Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1765 

comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

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 would be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

This proposed rule would impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

Texas orange and grapefruit 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. 

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. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

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

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Laurel May at 

the previously-mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 10-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Ten days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2012–13 fiscal period began on August 

1, 2012, and the marketing order 

requires that the rate of assessment for 

each fiscal period apply to all assessable 

oranges and grapefruit handled during 

such fiscal period; (2) the Committee 

needs to have sufficient funds to pay its 

expenses, which are incurred on a 

continuous basis; and (3) handlers are 

aware of this action, which was 

unanimously recommended by the 

Committee at a public meeting and is 

similar to other assessment rate actions 

issued in past years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906 

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, 

Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 906—ORANGES AND 

GRAPEFRUIT GROWN IN LOWER RIO 

GRANDE VALLEY IN TEXAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 906 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 906.235 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 906.235 Assessment rate. 

On and after August 1, 2012, an 

assessment rate of $0.16 per 7/10-bushel 

carton or equivalent is established for 

oranges and grapefruit grown in the 

Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. 

Dated: January 3, 2013. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00189 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0812; Notice No. 13– 

01] 

RIN 2120–AK14 

Requirements for Chemical Oxygen 

Generators Installed on Transport 

Category Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking would 

amend the type certification 

requirements for chemical oxygen 

generators installed on transport 

category airplanes so the generators are 

secure and not subject to misuse. The 

intended effect of this action would be 

to increase the level of security for 

future transport category airplane 

designs. This proposal does not directly 

affect the existing fleet. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

March 11, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2012–0812 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

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

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Gardlin, Airframe and Cabin Safety 

Branch, ANM–115, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Northwest Mountain 

Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA 98057–3356; telephone: (425) 227– 

2136; email: jeff.gardlin@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Douglas Anderson, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Office 

of the Regional Counsel, ANM–7, 

Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone: (425) 227–2166; email: 

douglas.anderson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

‘‘Additional Information’’ section for 

information on how to comment on this 

proposal and how the FAA will handle 

comments received. The ‘‘Additional 

Information’’ section also contains 

related information about the docket, 

privacy, the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. In 

addition, there is information on 

obtaining copies of related rulemaking 

documents. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1766 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1For example, the FAA has issued ADs to address 

issues with reinforced flightdeck doors that would 

not otherwise affect safety. 

2FAA originally notified carriers in February 

2011 and required immediate compliance. The AD 

was issued in March 2, 2011 with a compliance 

date of March 14, 2011. See AD 2011–04–09, 

Airworthiness Directives: Various Transport 

Category Airplanes Equipped with Chemical 

Oxygen Generators Installed in a Lavatory, Docket 

No. FAA–2011–0157. 

3SFAR 111, Security Considerations for Lavatory 

Oxygen Systems (76 FR 12550, March 8, 2011), 

Docket No. FAA–2011–0186. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. 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. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under 

that section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations required in the 

interest of safety for the design and 

performance of aircraft; regulations and 

minimum standards in the interest of 

safety for inspecting, servicing, and 

overhauling aircraft; and regulations for 

other practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it would 

prescribe new safety standards for the 

design of transport category airplanes. 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Frequently Used in This Document 

AC—Advisory Circular 

AD—Airworthiness Directive 

ARAC—Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee 

ARC—Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

COG—Chemical Oxygen Generator 

LOARC—Lavatory Oxygen Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee 

SaO2—Blood Oxygen Saturation Level 

SFAR—Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

I. Overview of the Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would adopt new 

standards for COGs installed in 

transport category airplanes. These 

proposed new standards, based on the 

LOARC’s recommendations, would 

apply to future applications for type 

certificates, address potential security 

vulnerabilities with those devices, and 

provide performance-based options for 

acceptable COG installations. 

II. Background 

The incorporation of security 

measures into an airplane design is a 

significant development in aviation 

safety that was initiated over 20 years 

ago. The International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) adopted standards 

to address several key elements of 

airplane design to reduce its 

vulnerability to terrorist acts following 

the bombing of a Pan American 747 

airplane near Lockerbie, Scotland in 

1988. These standards were adopted as 

Amendment 97 to Annex 8 of the 1944 

Convention on Civil Aviation. 

In January 2002, the FAA adopted the 

first regulations that address security 

vulnerabilities in airplanes. The FAA 

later incorporated all of the ICAO 

standards into regulations by 

Amendment 25–127 to Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25. 

That amendment complemented other 

rulemaking initiatives that address 

security measures for flightdeck doors 

and added a new § 25.795, Security 

considerations. ICAO does not have 

recommended practices related to 

COGs. Nevertheless, the FAA has 

determined that COGs present an 

unacceptable vulnerability and has 

exercised its authority to take remedial 

action to correct this vulnerability in 

airplane design.1

The FAA became aware of a security 

vulnerability with certain types of 

oxygen systems installed inside the 

lavatories of most transport category 

airplanes operating under 14 CFR part 

121, as well as certain airplanes 

operating under part 129. As a result, in 

April 2011, the FAA issued AD 2011– 

04–09, mandating that these oxygen 

systems be rendered inoperative until 

the vulnerability could be eliminated.2

However, by rendering the oxygen 

systems inoperative to comply with the 

AD, the airplanes do not comply with 

the requirements of §§ 25.1447, 121.329, 

and 121.333. The AD contained a 

provisional allowance to permit 

noncompliance in the lavatories from 

those specific requirements. 

To further address that situation, the 

FAA also issued SFAR 111 3 to allow 

continued operation, delivery, and 

modification of affected airplanes, 

despite their non-compliance with the 

above-noted regulations. The AD and 

the SFAR (while still in effect) are 

interim measures to minimize the 

disruption to air commerce while the 

development of permanent solutions, 

including this proposed rule, are 

underway. 

In addition, the FAA chartered the 

LOARC shortly after issuing SFAR 111. 

The LOARC was tasked to make 

recommendations for new standards 

that would ensure the installation of a 

safe and secure COG system, including 

the best approach to implement those 

standards. The LOARC’s 

recommendations also included the key 

issues involved in making a COG 

secure, and a summary of how those 

issues may affect implementation of 

new standards. The LOARC’s 

recommendations are discussed in the 

‘‘Lavatory Oxygen Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee’’ section of this NPRM. 

Those LOARC recommendations also 

form the basis for this proposal. 

A. Lavatory Oxygen Systems 

The minimum performance 

requirements for oxygen supply and 

oxygen mask presentation are contained 

in §§ 25.1443 and 25.1447. The 

supplemental oxygen systems are 

necessary safety equipment in the event 

of loss of cabin pressure. Each occupant 

is required to have a supplemental 

oxygen supply immediately available if 

cabin pressure drops to a certain level. 

The regulations specifically require 

lavatories to be equipped with two 

oxygen masks connected to oxygen 

supply terminals and, for airplanes 

flying above 30,000 feet, automatic 

presentation of the masks to the 

occupants. Two masks are required 

inside a lavatory to address the situation 

where one person may be assisting 

another, such as an adult assisting a 

small child. The quantity of oxygen 

available to each occupant is based on 

the route flown and how quickly the 

airplane can descend to an altitude that 

does not require supplemental oxygen. 

Lavatory oxygen systems are generally 

similar to the systems provided for 

passenger and flight attendant use in the 

cabin. The intent of the supplemental 

oxygen requirements in 14 CFR part 25 

is reinforced in the operational 

requirements of §§ 121.329 and 121.333, 

although neither section specifically 

references lavatories. 

The regulations do not specify the use 

of COGs as an oxygen supply. However, 

COGs are common because they tend to 

provide a sufficient oxygen supply 

while retaining the optimum size, 

weight, and maintainability for most 

operations. Because COGs produce 

oxygen through a chemical reaction that 

generates heat, there are requirements in 

§ 25.1450 to ensure that adjacent 

materials and systems are protected 

from damage and persons are protected 

from injury. Surface temperatures can 

reach temperatures up to 500 degrees 

Fahrenheit, so the COG often has a 

protective shroud installed. 

B. Safety Ramifications 

In issuing AD 2011–04–09 and SFAR 

111, the FAA carefully considered the 

safety ramifications of removing 

supplemental oxygen from the 

lavatories of a significant portion of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1767 

4See AD 2012–11–09, Various Transport Category 

Airplanes (77 FR 38000, June 26, 2012). 

5FAA–Regulations and Policies, Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee: Transport 

Airplane and Engine Issue Area Mechanical System 

Harmonization Working Group, Task 3—Airplane 

Ventilation Systems (66 FR 39074, July 26, 2001). 

6Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 5577, 

Aircraft Lightning Direct Effects Certification, dated 

September 30, 2002. 

commercial fleet. The FAA conducted a 

risk analysis to assess the safety 

implications of temporarily 4 not having 

supplemental oxygen available inside 

lavatories. To support the risk 

assessment, earlier studies involving 

passengers’ use of supplemental oxygen 

were reviewed. 

Several years ago in an unrelated 

initiative, the FAA tasked the ARAC to 

make recommendations for safety 

standards when airplanes operate in 

high altitudes. As part of its efforts, the 

ARAC did a comprehensive assessment 

of the frequency and nature of the need 

for supplemental oxygen systems in 

service.5 The ARAC identified 2,800 

instances over a 40-year period and 

categorized them by cause, severity, and 

consequence. The majority of these 

instances were caused by malfunctions 

of the cabin pressurization system. 

However, in none of those 2,800 

instances was there a loss of life due to 

lack of oxygen. The ARAC used these 

data to make recommendations to the 

FAA for future rulemaking not related to 

this action. 

The FAA reviewed the service history 

since those ARAC recommendations 

were made and found that the types and 

frequencies of incidents, as well as their 

causes, are consistent with the historical 

record. The relative risks and service 

history have not changed in any 

significant way since the ARAC 

recommendations were issued. With 

respect to SFAR 111, the assessment 

was limited to the lavatories, as opposed 

to the earlier ARAC task that applied to 

the entire airplane. The lavatories are 

sporadically occupied during flight and 

by a small number of passengers at any 

given time. This limits the potential 

impact on safety. 

The ARAC found the frequency of the 

types of severe occurrences 

necessitating the use of supplemental 

oxygen was around 10¥8/flight-hour for 

causes other than a malfunction of the 

pressurization system. These 

malfunctions tend to be slower losses of 

pressure, or are identified at lower 

altitudes, and therefore, they are not as 

critical for this situation. For the 

purposes of the assessment leading to 

SFAR 111, the FAA assumed the 

probability of an occupied lavatory is 

50%. The probability of an event when 

supplemental oxygen is physiologically 

required is around 5×10¥9/flight-hour. 

Since SFAR 111 was issued, there has 

been one decompression event due to a 

mechanical failure involving oxygen 

mask deployment and emergency 

descent. In that instance, no occupants 

were in a lavatory and no persons 

suffered any injury. 

C. Lavatory Oxygen Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee 

As discussed above, the FAA 

chartered the LOARC to obtain 

recommendations from the affected 

public on what the new certification 

standards for COGs should be, as well 

as the best way to implement them. 

Specifically, the LOARC was tasked to: 

(1) Establish criteria for in-service, 

new production and new type design 

airplanes, preferably in the form of 

performance standards, for safe and 

secure installation of lavatory oxygen 

systems; 

(2) Determine whether the same 

criteria should apply to the existing fleet 

and to new production and type 

designs; 

(3) Establish what type of safety 

assessment approach should be used 

(e.g., in accordance with SAE 

International Document ARP5577 6 or 

§ 25.1309), and define the content and 

procedures of the safety assessment; 

(4) Determine whether tamper 

resistance, active tamper evidence, or 

different system design characteristics 

are equivalent options; 

(5) Develop guidance as necessary to 

satisfy the recommended criteria for 

each system design characteristic as 

appropriate; and 

(6) Consider the pros and cons of 

different implementation options and 

recommend a schedule(s) for 

implementation with the advantages 

and disadvantages identified. 

The LOARC identified five key 

subjects to focus on to develop its 

recommendations and fulfill its charter. 

Those subjects were: 

• Design Considerations—identifying 

and characterizing the design 

constraints and key factors affecting an 

installation. 

• Security Standards—identifying the 

necessary components of a secure 

installation, in terms of both new 

designs and for retrofit. 

• System Performance—identifying 

the factors that affect system 

performance in general and how 

modifications to enhance security might 

affect system performance. 

• Implementation Considerations— 

identifying the major factors in being 

able to implement the new requirements 

into the fleet as expeditiously as 

practicable, as well as making 

assessments of how long certain actions 

will take. 

• Other Affected Areas— 

characterizing the parameters that 

resulted in the determination of a 

security vulnerability for lavatory COG 

installations and establishing criteria for 

evaluating other installations against 

those characteristics. 

A sub-group was formed for each of 

the focus areas. Each subject was 

explored in detail with respect to how 

it would affect the content of new 

standards and the ability to implement 

those new standards into the existing 

fleet. Using the inputs from the subgroups, the LOARC made 

recommendations in a final report, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Some of the significant findings of the 

LOARC are summarized below. The 

LOARC concluded that security could 

be achieved through tamper-resistance 

alone, through a combination of tamperresistance and active tamper-evidence 

(e.g., an alarm), or by switching to a 

different means of supplying oxygen in 

lieu of a COG. For new type designs, 

any of these approaches would be 

feasible, and some could be adopted 

with minimal impact on cost or weight. 

As discussed below, the FAA is 

addressing the existing U.S. fleet via an 

AD. Although this proposal would not 

affect the existing U.S. fleet, the 

proposed standards would likely be 

used by international aviation 

authorities in approving installations for 

the retrofit of those fleets covered by 

their regulations. The discussion of the 

LOARC’s conclusions regarding the 

implications for retrofit is included 

here, because it may aid the 

international community in 

reintroducing supplemental oxygen 

systems into affected airplane lavatories. 

From the standpoint of the existing U.S. 

fleet, the LOARC concluded that if a 

COG were to continue to be used, the 

majority of installations would likely 

require using a combination of the 

tamper-resistance and tamper-evidence 

approaches. 

Incorporation of an active system to 

provide tamper-evidence would 

significantly increase complexity, cost, 

and time in implementing new designs 

into the existing U.S. fleet compared to 

other approaches for addressing the 

security concerns with COGs. This is 

because such a system must 

demonstrate a suitable level of 

reliability and not be susceptible to 

tampering. It would also require 

intervention on the part of the crew, 

which would result in new crew 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1768 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

7PS–ANM–25–04, Chemical Oxygen Generator 

Installations, dated December 21, 2011. 

procedures and training. In addition, 

most of the modification work must be 

done on the airplane, which can lead to 

unscheduled time out of service. All of 

these factors contribute to the 

complexity of the design, the time it 

takes to install and certificate the 

design, and the costs associated with 

incorporating the design. 

The LOARC concluded that switching 

to a different means of supplying 

oxygen might be the most efficient 

solution in a significant number of 

cases. However, because the COG is an 

optimized design for this application, 

there are currently no other types of 

systems available for the existing fleet. 

Nonetheless, some design approval 

holders may take this approach to avoid 

the issues associated with the active 

tamper-evidence approach. 

The LOARC further concluded that 

there is limited space available to 

modify existing designs or to add 

features. There is some correlation 

between the size of the airplane and the 

space available, but in almost all cases, 

there are very small tolerances on the 

size and shape of an oxygen source 

(COG or other) that will fit. Similarly, 

although moving the supplemental 

oxygen supply to a different location 

may be feasible for new designs, 

relocating the supplemental oxygen 

supply in existing fleets is limited by 

the space available in existing designs. 

Relocating the supplemental oxygen 

supply can also complicate activating 

the oxygen flow, since that is generally 

accomplished by pulling on the oxygen 

mask. Nevertheless, the LOARC 

concluded that there are practical 

design solutions, and, as discussed 

below under ‘‘Related Actions,’’ the 

FAA has accepted the LOARC’s 

recommendations. 

D. New Technology 

Irrespective of the method chosen to 

provide supplemental oxygen, there 

may be means to indirectly mitigate the 

space constraints by changing the way 

in which the supplemental oxygen 

dosage is measured. Historically, oxygen 

systems have provided a constant 

tracheal partial pressure of oxygen in 

accordance with § 25.1443. In order to 

maintain the requisite partial pressure, 

the system supplies oxygen at a given 

rate for a time period as determined by 

the routes being flown. 

Recent developments in system 

technology have made a more direct 

approach feasible for meeting the 

physiological oxygen requirement. This 

approach measures the oxygen 

saturation level in the blood, known as 

SaO2, instead of tracheal partial 

pressure. Because SaO2 is more directly 

indicative of whether adequate oxygen 

is being supplied, this approach has 

merit. Further, for a system that can 

maintain adequate SaO2, the total 

quantity of oxygen may be reduced, 

making the storage vessel smaller than 

one based on tracheal partial pressure. 

Using a smaller storage vessel makes 

such installations more practical by 

utilizing the existing locations. While 

there is no regulatory change proposed 

to incorporate SaO2, the FAA will 

consider this approach as a basis for a 

finding of an equivalent level of safety 

to the oxygen quantity requirements of 

§ 25.1443, Minimum mass flow of 

supplemental oxygen. 

E. Related Actions 

As previously discussed, the FAA 

began incorporating security measures 

into the airplane design in 2002. This 

proposal is keeping with that effort and 

reflects additional knowledge the FAA 

has acquired since then. The FAA 

recently superseded AD 2011–04–09 

with AD 2012–11–09, Various Transport 

Category Airplanes (77 FR 38000, June 

26, 2012) to include terminating action 

for installations meeting requirements of 

this proposal. To enable affected 

operators and modifiers to obtain 

approval of COG installations in 

advance of finalizing this proposed 

rulemaking, the FAA has also issued 

Policy Statement PS–ANM–25–04 

regarding COGs using these proposed 

standards (based on the LOARC 

recommendations) as guidance for 

methods of compliance.7 The policy 

statement enables operators to satisfy 

the requirements in AD 2012–11–09 

while at the same time restoring a 

supplemental oxygen supply to 

lavatories. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. New Requirements for Chemical 

Oxygen Generator Installations 

(§ 25.795) 

The current requirements for COGs 

relate primarily to protecting the 

airplane and passengers from the heat 

produced by the generators. These 

standards are in § 25.1450 and will 

continue to apply. The requirements of 

§ 25.1450 address safety requirements 

for COGs when correctly installed and 

operating, as well as predictable 

failures. These existing requirements do 

not consider the deliberate misuse of a 

COG, or the potential effects of that 

misuse. 

As previously discussed, § 25.795 

addresses the incorporation of security 

measures into an airplane design, 

following similar standards adopted by 

ICAO. Currently, § 25.795 does not 

address COGs, as they were not 

considered at the time that regulation 

was adopted. Nevertheless, since the 

issues of concern stem from security 

considerations, the FAA has determined 

that the most logical location for these 

new COG standards is in § 25.795, 

Security considerations. 

Again, the FAA is proposing 

standards based on recommendations 

from the LOARC. This proposal would 

amend § 25.795 by requiring that each 

COG or its installation must be designed 

to be secure by meeting at least one of 

the following four conditions: (1) 

Provide effective resistance to 

tampering; (2) provide an effective 

combination of resistance to tampering 

and active tamper-evident features; (3) 

installing in a location or manner where 

any attempt to access the COG would be 

immediately obvious; and (4) by a 

combination of these approaches, 

provided the Administrator finds it to 

be a secure installation. These 

conditions are discussed in further 

detail below. 

There are two basic approaches to 

providing a secure lavatory COG 

installation: make a fully tamperresistant installation, or incorporate a 

combined tamper-resistance and active 

tamper-evidence approach. Either of 

these approaches would be acceptable, 

but they involve different 

considerations. 

A COG that is inaccessible would be 

considered a tamper-resistant COG for 

the purposes of § 25.795(d). This could 

be accomplished by locating the COG in 

an inaccessible area, or installing it in 

a more conventional location in such a 

way that access to it is not possible. The 

ARC considered whether to characterize 

such an installation as ‘‘tamper proof’’ 

rather than ‘‘tamper resistant.’’ 

However, a literal interpretation of 

‘‘tamper proof’’ was considered to be too 

stringent, since there would always be 

some conceivable, albeit unreasonable, 

method to overcome tamper-proof 

features. Nonetheless, where tamper 

resistance is the sole method of 

providing security, it is intended that 

the features be very robust. 

If the installation cannot rely solely 

on a tamper-resistance approach, it is 

acceptable to incorporate a combined 

tamper-resistance and active tamperevidence approach, as previously stated. 

Using this combined approach would 

also necessitate changes to crew 

procedures and concurrent training to 

provide the same level of security. In 

this case, it is intervention that 

ultimately prevents misuse of the 

generator, so crew involvement is 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1769 

essential. The use of a tamper-evidence 

approach alone is unacceptable, since 

this relies entirely on intervention and 

does not improve the security of the 

COG itself. Neither the LOARC nor the 

FAA considers a tamper-evidence 

approach alone to adequately provide 

the needed security. 

Another method of providing a secure 

installation is by locating the COG 

where any attempt to access it would be 

immediately obvious. In other words, 

the COG might be in a location where 

it is accessible, but anyone attempting to 

gain access to it would be immediately 

noticed before actually gaining access. 

This method would not be feasible 

inside lavatories since they are 

inherently isolated from view. This 

method is not the same as a sole tamperevidence approach, which is only 

effective after access has begun and 

relies entirely on subsequent 

intervention. 

There may be any number of 

combinations used of tamper-resistance 

and tamper-evidence approaches that 

would be effective. Applicants would 

need to make specific proposals and 

obtain FAA approval for a given 

approach. In addition, there may be 

methods of providing a secure 

installation that involve other elements 

that would also be acceptable but are 

not yet defined. The intent of these 

proposed requirements would allow for 

those possibilities, while at the same 

time set a clear performance goal. 

In addition, acceptable methods of 

employing tamper-resistance and 

tamper-evidence approaches are 

discussed in proposed AC 25.795, 

Chemical Oxygen Generator Security 

Requirements. A copy of AC 25.795 will 

be placed in the docket for this action. 

B. Alternative Approaches 

The FAA and the LOARC recognize 

that the unique nature of COGs drives 

the identified security vulnerability. 

Although not proposed in this action, 

there are other means of delivering 

supplemental oxygen, such as a stored 

gas system (either centrally or locally 

installed), that could eliminate the 

security vulnerability. These systems 

are currently used in certain airplane 

types and could be easily incorporated 

for new airplane type designs. 

C. General Provisions 

Although the installation of COGs in 

lavatories prompted the various 

rulemaking activities discussed in this 

proposal, the LOARC recommended 

applying the new standards to COG 

installations anywhere on the airplane, 

and the FAA agrees with this 

recommendation. The LOARC 

concluded that if the characteristic that 

makes the COG a risk exists in locations 

other than in lavatories, then those 

locations should also be subject to the 

same approval criteria. The LOARC did 

not attempt to identify any specific 

locations, but it developed assessment 

criteria to identify such locations. 

However, since lavatories are currently 

without supplemental oxygen, those are 

the locations with the greatest interest. 

The LOARC also concluded that the 

solution for other areas might be 

different than for lavatories. This 

information is also included in the 

above-noted proposed AC 25.795. 

D. Operational Requirements 

The FAA has superseded AD 2011– 

04–09, with AD 2012–11–09 which 

includes requirements to retrofit the 

fleet of airplanes affected by AD 2011– 

04–09. Superseding AD 2012–11–09 

also applies to airplanes in production 

for which compliance relief was 

provided by SFAR 111. The expiration 

of SFAR 111 will correspond to the 

compliance date of AD 2012–11–09, 

since the relief provided by the SFAR 

will no longer be necessary once 

operators have complied with that AD. 

As noted earlier, the FAA has issued 

Policy Statement PS–ANM–25–04 to 

facilitate the incorporation of designs 

meeting these proposed requirements. 

AD 2012–11–09 references that policy 

as a potential means of compliance. 

The FAA does not intend any further 

mandate to retrofit oxygen generator 

systems because only lavatory COG 

installations that meet the criteria in 

Policy Statement PS–ANM–25–04 or in 

this NPRM would be approved. This 

means that even if there are some 

changes between this NPRM and the 

final rule, designs approved prior to the 

effective date of the final rule, in 

accordance with the policy, would not 

be affected. This applies to the design 

approval, not just to the airplanes on 

which the design is installed prior to the 

effective date of the final rule. 

Therefore, a design approved as an 

alternative means of compliance to AD 

2011–04–09, or as a means of 

compliance to AD 2012–11–09, will still 

be approved for installation on airplanes 

after the effective date of this rule. 

All affected airplanes need to be 

modified either in accordance with the 

standards in this proposed rule, or via 

a prior approval as discussed in Policy 

Statement PS–ANM–25–04 before the 

expiration date of SFAR 111. For new 

design approvals on airplanes subject to 

AD 2012–11–09, or applications for type 

design changes after the effective date of 

the final rule, the FAA will use the 

requirements of the newly adopted 

§ 25.795(d) as the approval basis. For 

example, if a design is approved per 

Policy Statement PS–ANM–25–04, and 

an applicant applies to amend the 

design after the effective date of the 

final rule, the amended design must 

comply with the requirements of 

§ 25.795(d). For transport airplanes that 

are not subject to proposed AD 2012– 

NM–004–AD (e.g., all-cargo airplanes), 

§§ 21.17 and 21.101, as applicable, will 

be used to determine whether the 

requirements of § 25.795(d) must be 

met. 

E. Miscellaneous Amendments 

(§ 25.1450) 

Section 25.1450, which contains the 

general standards for COGs, would be 

revised to refer to the new § 25.795(d), 

in addition to the existing standards for 

COGs. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct that each Federal agency shall 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) 

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States (U.S.). In developing U.S. 

standards, this Trade Act requires 

agencies to consider international 

standards and, where appropriate, that 

they be the basis of U.S. standards. 

Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by state, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

proposed rule. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Would have benefits that justify its 

costs; (2) would not be an economically 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866; (3) would not be 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1770 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the U.S.; and (6) would not 

impose an unfunded mandate on state, 

local, or tribal governments, or on the 

private sector by exceeding the 

threshold identified above. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

allows that a statement to that effect and 

the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

This proposed rule would apply only 

to future type-certificated, large 

transport airplane models. It would not 

affect any current airplanes or future 

airplanes built under an existing type 

certificate. The proposed requirements 

are technologically feasible, as 

evidenced by two new type certificate 

programs (the Boeing 787 and the 

Airbus 350) that include designs that 

would be in compliance with this 

proposed rule. The FAA does not 

believe that compliance with the 

proposed rule for future type certificates 

would require extensive airplane 

redesign. 

The FAA also believes that there 

would be little, if any, production 

airplane cost increases from complying 

with these proposed requirements. The 

FAA has learned that the emergency 

oxygen systems technology used in the 

Boeing 787 and the Airbus 350 could be 

transferrable to future type-certificate 

designs. Further, these technologies 

provide greater airline operational 

flexibility because they would allow the 

airplane to carry variable amounts of 

oxygen, which is not currently the case 

with COGs. Finally, future typecertificate designs could still use the 

COG for emergency oxygen in other 

parts of the airplane with an alternative 

oxygen source within the lavatories. The 

FAA requests comments on its 

conclusions and these issues. 

Total Estimated Benefits and Costs of 

This Proposed Rule 

The primary benefit from this 

proposed rule is that it would allow the 

airplane to continue to provide 

supplemental oxygen to individuals in 

lavatories during emergencies while 

ensuring that individuals in lavatories 

could not tamper with the supplemental 

oxygen system. 

The FAA believes that the proposed 

rule would impose minimal costs 

because it would only apply to new 

type-certificated airplane models so that 

the manufacturer would be able to 

design the most cost-effective 

emergency oxygen system for the model 

before construction would start on the 

first airplane. Again, the Boeing 787 and 

the Airbus 350 are two new typecertificate projects which include 

designs for supplemental oxygen 

systems that would be in compliance 

with this proposed rule. The FAA 

believes that similar emergency oxygen 

systems could be designed for future 

type-certificated airplanes at a minimal 

cost. 

The FAA requests comments on this 

initial conclusion of minimal expected 

costs for future type-certificated 

airplane models. 

Who is affected by this rule? 

This rule affects all manufacturers of 

large transport category, certificated 

airplanes under part 25. 

Source(s) of Information 

The primary source of information is 

the LOARC, which included part 25 

airplane manufacturers, other aviation 

safety regulatory agencies, 

manufacturers of oxygen generating 

systems, airlines, a pilot union, and a 

flight attendant union. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

would, the agency must prepare an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the RFA. However, if an 

agency determines that a proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the RFA 

provides that the head of the agency 

may so certify, and a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. The 

certification must include a statement 

providing the factual basis for this 

determination, and the reasoning should 

be clear. 

The Small Business Administration 

defines a small airplane manufacturer as 

one that employs fewer than 1,500 

people. As all the affected airplane 

manufacturers employ more than 1,500 

people, this proposed rule would not 

affect small entities. Therefore, the FAA 

certifies that this proposed rule, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Specifically, 

the FAA requests comments on whether 

the proposed rule would create any 

specific compliance costs unique to 

small entities. Please provide detailed 

economic analysis to support any cost 

claims. The FAA also invites comments 

regarding other small-entity concerns 

with respect to this proposed rule. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States (U.S.). 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the U.S., so 

long as the standards have a legitimate 

domestic objective, such as protection of 

safety, and does not operate in a manner 

that excludes imports that meet this 

objective. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that they be the 

basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 

assessed the potential effect of this 

proposed rule and determined that it 

would improve safety and, therefore, is 

not an unnecessary obstacle to 

international trade. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1771 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 12866 

See the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ 

discussion in the ‘‘Regulatory Notices 

and Analyses’’ section elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when the 

FAA is aware of proprietary information 

filed with a comment, the agency does 

not place it in the docket. It is held in 

a separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Proposed Amendments 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1772 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

44702 and 44704. 

■ 2. Amend § 25.795 by redesignating 

paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e) and (f) 

respectively, and by adding a new 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 25.795 Security considerations. 

* * * * * 

(d) Each chemical oxygen generator or 

its installation must be designed to be 

secure from deliberate manipulation by 

one of the following: 

(1) By providing effective resistance to 

tampering, 

(2) By providing an effective 

combination of resistance to tampering 

and active tamper-evident features, 

(3) By installation in a location or 

manner whereby any attempt to access 

the generator would be immediately 

obvious, or 

(4) By a combination of approaches 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and 

(d)(3) of this section that the 

Administrator finds provides a secure 

installation. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 25.1450 by adding a new 

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 25.1450 Chemical oxygen generators. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Except as provided in SFAR 109, 

each chemical oxygen generator 

installation must meet the requirements 

of § 25.795(d). 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 3, 

2013. 

Dorenda D. Baker, 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00238 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1316; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–186–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to revise an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to all The Boeing Company 

Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, 

–400, and –500 series airplanes. The 

existing AD requires repetitive 

inspections to detect cracking in the 

web of the aft pressure bulkhead at body 

station 1016 at the aft fastener row 

attachment to the ‘‘Y’’ chord, various 

inspections for discrepancies at the aft 

pressure bulkhead, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. Since we issued that AD, we 

have determined that certain inspection 

and repair conditions must be clarified, 

as well as certain paragraph references 

related to the terminating action. This 

proposed AD would clarify certain 

actions specified in the existing AD. We 

are proposing this AD to detect and 

correct fatigue cracking, which could 

result in rapid decompression of the 

fuselage. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by February 25, 2013. 

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: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For 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. 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: 

Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 

917–6450; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: 

alan.pohl@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–2012–1316; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–186–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 

On August 31, 2012, we issued AD 

2012–18–13, Amendment 39–17190 (77 

FR 57990, September 19, 2012), for all 

The Boeing Company Model 737–100, 

–200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 

series airplanes. (AD 2012–18–13 

superseded AD 99–08–23, Amendment 

39–11132 (64 FR 19879, April 23, 

1999).) That AD requires repetitive 

inspections to detect cracking in the 

web of the aft pressure bulkhead at body 

station 1016 at the aft fastener row 

attachment to the ‘‘Y’’ chord, various 

inspections for discrepancies at the aft 

pressure bulkhead, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. That AD resulted from 

several reports of fatigue cracking at that 

location. We issued that AD to detect 

and correct such fatigue cracking, which 

could result in rapid decompression of 

the fuselage. 

Actions Since Existing AD (77 FR 

57990, September 19, 2012) Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2012–18–13, 

Amendment 39–17190 (77 FR 57990, 

September 19, 2012), we have 

determined that a certain inspection and 

repair required by paragraph (l) of AD 

2012–18–13 must be clarified. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with