58340 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

wage area. There are currently no FWS 

employees working in Oconto County. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that these regulations would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because they would affect only Federal 

agencies and employees. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Freedom of information, 

Government employees, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wages. 

John Berry, 

Director, U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management. 

Accordingly, the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management is proposing to 

amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows: 

PART 532—PREVAILING RATE 

SYSTEMS 

1. The authority citation for part 532 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 

also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 

2. Appendix C to subpart B is 

amended by revising the wage area 

listings for the Shreveport, LA; 

Texarkana, TX; Milwaukee, WI; and 

Southwestern Wisconsin wage areas to 

read as follows: 

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532— 

Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey 

Areas 

* * * * * 

LOUISIANA 

* * * * * 

Shreveport 

Survey Area 

Louisiana: (parishes) 

Bossier 

Caddo 

Webster 

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus: 

Louisiana: (parishes) 

Bienville 

Claiborne 

De Soto 

East Carroll 

Jackson 

Lincoln 

Morehouse 

Ouachita 

Red River 

Richland 

Union 

West Carroll 

Texas: 

Cherokee 

Gregg 

Harrison 

Panola 

Rusk 

Upshur 

* * * * * 

TEXAS 

* * * * * 

Texarkana 

Survey Area 

Texas: 

Bowie 

Arkansas: 

Little River 

Miller 

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus: 

Texas: 

Camp 

Cass 

Franklin 

Marion 

Morris 

Red River 

Titus 

Arkansas: 

Columbia 

Hempstead 

Howard 

Lafayette 

Nevada 

Sevier 

* * * * * 

WISCONSIN 

* * * * * 

Milwaukee 

Survey Area 

Wisconsin: 

Milwaukee 

Ozaukee 

Washington 

Waukesha 

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus: 

Wisconsin: 

Brown 

Calumet 

Door 

Fond du Lac 

Kewaunee 

Manitowoc 

Oconto 

Outagamie 

Racine 

Sheboygan 

Walworth 

Winnebago 

Southwestern Wisconsin 

Survey Area 

Wisconsin: 

Chippewa 

Eau Claire 

La Crosse 

Monroe 

Trempealeau 

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus: 

Wisconsin: 

Adams 

Barron 

Buffalo 

Clark 

Crawford 

Dunn 

Florence 

Forest 

Jackson 

Juneau 

Langlade 

Lincoln 

Marathon 

Marinette 

Menominee 

Oneida 

Pepin 

Portage 

Price 

Richland 

Rusk 

Shawano 

Taylor 

Vernon 

Vilas 

Waupaca 

Waushara 

Wood 

Minnesota: 

Fillmore 

Houston 

Wabasha 

Winona 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–23956 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0857; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–156–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Koito 

Industries, Ltd., Seats and Seating 

Systems Approved Under Technical 

Standard Order (TSO) TSO–C39b, 

TSO–C39c, or TSO–C127a 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Koito Industries, Ltd., seats and seating 

systems approved under TSO–C39b, 

TSO–C39c, or TSO–C127a. This 

proposed AD would require 

determining if affected seats and seating 

systems and their components are 

compliant with certain FAA regulations, 

and removing those seats, seating 

systems, and their components from the 

affected fleet that are shown to be 

unsafe. This proposed AD results from 

a determination that the affected seats 

and seating systems may not meet 

certain flammability and strength 

criteria. Failure to meet strength criteria 

could result in injuries to the flightcrew 

and passengers during emergency 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 58341 

landing conditions. In the event of an 

in-flight or post-emergency landing fire, 

failure to meet flammability criteria 

could result in an accelerated 

propagation of fire. We are proposing 

this AD to prevent accelerated fires and 

injuries to the flightcrew and 

passengers. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 23, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

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

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

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

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–150L, FAA, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; 

telephone (562) 627–5344; fax (562) 

627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0857; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–156–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

In January 2009, in accordance with 

the FAA’s bilateral agreement with 

Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), the 

JCAB contacted us and advised of noncompliance issues with the Koito seats. 

We were later advised that the JCAB had 

been notified of the issues by a 

whistleblower who reported 

discrepancies between materials used in 

production seats and the material of test 

articles used for showing compliance to 

flammability requirements. The 

falsification of certification records, 

which violates section 21.2 of the 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR 21.2), was 

first determined to result in possible 

non-compliance with the flammability 

requirements of § 25.853 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.853). 

At that time, we evaluated whether the 

disclosed possible non-compliance with 

the TSO significantly affected 

compliance with flammability criteria 

and determined that there was not a 

safety-of-flight issue, so we did not issue 

an AD. 

In November 2009, the JCAB reviewed 

the safety of all in-service seats, which 

prompted Koito Industries to disclose 

additional discrepancies, including the 

falsification of static, dynamic, and 

flammability testing on delivered seats. 

Failure to meet strength criteria could 

result in injuries to the flightcrew and 

passengers during emergency landing 

conditions. In the event of an in-flight 

or post-emergency landing fire, failure 

to meet flammability criteria could 

result in an accelerated propagation of 

fire. 

In December 2009, the JCAB and the 

FAA concluded that all TSO approvals 

for Koito Industries, Ltd., must be 

assumed to be non-compliant to the 

TSO and, by extension, to the 

regulations. Therefore, all such seats 

have potential unsafe conditions. 

Approval Basis for TSO Seats 

The static, dynamic, and flammability 

testing requirements include sections 

25.561, 25.562, and 25.853 and 

Appendix F of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations: 

• Section 25.561 contains required 

static loads for emergency landing 

conditions. Amendment 25–64, effective 

June 16, 1988, increased the static 

strength requirements in certain load 

cases. 

• Section 25.562, which was created 

by Amendment 25–64, added dynamic 

testing requirements and quantified 

injury criteria and considerations for 

egress for the new requirements. These 

criteria improve the level of safety for 

airplanes that include this amendment 

level in the certification basis, while 

older airplanes are not required to meet 

these criteria. 

The applicable amendment level of 

these requirements for a seat installation 

is dependent on the certification basis of 

the airplane on which the seats are 

installed. Because this proposed AD is 

applicable to all affected seats— 

regardless of the airplane on which they 

are installed—we use the current 

amendment levels of these regulations 

in the required actions of this proposed 

AD. 

We recognize that an aircraft may 

have a certification basis that does not 

include 14 CFR 25.562, but has TSO– 

C127a seats installed. In that case, 

although the seats are not required to 

meet 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2) and (c)(7) by 

the airplane certification basis, they 

must still comply with the requirements 

of this proposed AD, which is written 

against the seats. However, an operator 

in this situation may request approval of 

an alternative method of compliance 

using the airplane certification basis as 

justification. 

Establishing the Level of Safety for the 

Seats 

Amendment 25–64 was based on 

accident investigation and dedicated 

research, after we determined that 

meeting the emergency load conditions 

in earlier amendment levels did not 

ensure adequate performance in an 

actual accident. We developed dynamic 

testing criteria with increased load 

factors as compared to the static 

strength criteria. These new criteria 

were intended to achieve the type of 

structural performance that the static 

strength criteria were meant to provide, 

but could not ensure. 

In addition, other aspects of 

emergency landing safety were 

addressed at that time, which resulted 

in quantified injury criteria (such as 

implementation of the Head Injury 

Criterion (HIC)) and considerations for 

permanent structural deformations that 

might affect egress. These injury criteria, 

while a significant improvement in 

safety, are not as critical as the dynamic 

structural retention criteria, and will not 

be applied in this proposed AD because 

the primary safety function provided by 

seats and restraint systems is to remain 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
58342 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

intact in the event of an accident and 

provide energy management to allow 

occupant survival. The new injury 

criteria provide enhancements beyond 

this primary function. For this proposed 

AD, the injury criterion to be used is 

that the seat and seating system must 

exhibit no sharp edges during the 

assessment made for head injury 

protection. However, in order to make 

sure that assessment is valid, the seats 

in question must be shown to 

incorporate any specific design features 

or characteristics called out by the 

drawings for the purposes of reducing 

head injury. 

Section 25.853 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 25.853) contains 

fire protection requirements for 

compartment interiors, and specifies 

which test criteria in Appendix F of 14 

CFR part 25 must be met. With respect 

to flammability, the most significant 

safety element of the seat is the cushion/ 

upholstery system. In 1984, we adopted 

new standards for seat cushion fire 

resistance in Amendment 25–59, dated 

October 26, 1984, by adding a new part 

II to Appendix F of 14 CFR part 25. 

These requirements were mandated to 

be retrofitted on the existing fleet. Since 

that time, the relevant performance 

standards for seats and seat cushions 

have been modified to incorporate this 

requirement as well. 

While evidence indicates that many 

parts other than the cushion/upholstery 

system on the affected Koito seats and 

seating systems may not meet the 

Bunsen burner test requirements of part 

I in Appendix F of 14 CFR part 25, we 

consider that these non-compliances are 

not unsafe. The fire threat posed by 

these parts is of a lower order (i.e., they 

are smaller and spread apart on the 

seat), and the materials are typical 

aircraft materials with performance in a 

fire that is predictable based on past 

tests and usage. 

Unsafe Condition 

We have determined that falsification 

of the various tests for the TSO could 

result in the following unsafe conditions 

during emergency landing conditions 

and in the event of an in-flight or postemergency landing fire: 

• Static failure (non-compliance with 

14 CFR 25.561): Broken components 

may cause sharp edges and become 

injurious to the occupant, or fail to 

retain the occupant, when seats and 

seating systems do not comply with this 

regulation. 

• Dynamic failure (non-compliance 

with 14 CFR 25.562): Leg injuries, 

lumbar/spinal injury, head injury, seat 

structure yielding leading to occupant 

entrapment, and failure to retain the 

occupant may occur when seats and 

seating systems do not comply with this 

regulation. 

• Fire protection/flammability (noncompliance with 14 CFR 25.853): Inflight and post-emergency landing fires 

may be accelerated when seat materials 

do not comply with this regulation. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all relevant information and 

determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. This proposed AD would 

require determining if affected Koito 

Industries, Ltd., seats and seating 

systems, approved under TSO–C39b, 

TSO–C39c, or TSO–C127a, are 

compliant with specific FAA 

regulations containing flammability, 

static strength, and dynamic strength 

criteria. This proposed AD would also 

require removing seats and components 

that are shown to be unsafe. 

TABLE—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

Action & compliance time 

Regulation & safety requirement 

Structure Flammability 

(See footnote 2) 

Injury 

(See footnote 3) 

May remain in service ..................... Meets 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2) and 

(c)(7), Amendment level 25–64.

Meets 14 CFR 25.853(c), Amendment level 25–116.No sharp edges. 

Replace within 6 years .................... Meets 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(ii) 

and (iii), Amendment level 25– 

64.

Meets 14 CFR 25.853(c), Amendment level 25–116.No sharp edges. 

Replace within 2 or 3 years (See 

Footnote 1).

Does not meet 14 CFR 25.561 .... Does not meet 14 CFR 25.853(c) Has sharp edges (See Footnote 

4). 

Footnotes: 

1. Seats not meeting the criteria of 14 CFR 25.561 or seats exhibiting sharp edges must be replaced within 2 years; seat cushions not meeting 

the criteria of 14 CFR 25.853(c) must be replaced within 3 years. 

2. Seat cushions replaced to meet 14 CFR 25.853(c) should have consistent lumbar load properties with cushions shown to meet the lumbar 

criteria. Otherwise, a lumbar load test is required. 

3. Predicated on design philosophy being maintained for safety critical parts. 

4. Sharp edges would have been produced in the original tests, or in the tests required to meet this AD. 

The Role of the Koito Tests Performed 

Under the Supervision of JCAB 

Once the JCAB was aware of the 

fraudulent behavior, they began a 

process to re-qualify all of the suspect 

seat designs. In doing so, they reviewed 

the detailed designs and grouped them 

according to similarities that would 

enable tests of one model to substantiate 

a similar model. This process involved 

critical-case determinations and a 

survey of the designs of the seats in 

service. To address the JCAB orders, 

Koito produced new seats and seating 

systems per the production drawings 

and performed all the required 

certification tests on them. The results 

of these tests are intended to gain an 

understanding of the state of the fleet 

and prioritize remedial actions, as 

necessary. 

However, the results of these tests 

may not be entirely usable. While it is 

very likely that any tests that fail the 

requirement on the newly produced 

seats would also fail on seats in service, 

the reverse may not be true. Due to the 

falsification of records and drawing 

control issues, seats in service might not 

conform to their production drawings. 

Thus, successful tests of a newly 

produced seat cannot automatically be 

used to support seats in service unless 

the relevant detail design parameters 

can be verified as consistent between 

the two. If an operator (or an airframe 

manufacturer on behalf of an operator) 

can show that the seats in their fleet 

match the seat tested to support the 

JCAB investigation, then those data 

could be used to show compliance with 

this proposed AD. Each situation will be 

handled on a case by case basis. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 58343 

The Role of the Airframe 

Manufacturers (Airbus and Boeing) in 

Helping Airlines Establish the Status of 

Their Seats 

While this proposed AD is applicable 

to operators of airplanes with the 

affected seats installed, two airframe 

manufacturers involved, Airbus and 

Boeing, may be in a position to assist in 

complying with the requirements of the 

proposed AD. This is because many of 

the seat models affected are similar 

among different operators, and data 

gathered to support one seat model may 

also be used to support other models. 

Boeing and Airbus have information on 

which models are similar to each other, 

and should be able to assist operators in 

sharing information so that no more 

than one operator would conduct what 

amounts to the same tests. However, for 

this to work, both the airlines and the 

manufacturers must cooperate and share 

information. Based on preliminary 

discussions, we understand that the 

companies involved do intend to 

cooperate in order to minimize costs. In 

fact, much of the grouping of similar 

seats has already been accomplished by 

the JCAB in their efforts to ascertain the 

status of the various designs. This 

should simplify the process of 

identifying the models that must be 

tested. 

Data the FAA Will Accept To 

Demonstrate Compliance With the 

Proposed AD 

Compliance with this proposed AD 

would require data to support three 

types of assessments: 

• Structural performance; 

• Flammability; and 

• Injury prevention. 

For the structural performance 

requirements, test data will be 

necessary. These data should be 

generated under an approved test plan 

and would require oversight of an 

airworthiness authority (or delegated 

agent). Tests conducted to support Koito 

Technical Standard Order Authorization 

(TSOA) are not acceptable. As noted 

above, tests conducted as part of the 

JCAB investigation may be acceptable if 

the conformity of the seats in service 

can be verified. Otherwise, new data are 

needed. 

Similarly, for the flammability data, 

we will require that tests are conducted 

under an approved test plan or with the 

oversight of an aviation authority. We 

are aware of past Koito burner testing 

conducted at test facilities that were not 

done in accordance with FAA-approved 

test methods. Data generated to support 

the JCAB’s investigation must be done 

in accordance with FAA-approved test 

methods. In this case, the simplest 

solution for an operator may be to 

acquire new cushions. However, if 

operators choose to try and substantiate 

their cushions, they might need to 

fabricate test samples using actual 

cushions. Since actual cushions and test 

cushions are of different shapes and 

sizes, several production cushions will 

likely be needed to make one test 

sample set. Also, since upholstery is one 

area of customization between airlines, 

it is unlikely that one operator’s data 

can support another. In this case, an 

operator should consult with the FAA 

in making test samples so that valid 

results are produced. 

For injury criteria, we will accept 

photographic evidence from the Koito 

TSO tests to determine whether there 

are any sharp edges (this would require 

that the tests in question are shown to 

be valid). We will accept data from any 

of the tests performed to meet the other 

requirements of this proposed AD. 

Limitations on Seats Found Not To Be 

Fully Compliant, but Are Safe to 

Remain in Service 

Because this proposed AD will not 

require full compliance with every 

applicable regulation, seats on which 

the requirements of this proposed AD 

are completed successfully and are 

permitted to remain in service are 

limited in how they can be used. That 

is, unless they are shown to fully 

comply with the regulatory 

requirements, this proposed AD would 

restrict the installation of such seats and 

would require specific marking. These 

seats can be used as a direct spare for 

the same part number seat. However, 

any other use of such seats would be 

considered a new installation approval 

and would be required to comply with 

all regulations. Thus, seats not meeting 

all regulations could not be installed 

except as noted above, and if removed 

from an approved arrangement, would 

have to be destroyed or rendered 

unusable in some other manner 

acceptable to the FAA. 

In addition, if these seats are reinstalled, they would have to be marked 

in accordance with paragraph (g) of this 

AD so that their status is known to any 

person who inspects them. 

Replacement Components 

Wear-out component replacement 

parts such as food trays, arm rest covers, 

and non-structural members may be 

manufactured and installed on seats 

affected by this proposed AD until the 

compliance time specified in this 

proposed AD. These parts must comply 

with flammability and injury prevention 

requirements. Parts produced under 14 

CFR part 43, parts manufacturer 

approval (PMA) through licensing 

agreement, or PMA through identicality 

that could be based on fraudulent data 

would require an assessment of their 

compliance. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 40,365 passenger seats 

installed on airplanes in the U.S. fleet. 

There are 278 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

The average labor rate is $85 per workhour. 

The estimated cost to determine if the 

affected seats and seating systems and 

their components are in compliance 

(i.e., estimate the cost of static, dynamic 

and flammability testing, labor) is 

approximately $100,000 for the U.S. 

fleet. The estimated cost of the 

consumed article such as the seat row 

and materials consumed for 

flammability testing is approximately 

$490,000 for the U.S. fleet. The 

estimated cost to remove affected seats 

and seating systems and their 

components is approximately $285,000 

for the U.S. fleet (this estimate assumes 

that the removal of all seats and seating 

systems in the fleet). The total estimated 

cost of this proposed AD for the U.S. 

fleet is $875,000. 

Operators may need to replace only 

certain components. It is not feasible to 

include the cost of individual 

components in this proposed AD 

because we have no way of determining 

which components may need 

replacement. 

Operators may need to replace the 

affected seat with a new seat. The 

following table provides the estimated 

costs for U.S. operators to replace the 

different types of seats. We have no way 

of determining how many seats may 

need to be replaced after testing is done 

to determine if the seats are in 

compliance. Certain operators may need 

to replace any type of seat that are 

generalized by description and 

estimated per seat cost in the following 

table. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
58344 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE—SEAT REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES

Seat style/class Aircraft style, foot rest, and recline mechanism Cost per passenger seat 

Economy .................................... Narrow/Wide Body; Mechanical ............................................................ $2,300 

First, Business ........................... Narrow Body; Mechanical ..................................................................... $7,500 

Business ..................................... Wide Body; Mechanical ........................................................................ $10,000 

Business ..................................... Wide Body; Electrical ............................................................................ $25,000 to $35,000 

First ............................................ Wide Body; Lay flat single place, Electrical ......................................... $75,000 to $150,000 

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 determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

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

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

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

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance in the AD Docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Koito Industries, Ltd: Docket No. FAA–2010– 

0857; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM– 

156–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

November 8, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Koito Industries, 

Ltd., seats and seating systems having a 

model number identified in Table 1 of this 

AD that are approved under technical 

standard order (TSO) TSO–C39b, TSO–C39c, 

or TSO–C127a, and installed on, but not 

limited to, airplanes of the manufacturers 

identified in Table 2 of this AD, all type 

certificated models in any category. 

TABLE 1—SEAT MODELS

Model Numbers 

AFS–105, AFS–136, 

AFS–235, AFS–315, 

ARS–183, ARS–189, ARS–190, 

ARS–200, ARS–242, ARS–242–TA, ARS–254, ARS–255, ARS–263, ARS–276, ARS–277, ARS–281, ARS–289, 

ARS–29, ARS–29–03, 

ARS–304, ARS–308, ARS–311, ARS–311–A, ARS–311–B, ARS–336, ARS-339, ARS–341, ARS–347 ARS–352, ARS–354, ARS–357, ARS– 

360, ARS–384, ARS–385, ARS–392, ARS-397, ARS–398, 

ARS–415, ARS–417, ARS–418, ARS–419, ARS–423, ARS–424, ARS–425, ARS-427, ARS-431, ARS–437, ARS–446, ARS–447, ARS–448, 

ARS–451, ARS–452, ARS–465, ARS-478, ARS–480, ARS–482, ARS–483, ARS–493, ARS-494, 

ARS–507, ARS–510, ARS–511, ARS–514, ARS–516, ARS–518, ARS–527, ARS–542, ARS-543, ARS–550, ARS–552, ARS–553, ARS–554, 

ARS–571, ARS–574, ARS–577, ARS-588, ARS–589, ARS–591, ARS–592, ARS–593, ARS–594, ARS–595, ARS–596, ARS-597, ARS–598, 

ARS–599, 

ARS–600, ARS–601, ARS–604, ARS–605, ARS–607, ARS–610, ARS–611, ARS–613, ARS-615, ARS–616, ARS–617, ARS–620, ARS–626, 

ARS–627, ARS–629, ARS–636, ARS-641, ARS–642, ARS–643, ARS–644, ARS–646, ARS–647, ARS–649, ARS–651, ARS-652, ARS–657, 

ARS–658, ARS–659, ARS–667, ARS–668, ARS–669, ARS–670, ARS-671, ARS–672, ARS–673, ARS–674, ARS–694, ARS–697, 

ARS–704, ARS–707, ARS–709, ARS–710, 

ARS–813, ARS–814, ARS–815, ARS–823, ARS–831, ARS–832, ARS–833, ARS–835, ARS-836, ARS–837, ARS–838, ARS–840, ARS–841, 

ARS–843, ARS–844, ARS–846, ARS-847, ARS–849, ARS–851, ARS–852, ARS–853, ARS–857, ARS–858, ARS–859, ARS-861, ARS–862, 

ARS–869, 

ASS–197D, 

ASS–215, 

ASS–30, ASS–30–1, 

B–317, 

F11M11, 

F44A33, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 58345 

TABLE 1—SEAT MODELS—Continued 

Model Numbers 

P11B31, P11B33, P11M93, 

P21B33, P21B35, P21B73, 

P22A23, 

P32B73, 

P52B41, 

P56B63, 

PB7–2001, 

T–316, 

Y11B31, Y11B33, Y11B73, Y15B73, 

Y21A23, Y21B73, 

Y27B73, 

YE1B35, 

YG7B35, 

YH1B73, 

YK2B73. 

TABLE 2—AFFECTED AIRPLANES

Manufacturer Product subtype 

Airbus ........................................................................................................................................... Transport Airplane. 

The Boeing Company .................................................................................................................. Transport Airplane. 

McDonnell Douglas Corporation .................................................................................................. Transport Airplane. 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ................................................................................................. Transport Airplane. 

Fokker Services B.V. ................................................................................................................... Transport Airplane. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from a determination 

that the affected seats and seating systems 

may not meet certain flammability, static 

strength and dynamic strength criteria. 

Failure to meet static and dynamic strength 

criteria could result in injuries to the 

flightcrew and passengers during emergency 

landing conditions. In the event of an inflight or post-emergency landing fire, failure 

to meet flammability criteria could result in 

an accelerated fire. The Federal Aviation 

Administration is issuing this AD to prevent 

accelerated fires and injuries to the 

flightcrew and passengers. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Determination of Compliance and Removal 

(g) Within 2 years after the effective date 

of this AD, determine if the seats and seating 

systems and their components are compliant 

with FAA regulations, in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA. For a method to be approved, the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Before re-installing any seat or seating 

system, modify the existing TSO tag by 

defacing the TSO number and letter of 

designation, e.g., overstrike the TSO 

identification with an ‘‘X’’ (such as ‘‘TSO– 

C127a’’ is defaced to look like 

‘‘XXXXXXXXXX’’), and add a tag that 

specifies non-compliance to the TSO number 

and letter designation, this AD number, and 

removal date if applicable. 

Note 1: Determining if the seats and seating 

systems and their components are compliant 

may be made by independent re-qualification 

of the affected TSO article that has thorough 

control of the design and production process. 

Note 2: Components of seats and seating 

systems include any non-metallic exposed 

part, assembly, or item. A component can 

include a seat cushion, recline cable, hook 

and loop (hook and loop is a generic term for 

Velcro), leather cover that is glued to seat, 

head rest, or arm cap. 

(1) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seats 

approved under TSO–C39b or TSO–C39c that 

are not shown to be compliant with 14 CFR 

25.561(b)(3)(ii) and 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(iii): 

Within 2 years after the effective date of this 

AD, remove the non-compliant seats. 

(2) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seating 

systems approved under TSO–C127a that are 

not shown to be compliant with either of the 

regulations specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) 

and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD: Within 2 years after 

the effective date of this AD, remove the noncompliant seating systems. 

(i) 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(ii) and 14 CFR 

25.561(b)(3)(iii). 

(ii) 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2), and 14 CFR 

25.562(c)(7). 

(3) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seating 

systems approved under TSO–C127a that are 

shown to be compliant with 14 CFR 

25.561(b)(3)(ii) and 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(iii), 

but are not shown to be compliant with 14 

CFR 25.562(b)(2), and 14 CFR 25.562(c)(7): 

Within 6 years after the effective date of this 

AD, remove the non-compliant seating 

systems. 

(4) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seats 

approved under TSO–C39b or TSO–C39c and 

seating systems approved under TSO–C127a 

that are shown to exhibit sharp or injurious 

surfaces in testing conducted to satisfy the 

original TSO authorization program, or 

subsequent verification tests in accordance 

with this AD: Within 2 years after the 

effective date of this AD, remove the noncompliant seats and seating systems. 

(5) For components of Koito Industries, 

Ltd., seats approved under TSO–C39b or 

TSO–C39c and components of seating 

systems approved under TSO–C127a that are 

not shown to be compliant with 14 CFR 

25.853(c): Within 3 years after the effective 

date of this AD, remove the non-compliant 

components. If a seat cushion is replaced, the 

replacement seat cushion must have 

consistent seat bottom stiffness and seat 

reference point locations using the guidance 

found in paragraph 9 of Appendix 3 of FAA 

Advisory Circular 25.562–1B, dated January 

10, 2006. 

Parts Installation 

(h) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install any Koito Industries, Ltd., 

seats and seating systems having any model 

number identified in Table 1 of this AD that 

are approved under Technical Standard 

Order (TSO) TSO–C39b, TSO–C39c, or TSO– 

C127a on any airplane; and no person may 

install any component of any affected seat 

and seating system on any airplane, unless 

the component is shown to meet the 

applicable airworthiness requirements; 

except that a seat, seating system, or 

component may be re-installed on the 

airplane from which it was originally 

removed, provided it is removed from service 

within the applicable compliance time 

specified in this AD. Non-compliant seats 

and seating systems and their components 

that are removed from service are not eligible 

for installation on another airplane or by 

another airline or any other aviation entity. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
58346 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Patrick Farina, 

Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety Branch, 

ANM–150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712– 

4137; telephone (562) 627–5344; fax (562) 

627–5210. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 17, 2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23936 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–0312; SW FRL– 

9206–9] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by Eastman Chemical 

Company–Texas Operations (Eastman) 

to exclude (or delist) certain solid 

wastes generated by its Longview, 

Texas, facility from the lists of 

hazardous wastes. EPA used the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of 

the impact of the petitioned waste on 

human health and the environment. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2009–0312 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further technical information 

concerning this document or for 

appointments to view the docket or the 

Eastman facility petition, contact 

Michelle Peace, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Multimedia 

Planning and Permitting Division, 

RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD–C, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by 

calling (214) 665–7430 or by e-mail at 

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving Eastman 

Chemical Company’s delisting petition 

as a direct final rule without prior 

proposal because the Agency views this 

as a noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

of this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

Dated: September 8, 2010. 

Bill Luthans, 

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23962 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS