Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 24037 

According to the Noncitrus Fruits and 

Nuts 2011 Preliminary Summary issued 

in March 2012 by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, the total 

farm-gate value of summer/fall 

processed pears grown in Oregon and 

Washington for 2011 was $35,315,000. 

Based on the number of processed pear 

producers in Oregon and Washington, 

the average gross revenue for each 

producer can be estimated at 

approximately $23,543. Furthermore, 

based on Committee records, the 

Committee has estimated that all of the 

Oregon-Washington pear handlers 

currently ship less than $7,000,000 

worth of processed pears each on an 

annual basis. From this information, it 

is concluded that the majority of 

producers and handlers of Oregon and 

Washington processed pears may be 

classified as small entities. 

There are three pear processing plants 

in the production area, all currently 

located in Washington. All three pear 

processors would be considered large 

entities under the SBA’s definition of 

small businesses. 

This rule adds a new § 927.150 to the 

order’s administrative rules and 

regulations reapportioning the processor 

membership such that the three 

processor members will be selected 

from the production area at-large. This 

rule will be effective July 1, 2013. 

Authority for reapportioning the 

Committee is provided in § 927.20(c) of 

the order. 

The Committee believes that this 

action will not negatively impact 

producers, handlers, or processors in 

terms of cost. The benefits for this rule 

are not expected to be 

disproportionately greater or less for 

small producers, handlers, or processors 

than for larger entities. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this rule, including leaving the 

District 2 processor member and 

alternate member positions vacant. 

However, the Committee believes that 

three members should continue to 

represent processors on the Committee, 

except the representative should be 

chosen from the production area at-large 

rather than from a specific district. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0189, Generic 

Fruit Crops. No changes in those 

requirements as a result of this action 

are necessary. Should any changes 

become necessary, they will be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

Additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements will not be imposed on 

either small or large processed pear 

handlers. As with all Federal marketing 

order programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

As noted in the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap or conflict with 

this final rule. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

Oregon-Washington pear industry and 

all interested persons were invited to 

attend and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the May 30, 2012, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express views on this issue. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on December 5, 2012 (77 FR 

72245). The Committee made copies of 

the proposed rule available to the 

processed pear industry. Finally, the 

rule was made available through the 

Internet by USDA and the Office of the 

Federal Register. A 60-day comment 

period ending February 4, 2013, was 

provided to allow interested persons to 

respond to the proposal. No comments 

were received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrderSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny 

at the previously mentioned address in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matter presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 927 

Marketing agreements, Pears, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 927 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 927—PEARS GROWN IN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 927 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. An undesignated center heading 

and § 927.150 are added to read as 

follows: 

Administrative Bodies 

§ 927.150 Reapportionment of the 

Processed Pear Committee. 

Pursuant to § 927.20(c), on and after 

July 1, 2013, the 10-member Processed 

Pear Committee is reapportioned and 

shall consist of three grower members, 

three handler members, three processor 

members, and one member representing 

the public. For each member, there are 

two alternate members, designated as 

the ‘‘first alternate’’ and the ‘‘second 

alternate,’’ respectively. District 1, the 

State of Washington, shall be 

represented by two grower members and 

two handler members. District 2, the 

State of Oregon, shall be represented by 

one grower member and one handler 

member. Processor members may be 

from District 1, District 2, or from both 

districts. 

Dated: April 18, 2013. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09722 Filed 4–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0413; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–257–AD; Amendment 

39–17441; AD 2013–08–23] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model DC–10–10, DC– 

10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10– 

30F (KC–10A and KDC–10), DC–10–40, 

DC–10–40F, MD–10–10F, MD–10–30F, 

MD–11, and MD–11F airplanes. This 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
24038 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

AD was prompted by fuel system 

reviews conducted by the manufacturer. 

This AD requires adding design features 

to detect electrical faults and to detect 

a pump running in an empty fuel tank. 

We are issuing this AD to reduce the 

potential of ignition sources inside fuel 

tanks, which, in combination with 

flammable fuel vapors, could result in 

fuel tank explosions and consequent 

loss of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective May 29, 

2013. 

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: Serj 

Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; 

phone: 562–627–5254; fax: 562–627– 

5210; email: serj.harutunian@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on April 18, 2012 (77 FR 

23166). That NPRM proposed to require 

adding design features to detect 

electrical faults, to detect a pump 

running in an empty fuel tank, and to 

ensure that a fuel pump’s operation is 

not affected by certain conditions. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal (77 FR 23166, 

April 18, 2012) and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Support for NPRM (77 FR 23166, April 

18, 2012) 

Airline Pilots Association 

International (ALPA) supports the 

language and intent of the NPRM (77 FR 

23166, April 18, 2012), and agreed that 

the proposed actions will enhance 

safety. 

Request To Delay AD Pending Release 

of Service Information 

Two commenters requested that we 

delay issuing the AD until Boeing has 

released service information. (Specific 

modifications and solutions were not 

included in the NPRM (77 FR 23166, 

April 18, 2012).) 

Noting that Boeing had planned to 

issue several service bulletins to prevent 

the identified unsafe condition, FedEx 

requested that we delay issuing the AD 

until Boeing has released relevant 

service information. FedEx 

recommended that we coordinate with 

Boeing on recommendations to address 

the unsafe condition. 

UPS requested that we extend the 

comment period until a minimum of 45 

days after publication of all associated 

service bulletins to provide operators 

sufficient information to make the 

design changes. 

We do not agree to delay issuance of 

this AD. We have identified a potential 

unsafe condition that needs to be 

corrected; however, Boeing has not 

finalized service information to address 

that condition. In light of the unsafe 

condition, we have determined that we 

cannot delay issuance of this AD, and 

must proceed without service 

information. We find that the 60-month 

time frame specified in paragraph (g) of 

this AD will provide adequate time for 

issuance and implementation of service 

information. We have not changed this 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise Applicability 

FedEx and Boeing requested that we 

revise the applicability to specifically 

exclude airplanes on which the 

auxiliary fuel tanks have been removed. 

FedEx reported that it has modified 

several MD–11s and MD–10s by 

removing the forward auxiliary tanks or 

center auxiliary tanks, as well as the 

fuel pumps and related hardware. 

We agree that removal of the auxiliary 

fuel tank eliminates the identified 

unsafe condition. We have changed 

paragraph (g) in this final rule to 

exclude airplanes when Boeinginstalled auxiliary fuel tanks are 

removed. 

Request To Clarify Intent of Proposed 

Actions 

FedEx stated that certain language in 

the NPRM (77 FR 23166, April 18, 2012) 

may be too broad. By way of example, 

FedEx cited the requirement to add 

design features ‘‘to detect electrical 

faults.’’ Inferring that this required 

detecting all electrical faults, FedEx 

asserted that, even if a device could 

detect all electrical faults, the cost of its 

installation would be prohibitive. FedEx 

recommended limiting the requirement 

to specify detecting ‘‘certain’’ electrical 

faults. 

We disagree that it is necessary to 

change the AD. The NPRM (77 FR 

23166, April 18, 2012) intentionally 

described certain failure conditions in 

broad terms. The intent was to provide 

operators unrestricted options to define 

design changes based on individual 

safety assessments. Certain electrical 

faults may be single failures or a 

combination of failures such as phaseto-phase shorts, phase-to-ground shorts, 

and over-voltage or over-current 

electrical failure conditions. 

Request To Revise Cost Estimate 

FedEx questioned how the FAA 

determined the estimated cost of the 

modification, since the NPRM (77 FR 

23166, April 18, 2012) provided no 

information about specific proposed 

modifications or required parts. FedEx 

suggested that the estimated cost would 

be different for each fleet type. UPS 

questioned the accuracy of the cost 

estimates in the NPRM, given the lack 

of technical data. 

Based on current efforts developing 

service information, Boeing estimated 

that modification labor costs could vary 

from 111 to 280 hours depending on the 

number of pumps on an airplane. 

Boeing also reported that the AD affects 

about 341 U.S.-registered airplanes (not 

180 airplanes, as stated in the NPRM (77 

FR 23166, April 18, 2012)). Boeing 

requested that we revise the costs of 

compliance accordingly. 

The estimated costs in the NPRM (77 

FR 23166, April 18, 2012) were based on 

recent design change solutions installed 

on similar center wing tanks on 

transport category airplanes. We have 

revised the cost estimate in this final 

rule to reflect Boeing’s updated figures, 

including increased work hours (152 

hours) and parts costs ($137,500), based 

on an average of 10 pumps per airplane. 

No single cost figure will be accurate for 

all operators, however, since labor and 

parts costs will vary depending on the 

type of certified design change solutions 

provided by the operators. 

Request for Terminating Action 

UPS stated that overall safety would 

be better met if protective devices (fault 

current detectors) were installed for all 

17 pumps on its Model MD–11 

airplanes—regardless of tank location. 

UPS requested that we revise the NPRM 

(77 FR 23166, April 18, 2012) to specify 

that installing fault current detectors 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 24039 

terminates the 18-month repetitive 

inspection requirement on the 

‘‘epocast’’ fuel pump connector, part 

number (P/N) 60–84351, as mandated 

by AD 2002–13–10, Amendment 39– 

12798 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 2002), or 

AD 2011–11–05, Amendment 39–16704 

(76 FR 31462, June 1, 2011). (Those ADs 

address the same unsafe condition 

identified in this AD, on the same 

affected airplanes.) 

We agree that compliance with the 

requirements of this AD is considered 

terminating action for the two 

referenced ADs. Physical inspection of 

all pumps every 18 months would be 

labor intensive and time consuming. 

Further, Boeing has not provided 

service information to otherwise 

preclude use of any other pumps during 

flight. We have changed paragraph (g)(1) 

in this final rule to require protective 

devices on electrically powered 

alternate current (AC) fuel pumps 

installed in fuel tanks that normally 

empty during flight. (This proposed 

requirement in the NPRM (77 FR 23166, 

April 18, 2012) extended to any 

electrically powered fuel pump in those 

tanks.) We have added new paragraph 

(h) in this final rule to terminate the 18- 

month repetitive inspections for all 

pumps, regardless whether they are 

installed in a tank that normally 

empties, affected by AD 2002–13–10, 

Amendment 39–12798 (67 FR 45053, 

July 8, 2002), or AD 2011–11–05, 

Amendment 39–16704 (76 FR 31462, 

June 1, 2011), after accomplishment of 

paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. 

Request To Expand or Remove 

Automatic Shutoff Limits 

Paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR 

23166, April 18, 2012) would require 

additional design features that will 

automatically shut off a dry-running 

pump in an empty tank within 60 

seconds if the flight crew does not shut 

it off. FedEx and UPS stated that their 

Model MD–11 and MD–10 airplanes 

already have design features installed by 

the original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM) that shut off the affected pumps 

automatically, but will not meet the 

prescribed 60-second time limit. The 

commenters asserted that a system 

design change is not necessary. 

We agree. Model MD–11 and MD–10 

airplanes with two-person flight crews 

already have OEM-installed equipment 

designed to shut off the fuel pumps 

automatically. We agree that the 

automatic shut-off time for two-person 

flight-crew airplanes, which have design 

features that were originally installed by 

the airplane manufacturer, may exceed 

60 seconds. But for airplanes with threeperson flight crews, such as Model DC– 

10 airplanes that do not have OEMinstalled equipment, any fuel pump 

running in an empty tank must be 

manually shut off by a flight crew 

within 60 seconds. In either case, 

regardless of the number of flight crew, 

all airplanes must be in compliance 

with the requirements of paragraph 

(g)(4) of this AD. 

Request To Require Airworthiness 

Limitations 

Boeing commented that the proposed 

rule does not mandate any 

airworthiness limitations instructions 

(ALIs) or critical design configuration 

control limitations (CDCCLs) regarding 

repetitive inspections or functional 

checks applicable to the proposed 

changes. Boeing recommended that we 

add a requirement to ‘‘incorporate and 

comply with any related Airworthiness 

Limitations.’’ 

We agree to provide clarification. 

Paragraph (g) in this final rule requires 

that the design changes be compliant 

with 14 CFR Section 25.981(a) and (b) 

at amendment level 25–125. These 

design changes including any associated 

ALIs or CDCCLs must be approved by 

the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office. 

Additional Changes to NPRM (77 FR 

23166, April 18, 2012) 

In response to requests by Boeing, we 

have revised paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) 

in this final rule to clarify the 

requirements associated with the 

airplane flight manual supplement 

(AFMS), and we have revised paragraph 

(g)(4) in this final rule to clarify that the 

requirement is limited to airplanes with 

tanks that normally empty during flight. 

We have revised the description of the 

required actions in the preamble of this 

final rule to remove the requirement to 

‘‘ensure that a fuel pump’s operation is 

not affected by certain conditions,’’ 

because those requirements will be 

incorporated by compliance to 14 CFR 

Section 25.981(a) and (b) at amendment 

level 25–125. We disagree with the 

request to define certain conditions 

because the AD must allow for a broader 

interpretation for all airplanes affected 

by this AD. We have not changed the 

final rule regarding this issue. 

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. 

We also determined that these changes 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 341 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate 

the following costs to comply with this 

AD, based on the costs of similar 

supplemental type certificate (STC) 

installations, and considering an 

average of 10 pumps per airplane: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Installing design features ............... 152 work-hours × $85 per hour = $12,920 ..................... $137,500 $150,420 $51,293,220 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
24040 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2013–08–23 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–17441; Docket No. 

FAA–2012–0413; Directorate Identifier 

2011–NM–257–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective May 29, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

Accomplishment of the requirements of 

this AD terminates certain requirements of 

AD 2002–13–10, Amendment 39–12798 (67 

FR 45053, July 8, 2002), and AD 2011–11–05, 

Amendment 39–16704 (76 FR 31462, June 1, 

2011). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC– 

10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A and 

KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–40F, MD–10– 

10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11, and MD–11F 

airplanes; certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 28, Fuel. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by fuel system 

reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We 

are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of 

ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in 

combination with flammable fuel vapors, 

could result in fuel tank explosions and 

consequent loss of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Criteria for Operation 

As of 60 months after the effective date of 

this AD, no person may operate any airplane 

affected by this AD unless an amended type 

certificate or supplemental type certificate 

that incorporates the design features and 

requirements described in paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (g)(4) of this AD has been approved 

by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, and those 

design features are installed on the airplane 

to meet the criteria specified in 14 CFR 

Section 25.981(a) and (d), at amendment 

level 25–125. For airplanes on which Boeinginstalled auxiliary fuel tanks are removed, 

the actions specified in this AD are not 

required. 

(1) For all airplanes: Each electrically 

powered alternate current (AC) fuel pump 

installed in any fuel tank that normally 

empties during flight—such as center wing 

tanks, auxiliary fuel tanks installed by the 

airplane manufacturer, and tail tanks—must 

have a protective device installed to detect 

electrical faults that can cause arcing and 

burn through of the fuel pump housing and 

pump electrical connector. The same device 

must shut off the pump by automatically 

removing electrical power from the pump 

when such faults are detected. When a fuel 

pump is shut off resulting from detection of 

an electrical fault, the device must stay 

latched off, until the fault is cleared through 

maintenance action and the pump is verified 

safe for operation. 

(2) For airplanes with a 2-person flight 

crew: Additional design features, if not 

originally installed by the airplane 

manufacturer, must be installed to meet 3 

criteria: To detect a running fuel pump in a 

tank that is normally emptied during flight, 

to provide an indication to the flight crew 

that the tank is empty, and to automatically 

shut off that fuel pump. The prospective 

pump indication and shutoff system must 

automatically shut off each pump in case the 

flight crew does not shut off a pump running 

dry in an empty tank within 60 seconds after 

each fuel tank is emptied. An airplane flight 

manual supplement (AFMS) that includes 

flight crew manual pump shutoff procedures 

in the Limitations Section of the AFMS must 

be submitted to the Los Angeles ACO, FAA, 

for approval. 

(3) For airplanes with a 3-person flight 

crew: Additional design features, if not 

originally installed by the airplane 

manufacturer, must be installed to detect 

when a fuel pump in a tank that is normally 

emptied during flight is running in an empty 

fuel tank, and provide an indication to the 

flight crew that the tank is empty. The flight 

engineer must manually shut off each pump 

running dry in an empty tank within 60 

seconds after the tank is emptied. The AFMS 

Limitations section must be revised to 

specify that this pump shutoff must be done 

by the flight engineer. 

(4) For all airplanes with tanks that 

normally empty during flight: Separate means 

must be provided to detect and shut off a 

pump that was previously commanded to be 

shut off automatically or manually but 

remained running in an empty tank during 

flight. 

(h) Terminating Action in Related ADs 

Accomplishment of the actions required by 

paragraph (g)(1) of this AD terminates the 18- 

month repetitive inspections and tests 

required by paragraph (a) of AD 2002–13–10, 

Amendment 39–12798 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 

2002), and the 18-month repetitive 

inspections required by paragraph (j) of AD 

2011–11–05, Amendment 39–16704 (76 FR 

31462, June 1, 2011), for pumps affected by 

those ADs, regardless whether the pump is 

installed in a tank that normally empties, 

provided the remaining actions required by 

those two ADs have been accomplished. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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. 

(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 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, Los 

Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; phone: 

562–627–5254; fax: 562–627–5210; email: 

serj.harutunian@faa.gov. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

None. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10, 

2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09432 Filed 4–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES