

is up to the operators and their 

suppliers. The FAA has criteria for 

either approach, and either is 

acceptable. We have not changed the 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Clarify Certain AMOC 

Provisions 

AA requested that paragraph (k)(2)(i) 

of the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 

2012) be revised to include a provision 

relieving the need for AMOC approval 

for non-COG installations. AA interprets 

the existing provisions as meaning that 

an AMOC is not required and wants this 

stated explicitly. 

We disagree with the request. 

Information regarding AMOCs related to 

non-COG installations was provided in 

paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the NPRM (77 FR 

11418, February 27, 2012) and is 

retained in this final rule (in 

redesignated paragraph (l)(2)(ii)). There 

is therefore no need to change the final 

rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Standardize Application of 

Certain Provision 

AA supports the provision specified 

in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the NPRM (77 

FR 11418, February 27, 2012) 

(redesignated as paragraph (l)(2)(ii) in 

this final rule), but is concerned that, 

because the provision is unusual, it may 

not be uniformly applied in the field. 

We agree that this is an unusual 

provision. To that end, we have 

prepared an Information for Operators 

(InFO) bulletin 12LAV to help explain 

this provision, as well as other outreach 

measures to help ensure 

standardization. We find it is not 

necessary to change the final rule to 

provide further explanation. 

Approval Process for Compliance With 

AD, Using Chemical Oxygen Generators 

Because of the issues addressed by 

AD 2011–04–09, Amendment 39–16630 

(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), COG 

installations will require new 

considerations in order to be found 

acceptable as methods of compliance 

with this AD. The approval for COG 

installations will therefore be in a 

manner approved by the FAA as 

discussed below. 

Approval Process for Compliance With 

AD, Using Other Systems 

Chemical oxygen generators are one 

type of system used to provide 

supplemental oxygen. While the 

majority of transport category airplanes 

use this system in lavatories, there are 

other systems as well. If another system 

type is used to meet this AD, the 

original unsafe condition is not a 

concern. In that case, the means of 

compliance is straightforward, and we 

have determined that the approval 

method could be more flexible than is 

usually the case for an AD. For example, 

delegated organizations cannot normally 

make compliance findings for ADs; 

service information associated with ADs 

must be adhered to exactly, or else an 

AMOC must be approved. For this AD, 

if the type of system is other than a 

COG, then we have determined that 

these restrictions could be relaxed. 

Therefore, paragraph (l)(2) of this AD 

contains provisions to permit existing 

approval processes to be used, as long 

as the means of compliance is other 

than a COG. This provision takes 

precedence over current limitations in 

operators’ authority to use their 

organizational delegations when 

showing compliance with an AD. In 

addition, if an operator uses service 

information that is approved for such 

installations, deviations from the service 

information can be addressed using the 

operator’s normal procedures without 

requiring an AMOC. 

Oversight Office 

Paragraph (l) of this AD refers to the 

FAA oversight office responsible for 

approval of modifications used to show 

compliance. This will typically be the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38003 

aircraft certification office having 

geographic oversight of the applicant. In 

the case of service instructions from 

design approval holders of other 

countries, this would be the Transport 

Standards Staff. We anticipate that 

modifications to meet this AD will 

require either supplemental type 

certificate or amended type certificate 

approval. 

Minimum Equipment List (MEL) 

Although there were no comments on 

this issue, the FAA has identified a 

potential conflict with the minimum 

equipment list provisions of Sections 

121.628 and 129.14 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.628 

and 14 CFR 129.14). Since any 

equipment mandated to be operative by 

airworthiness directive is excluded from 

the MEL unless the airworthiness 

directive specifically provides such 

allowance, we have revised this final 

rule to add a new paragraph (m) to 

allow the use of the MEL, as applicable. 

We have re-identified subsequent 

paragraphs accordingly. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously— 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 

11418, February 27, 2012) for correcting 

the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 11418, 

February 27, 2012). 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 5,500 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate 

the following costs to comply with the 

actions specified in this AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Activate COG/expend oxygen supply [actions retained from AD 2011-04-09, 

Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, 

March 8, 2011)].

Up to 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = up 

to $170.

$0 Up to $170 .................... Up to $935,000. 

Oxygen system installation (new action) 24 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,040 6,000 $8,040 ........................... $44,220,000. 

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), 

(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. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

2011–04–09, Amendment 39–16630 (76 

FR 12556, March 8, 2011, and adding 

the following new AD: 

2012–11–09 Transport category airplanes: 

Amendment 39–17072; Docket No. 

FAA–2012–0102; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–004–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective August 10, 2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2011–04–09, 

Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, March 

8, 2011). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to transport category 

airplanes, in passenger-carrying operations, 

as specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of 

this AD. 

(1) Airplanes that are in compliance with 

the requirements of AD 2011–04–09, 

Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, March 

8, 2011). 

(2) Airplanes equipped with any chemical 

oxygen generator installed in any lavatory 

and are: 

(i) Operating under 14 CFR part 121; or 

(ii) U.S.-registered and operating under 14 

CFR part 129, with a maximum passenger 

capacity of 20 or greater. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 35, Oxygen. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by the 

determination that the current design of 

chemical oxygen generators presents a hazard 

that could jeopardize flight safety. We are 

issuing this AD to eliminate this hazard and 

ensure that all lavatories have a 

supplemental oxygen supply. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38004 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(g) Retained Oxygen Generator 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of AD 2011–04–09, 

Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, March 

8, 2011). Within 21 days after March 14, 2011 

(the effective date of AD 2011–04–09, 

Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, March 

8, 2011)), do the actions specified in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Activate all chemical oxygen generators 

in the lavatories until the generator oxygen 

supply is expended. An operator may also 

remove the oxygen generator(s), in 

accordance with existing maintenance 

practice, in lieu of activating it. 

(2) For each chemical oxygen generator, 

after the generator is expended (or removed), 

remove or re-stow the oxygen masks and 

close the mask dispenser door. 

Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Design 

approval holders are not expected to release 

service instructions for the action specified 

in paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(h) Retained Information About Hazardous 

Material 

This paragraph restates the information in 

Note 1 of AD 2011–04–09, Amendment 39– 

16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). 

Chemical oxygen generators are considered a 

hazardous material and subject to specific 

requirements under Title 49 CFR for 

shipping. Oxygen generators must be 

expended prior to disposal but are 

considered a hazardous waste; therefore, 

disposal must be in accordance with all 

Federal, State, and local regulations. 

Expended oxygen generators are forbidden in 

air transportation as cargo. For more 

information, contact 1–800–HMR–4922. 

(i) Retained Compliance With Federal 

Aviation Regulations of AD 2011–04–09, 

Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, March 

8, 2011) 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (h) of AD 2011–04–09, 

Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, March 

8, 2011). Notwithstanding the requirements 

of Sections 25.1447, 121.329, 121.333, and 

129.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

(14 CFR 25.1447, 121.329, 121.333, and 

129.13), operators complying with this AD 

are authorized to operate affected airplanes 

until accomplishment of the actions specified 

in paragraph (l) of this AD. 

(j) Retained Parts Installation of AD 2011– 

04–09, Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, 

March 8, 2011) 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (i) of AD 2011–04–09, Amendment 

39–16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). 

After March 14, 2011 (the effective date of 

AD 2011–04–09), and until accomplishment 

of the actions specified in paragraph (l) of 

this AD, no person may install a chemical 

oxygen generator in any lavatory on any 

affected airplane. 

(k) Retained Special Flight Permit of AD 

2011–04–09, Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 

12556, March 8, 2011) 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (j) of AD 2011–04–09, Amendment 

39–16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). 

Special flight permits, as described in 

Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 

and 21.199), are not allowed for the 

accomplishment of the actions specified in 

paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(l) New Requirements of This AD: Oxygen 

System Restoration 

Within 37 months after the effective date 

of this AD, install a supplemental oxygen 

system that meets all applicable sections of 

parts 25 and 121 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR part 25 and 14 CFR part 

121) in each lavatory, as specified in 

paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, as 

applicable. 

(1) If compliance with paragraph (l) of this 

AD is achieved using a chemical oxygen 

generator, the actions specified in paragraph 

(l) of this AD must be done in accordance 

with a method approved by the Manager of 

the responsible FAA oversight office having 

responsibility over the modification. For a 

method to be approved, it must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(2) If compliance with paragraph (l) of this 

AD is achieved without a chemical oxygen 

generator, the specifications of paragraphs 

(l)(2)(i) and (l)(2)(ii) of this AD apply. Any 

repairs or alterations to a system installed 

and approved in accordance with this 

paragraph may be accomplished in 

accordance with 14 CFR part 43, provided 

the operator’s maintenance program contains 

an airworthiness limitation that prohibits the 

installation of chemical oxygen generators in 

lavatories. 

(i) The modification must receive FAA 

approval in accordance with 14 CFR part 21 

as a major design change. Notwithstanding 

operations specification restrictions to the 

contrary, organizational approval holders 

may exercise their full authority in approving 

installations that meet the installation 

requirements of this AD. 

(ii) Deviation from approved service 

instructions and subsequent modifications 

may be handled by normal operator 

procedures without requiring approval of an 

alternative method of compliance. 

(m) Minimum Equipment List (MEL) 

Notwithstanding the requirements of 14 

CFR 121.628(b)(2) and 14 CFR 129.14, the 

equipment required by paragraph (l) of this 

AD may be included in the Minimum 

Equipment List, as applicable. 

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Transport Standards 

Staff, ANM–110, 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 Transport Standards 

Staff, send it to the attention of the person 

identified in the Related Information section 

of this AD. 

(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. 

(o) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Jeff Gardlin, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM– 

115, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; phone: 425–227–2136; fax: 425– 

227–1149; email: jeff.gardlin@faa.gov. 

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference 

None. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 

2012. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15683 Filed 6–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0581] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Columbia River, Vancouver, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the Interstate 5 

(I–5) Bridges across the Columbia River, 

mile 106.5, between Portland, Oregon 

and Vancouver, Washington. This 

deviation is necessary to facilitate the 

movement of heavier than normal 

roadway traffic associated with the 

Independence Day fireworks show near 

the I–5 Bridges. This deviation allows 

the bridges to remain in the closed 

position during the event. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

9 p.m. on July 4, 2012 through 11:59 

p.m., July 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2012– 

0581 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2012–0581 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES