This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

55159 

Vol. 77, No. 174 

Friday, September 7, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1042; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–094–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain The Boeing Company Model 

737–700, –700C, –800, and –900ER 

series airplanes, Model 747–400F series 

airplanes, and Model 767–200 and –300 

series airplanes. That NPRM proposed 

to require an inspection for affected 

serial numbers of the crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units; and replacement of 

the crew oxygen mask stowage box unit 

with a new crew oxygen mask stowage 

unit, if necessary. That NPRM was 

prompted by reports indicating that 

certain crew oxygen mask stowage box 

units were possibly delivered with a 

burr in the inlet fitting. The burr might 

break loose during test or operation, and 

might pose an ignition source or cause 

an inlet valve to jam. This action revises 

that NPRM by adding a step to identify 

and label certain crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units that have already 

been inspected and reworked by the 

supplier, and allowing operators to 

install new or serviceable crew oxygen 

mask stowage box units. We are 

proposing this supplemental NPRM to 

prevent an ignition source, which could 

result in an oxygen-fed fire; or an inlet 

valve jam in a crew oxygen mask 

stowage box unit, which could result in 

restricted flow of oxygen. Since these 

actions impose an additional burden 

over that proposed in the NPRM, we are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

the public the chance to comment on 

these proposed changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by October 22, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, 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. 

For Boeing service information 

identified in this proposed AD, contact 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Data & Services Management, 

P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206– 

766–5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. For 

Intertechnique service information 

identified in this proposed AD, contact 

Zodiac, 2, rue Maurice Mallet—92137 

Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex France; 

telephone +33 1 41 23 23 23; fax +33 1 

46 48 83 87; Internet http:// 

www.zodiac.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. 

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 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety and Environmental 

Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6457; fax: 425–917–6590; email 

susan.l.monroe@faa.gov. 

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–2010–1042; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–094–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 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain The Boeing Company 

Model 737–700, –700C, –800, and 

–900ER series airplanes, Model 747– 

400F series airplanes, and Model 767– 

200 and –300 series airplanes. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on November 3, 2010 (75 FR 

67637). That NPRM proposed to require 

an inspection for affected serial 

numbers of the crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units; and replacement of 

the crew oxygen mask stowage box unit 

with a new crew oxygen mask stowage 

unit, if necessary. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM (75 FR 

67637, November 3, 2010) was Issued 

The NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 

3, 2010) referred to the following service 

information: 

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

35A1121, dated December 14, 2009; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

55160 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

35A2126, dated October 8, 2009; 

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

35A0057, dated October 8, 2009; and 

• Intertechnique Service Bulletin 

MXP1/4–35–175, dated September 11, 

2009. 

After we issued the NPRM, the service 

information was revised: 

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

35A1121, Revision 1, dated November 

7, 2011; 

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

35A2126, Revision 1, dated September 

29, 2011; 

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

35A0057, Revision 1, dated November 

17, 2011; and 

• Intertechnique Service Bulletin 

MXP1/4–35–175, Revision 2, dated May 

10, 2011. 

Among other things, the service 

information provides the following 

changes: 

• Adds a step to identify and label 

certain crew oxygen mask stowage box 

units that have already been inspected 

and reworked by the supplier; and 

• Adds a provision to allow operators 

to install either new or serviceable crew 

oxygen mask stowage box units. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the previous NPRM (75 FR 

67637, November 3, 2010). The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Support for the Previous NPRM (75 FR 

67637, November 3, 2010) 

Boeing, Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA), and Delta Air 

Lines (Delta) supported the NPRM (75 

FR 67637, November 3, 2010). 

Request To Revise Compliance Time 

ALPA requested that we reduce the 

compliance time to 12 months instead 

of 24 months, as proposed in the 

previous NPRM (75 FR 67637, 

November 3, 2010). ALPA noted that 

certain crew oxygen mask stowage box 

units were possibly delivered with a 

burr in the inlet fitting, which might 

break loose during test or operation, and 

might pose an ignition source or cause 

an inlet valve to jam, thus prohibiting or 

restricting the flow of oxygen. ALPA 

reasoned that there could be a potential 

serious nature of events involving fire 

and smoke, and that there is a necessity 

to ensure functionality of this safety 

equipment for the flightcrew. 

We disagree with the request to revise 

the compliance time in the 

supplemental NPRM. The proposed 

compliance time is in line with the 

manufacturer’s recommended 

compliance time. Also, in developing 

the proposed compliance time, we 

considered safety implications, parts 

availability, and normal maintenance 

schedules for timely accomplishment of 

replacement of the crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units. Further, operators 

are permitted to accomplish the 

requirements of an AD at a time earlier 

than the specified compliance time. If 

additional data are presented that would 

justify a shorter compliance time, we 

might consider further rulemaking on 

this issue. We have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request for Clarification of Inspection 

Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that we 

revise the previous NPRM (75 FR 67637, 

November 3, 2010) to include the latest 

service information. JAL explained that 

Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/ 

4–35–175, dated September 11, 2009, 

does not describe how to differentiate 

parts before and after the actions 

specified in Intertechnique Service 

Bulletin MXP1/4–35–175, dated 

September 11, 2009, have been 

accomplished, so it is not sufficient for 

operators to complete Intertechnique 

Service Bulletin MXP1/4–35175, dated 

September 11, 2009. 

Continental Airlines (Continental) 

requested that we revise the previous 

NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010) 

to clarify which crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units have been inspected, 

and which crew oxygen mask stowage 

box units still need to be inspected. 

Continental explained that some 

operators might think a placard should 

be applied to all crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units after completion of 

Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/ 

4–35–175, dated September 11, 2009, 

not only to those crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units with suspect serial 

numbers itemized in table 1 of 

Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/ 

4–35–175, dated September 11, 2009. 

Continental based this assertion on the 

assumption that, when a suspect crew 

oxygen mask stowage box unit is found 

with the placard already installed, it has 

already been re-worked and has since 

been returned to service. 

We agree to include the revised 

service information in the supplemental 

NPRM. We have explained the revised 

service information in the ‘‘Actions 

Since Previous NPRM was Issued’’ 

section of this supplemental NPRM. The 

revised service information addresses 

the issues raised by JAL and 

Continental. We have revised the 

paragraphs specifying service 

information in this supplemental NPRM 

accordingly. 

Request for Clarification Regarding 

Service Information for Other Models 

Continental questioned why Boeing 

did not release service bulletins for 

other fleet types using the same part 

numbers listed in Intertechnique 

Service Bulletin MXP1/4–35–175, dated 

September 11, 2009. Continental 

explained that it has other fleets (for 

example, Model 737–500, 757–200, and 

757–300 airplanes) that have the same 

crew oxygen mask stowage box unit part 

numbers, as delivered from Boeing. 

Continental reasoned that, because crew 

oxygen mask stowage box units are 

often swapped from aircraft to aircraft 

and borrowed from operator to operator, 

it will not only be inspecting its entire 

Model 737NG (next generation) fleet, 

but its other fleet types for these suspect 

serial numbers. 

We find that clarification is necessary. 

Some airplanes were delivered with the 

affected part numbers and were not 

included in the applicability of the 

supplemental NPRM, because the 

manufacturing defect occurred in the 

time period from July 12, 2007, through 

November 20, 2007. Certain airplanes 

were not included in the service 

information because they were 

delivered prior to the time interval of 

the defect, thus were not included in the 

applicability of the supplemental 

NPRM. 

Also, we now understand that the 

components identified with the 

manufacturing defect may have been 

installed on airplanes outside the 

effectivity of the service information 

after delivery (e.g., during maintenance 

activity). We are working to evaluate the 

associated risk and the need for 

additional action. We might consider 

further rulemaking to address our 

findings. We have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request for Alternative Method of 

Compliance (AMOC) 

Continental stated that, if a later 

revision of the referenced service 

information is released, it would request 

approval of an AMOC because of minor 

discrepancies found in the original 

service information. Continental 

explained that it understood Revision 1 

of the service information was going to 

be released prior to the issuance of any 

rulemaking, and that it has conveyed 

the minor discrepancies to Boeing. 

As stated previously, we have revised 

this supplemental NPRM to refer to the 

revised service information—which 

addresses the discrepancies identified 

by Continental. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55161 

Request for Clarification 

AVOX Systems Inc. (Avox) requested 

that we revise the NPRM (75 FR 67637, 

November 3, 2010) to include certain 

words, phrases, and deletions as 

follows: 

• Where the NPRM (75 FR 67637, 

November 3, 2010) proposed to require 

replacing crew oxygen mask stowage 

box units, Avox requested specifying 

these units as ‘affected.’ 

• Where the NPRM (75 FR 67637, 

November 3, 2010) proposed to require 

replacing with a new crew oxygen mask 

stowage box unit, Avox requested 

specifying replacement with a new ‘or 

reworked’ crew oxygen mask stowage 

box unit. 

• Where the NPRM (75 FR 67637, 

November 3, 2010) proposed to require 

replacing with a new crew oxygen mask 

stowage box unit, Avox requested 

adding ‘‘as required.’’ Avox explained 

that, for crew oxygen mask stowage box 

units located on an airplane, it makes 

sense that these crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units should be inspected 

to determine if the crew oxygen mask 

stowage box unit is affected by the 

NPRM. If determined to be affected, the 

crew oxygen mask stowage box units 

should be removed and replaced with 

compliant crew oxygen mask stowage 

box units. 

We partially agree with the request. 

We agree to designate units as 

‘‘affected,’’ throughout the AD because 

that term adds clarity. We disagree to 

replace ‘‘if necessary’’ in the preamble 

of this supplemental NPRM with ‘‘as 

required,’’ because this phrase does not 

add clarity. We also disagree to add ‘‘or 

reworked’’ because we have revised 

paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to clarify that 

replacement crew oxygen mask stowage 

box units must be ‘‘new or serviceable.’’ 

Request To Allow Rework at Repair 

Station and Return to Service 

Avox requested that we revise the 

NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010) 

to allow for removed crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units to be sent to an 

authorized repair station to be reworked 

and returned to service. 

We partially agree with the request. 

We note that Intertechnique Service 

Bulletin MXP1/4–35–175, Revision 2, 

dated May 10, 2011, provides for return 

of the crew oxygen mask stowage box 

units to four authorized Intertechnique 

locations. However, we have not 

changed this supplemental NPRM in 

this regard. 

Request To Include Inspection/ 

Replacement of Spare Crew Oxygen 

Mask Stowage Box Units 

Avox also requested that we revise the 

NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010) 

to include an inspection and 

replacement of spare crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units. Avox explained that, 

for crew oxygen mask stowage box units 

located in storage as spares, it makes 

sense that these crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units should be inspected 

to determine if the unit is affected by 

the NPRM. If determined to be affected, 

the crew oxygen mask stowage box unit 

should be removed from storage and 

sent to an authorized repair station to be 

reworked and returned to service. 

We disagree with the request. Section 

39.3 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

(14 CFR 39.3) does not permit ADs to be 

written against parts that are not 

installed on an airplane. Therefore, 

paragraph (h) of this supplemental 

NPRM does not allow an affected spare 

unit to be installed on any airplane. We 

have not changed this supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Request for Review of Airplane 

Maintenance Records Inspection and 

Spare Parts 

Delta requested that we revise 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of the NPRM (75 

FR 67637, November 3, 2010) to include 

the option of conducting a review of 

airplane or component maintenance 

records, or spare parts purchase records, 

to demonstrate that an airline does not 

operate or own any crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units that were 

manufactured in the date range listed in 

the service information in the NPRM. 

Delta proposed that this action be an 

acceptable method of compliance in lieu 

of a visual inspection to show that 

airplane or spare crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units are not affected by the 

NPRM. Delta reasoned that affected 

crew oxygen mask stowage box unit part 

numbers can be verified, as required by 

the NPRM, to be not applicable by a part 

and serial number inspection or records 

review, or by review of purchase order 

records that verify the date of 

manufacture does not fall in the affected 

manufacturing date range. 

We disagree with the request to 

include a review of airplane 

maintenance records or spare parts 

purchase records. Section 39.3 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

39.3) does not permit ADs to be written 

against parts that are not installed on an 

airplane. Therefore, an AD cannot 

require that operators inspect, repair, or 

modify a ‘‘spare part.’’ Also, because of 

the rotability of these parts, a 

component level record review may not 

sufficiently address the required action 

in the supplemental NPRM. As the 

previous NPRM (75 FR 67637, 

November 3, 2010) specified, it is still 

acceptable to conduct a review of 

airplane maintenance records in lieu of 

the inspection in paragraph (g) of this 

supplemental NPRM, if the serial 

number of the crew oxygen mask 

stowage box unit can be conclusively 

determined from that review. Operators 

may apply for approval of an AMOC for 

these actions in accordance with the 

provisions of paragraph (i) of this 

supplemental NPRM, if sufficient data 

are submitted to substantiate that the 

change would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. We have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM because we evaluated all the 

relevant information and determined 

the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

in other products of these same type 

designs. Certain changes described 

above expand the scope of the original 

NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 

2010). As a result, we have determined 

that it is necessary to reopen the 

comment period to provide additional 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on this supplemental NPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of the 

Supplemental NPRM 

This supplemental NPRM would 

require accomplishing the actions 

specified in the service information 

described previously. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 40 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

operators 

Inspection ................... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per inspection cycle.None .......................... $85 per inspection 

cycle.

$3,400 per inspection 

cycle. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

55162 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this proposed 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– 

2010–1042; Directorate Identifier 2010– 

NM–094–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by October 22, 

2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

airplanes, certificated in any category, as 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and 

(c)(3) of this AD. 

(1) Model 737–700, –700C, –800, –900ER 

series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–35A1121, Revision 1, 

dated November 7, 2011. 

(2) Model 747–400F series airplanes, as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–35A2126, Revision 1, dated September 

29, 2011. 

(3) Model 767–200 and –300 series 

airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–35A0057, Revision 1, 

dated November 17, 2011. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 35, Oxygen. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports 

indicating that certain crew oxygen mask 

stowage box units were possibly delivered 

with a burr in the inlet fitting. The burr may 

break loose during test or operation and 

might pose an ignition source or cause an 

inlet valve to jam. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent an ignition source, which could 

result in an oxygen-fed fire; or an inlet valve 

to jam in a crew oxygen mask stowage box 

unit, which could result in restricted flow of 

oxygen. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action 

Within 24 months after the effective date 

of this AD: Do a general visual inspection to 

determine if the serial number of the crew 

oxygen mask stowage box unit is identified 

in the Appendix of Intertechnique Service 

Bulletin MXP1/4–35–175, Revision 2, dated 

May 10, 2011, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable Boeing alert service bulletin 

specified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) 

of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance 

records is acceptable in lieu of this 

inspection if the serial number of the crew 

oxygen mask stowage box unit can be 

conclusively determined from that review. 

(1) If any crew oxygen mask stowage box 

unit has a serial number identified in table 

1 of the Appendix of Intertechnique Service 

Bulletin MXP1/4–35–175, Revision 2, dated 

May 10, 2011: Before further flight, replace 

the crew oxygen mask stowage box unit with 

a new or serviceable unit, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable Boeing alert service bulletin 

specified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) 

of this AD. 

(2) If any crew oxygen mask stowage box 

unit has a serial number identified in table 

2 of the Appendix of Intertechnique Service 

Bulletin MXP1/4–35–175, Revision 2, dated 

May 10, 2011: Before further flight, add the 

letter ‘‘I’’ to the end of the serial number 

(identified as ‘‘SER’’) on the identification 

label, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of 

Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/4–35– 

175, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2011; and 

reinstall in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable Boeing alert service bulletin 

specified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) 

of this AD. 

(3) If no crew oxygen mask stowage box 

unit has a serial number identified in the 

Appendix of Intertechnique Service Bulletin 

MXP1/4–35–175, Revision 2, dated May 10, 

2011: Before further flight, reinstall the crew 

oxygen mask stowage box unit, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable Boeing alert service bulletin 

specified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) 

of this AD. 

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition 

As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install a crew oxygen mask 

stowage box unit with a serial number listed 

in the Appendix of Intertechnique Service 

Bulletin MXP1/4–35–175, Revision 2, dated 

May 10, 2011, on any airplane. 

(i) 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. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace 

Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental 

Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55163 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone: 425–917–6457; fax: 425– 

917–6590; email: susan.l.monroe@faa.gov. 

(2) For Boeing service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & 

Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 

2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 

206–766–5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. For Intertechnique 

service information identified in this AD, 

contact Zodiac, 2, rue Maurice Mallet—92137 

Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex France; telephone 

+33 1 41 23 23 23; fax +33 1 46 48 83 87; 

Internet http://www.zodiac.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 August 

31, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22040 Filed 9–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0111; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–089–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain Airbus Model A330–200, 

A330–300, A340–200, and A340–300 

series airplanes; and Model A340–541 

airplanes and Model A340–642 

airplanes. That NPRM proposed to 

require performing a detailed inspection 

for degradation of the bogie pivot pins 

and for any cracks and damage of the 

pivot pin bushes of the main and central 

landing gear; a magnetic particle 

inspection of the affected bogie pivot 

pins for corrosion and base metal 

cracks; and repairing or replacing bogie 

pivot pins and pivot pin bushes, if 

necessary. That NPRM was prompted by 

reports of cracks in the bogie pivot pin 

caused by material heating due to 

friction between the bogie pivot pin and 

bush, leading to chrome detachment 

and chrome dragging on the bogie pivot 

pin. This action revises that NPRM by 

adding repetitive inspections and 

expanding the applicability. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

cracks and damage to the main and 

central landing gear, which could result 

in the collapse of the landing gear and 

adversely affect the airplane’s continued 

safe flight and landing. Since these 

actions impose an additional burden 

over that proposed in the NPRM, we are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

the public the chance to comment on 

these proposed changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 22, 2012. 

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, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS— 

Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email 

airworthiness.A330–A340@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office 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 Operations 

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: 

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1138; fax (425) 227–1149. 

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–2012–0111; Directorate Identifier 

2011–NM–089–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 based on 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 

We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 with an earlier NPRM for the 

specified products, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 10, 2012 (77 FR 7007). That 

earlier NPRM proposed to require 

actions intended to address the unsafe 

condition for the products listed above. 

Since that NPRM (77 FR 7007, 

February 10, 2012) was issued, we have 

determined that repetitive inspections 

of the bogie pivot pin are necessary to 

address the identified unsafe condition, 

and we have expanded the applicability 

to include all Airbus Model A330–200, 

A330–200 Freighter, A330–300, A340– 

200, and A340–300 series airplanes; and 

Model A340–541 and Model A340–642 

airplanes. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2012–0053, 

dated March 30, 2012 (referred to after 

this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

During removals of A330/340 Main 

Landing Gear (MLG) Bogie Beams and A340– 

500/600 Center Landing Gear (CLG) Bogie 

Beams, cracks in the bogie pivot pin were 

found. 

Investigations indicated that these findings 

were the result of material heating, caused by 

friction between bogie pivot pin and bush, 

leading to chrome detachment and stress 

corrosion cracking. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS