Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62649 

JOINT STAKEHOLDERS—Continued 

Manufacturers Advocates 

Friedrich 

A/C U-Line 

Samsung 

Sharp Electronics 

Miele 

Heat 

Controller 

AGA Marvel 

Brown Stove 

Haier 

Fagor 

America 

Airwell 

Group 

Arcelik Fisher & Paykel 

Scotsman Ice 

Indesit 

Kuppersbusch 

Kelon 

DeLonghi 

[FR Doc. 2011–26169 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–25001; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–079–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 

–800, –900, and –900ER Series 

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 the products listed above. That 

second supplemental NPRM proposed a 

one-time inspection to determine the 

part numbers of the aero/fire seals of the 

blocker doors on the thrust reverser 

torque boxes on the engines, and 

replacing affected aero/fire seals with 

new, improved aero/fire seals. That 

second supplemental NPRM was 

prompted by a report that the top 3 

inches of the aero/fire seals of the 

blocker doors on the thrust reverser 

torque boxes are not fireproof. This 

action revises the second supplemental 

NPRM by prohibiting installation of 

certain non-fireproof thrust reverser 

seals. We are proposing this third 

supplemental NPRM to prevent a fire in 

the fan compartment (a fire zone) from 

migrating through the seal to a 

flammable fluid in the thrust reverser 

actuator compartment (a flammable 

fluid leakage zone), which could result 

in an uncontrolled fire. Since these 

actions impose an additional burden 

over that proposed in the second 

supplemental 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 November 

25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

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

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

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

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For 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; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; 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: 

Chris Parker, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6496; fax: 425–917–6590; e-mail: 

chris.r.parker@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–2006–25001; Directorate Identifier 

2006–NM–079–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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62650 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 a second supplemental 

NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to 

include an airworthiness directive (AD) 

that would apply to all Model 737–600, 

–700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER 

series airplanes. That second 

supplemental NPRM was published in 

the Federal Register on July 16, 2009 

(74 FR 34518). That second 

supplemental NPRM proposed to 

require a one-time inspection to 

determine the part numbers of the aero/ 

fire seals of the blocker doors on the 

thrust reverser torque boxes on the 

engines, and replacing affected aero/fire 

seals with new, improved aero/fire 

seals. That second supplemental NPRM 

also proposed to reduce the compliance 

time for the replacement of the affected 

aero/fire seals. 

Actions Since Second Supplemental 

NPRM Was Issued 

Since we issued the second 

supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 

16, 2009), we have determined that it is 

necessary to propose to prohibit 

installation of certain non-fireproof 

thrust reverser seals in this third 

supplemental NPRM, because we have 

received information indicating that 

some thrust reversers with non-fireproof 

seals could be installed on certain 

airplanes. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the second supplemental 

NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009). The 

following presents the comments 

received on the second supplemental 

NPRM and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. 

Request To Include Parts Installation 

Paragraph 

Boeing requested that the second 

supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 

16, 2009) be revised to address spare 

thrust reverser halves being installed on 

any Model 737 Next Generation 

airplane. Boeing explained that some 

spare thrust reverser halves could be 

equipped with non-fireproof seals and 

that if these spare units are installed 

after the inspection, some airplanes will 

have non-fireproof seals. 

We partially agree. While we 

explained in the first supplemental 

NPRM (73 FR 51382, September 3, 

2008) that we understood affected spare 

assemblies had been purged from the 

parts supply system, we have now 

received information that thrust reverser 

interchangeability instructions might 

allow older thrust reverser seals having 

part number (P/N) 315A2245–1 or 

315A2245–2 to be installed on newly 

delivered airplanes. While we cannot 

apply the inspections proposed by this 

third supplemental NPRM to spare 

parts, we can require that parts being 

installed on the airplane be compliant 

with this third supplemental NPRM. We 

have added paragraph (i) to this third 

supplemental NPRM to prohibit 

installation of non-fireproof thrust 

reverser seals. 

Requests To Extend Compliance Time 

for Replacement 

The Air Transport Association (ATA), 

on behalf of two member airlines (Air 

Tran Airways and American Airlines), 

and Boeing requested that we change 

the proposed compliance time for the 

replacement of the aero/fire seals 

specified in paragraph (h) of the second 

supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 

16, 2009). 

Air Tran Airways (Air Tran) 

explained that the second supplemental 

NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 16, 2009) 

proposed to allow up to 60 months or 

8,200 flight cycles after the effective 

date of the AD to comply with the 

proposed inspection specified in 

paragraph (g) of the second 

supplemental NPRM. However, Air 

Tran pointed out that if a non-fireproof 

aero/fire seal is found on a thrust 

reverser, the seal must be changed prior 

to further flight. Air Tran reasoned that 

the second supplemental NPRM should 

allow a more realistic time frame to 

have the seal replaced. Air Tran 

provided no technical justification for 

this request. 

Boeing explained that the compliance 

time from the original NPRM (71 FR 

34025, June 13, 2006) should be used, 

regardless of when the inspection for 

aero/fire seals of the thrust reverser 

torque boxes on the engines was done. 

Boeing stated that the second 

supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 

16, 2009) would likely ground airplanes 

because operators would only 

accomplish the inspections if they have 

replacement seals on hand; Boeing only 

carries limited quantities of the seals 

and the re-order lead time for these seals 

is approximately 20 weeks. 

We agree to revise this third 

supplemental NPRM to change the 

proposed compliance time specified in 

paragraph (h) of this third supplemental 

NPRM. However, we are revising the 

compliance time in paragraph (h) of this 

third supplemental NPRM to specify 

that operators have within 6 months 

after doing the inspection in paragraph 

(g) of this third supplemental NPRM to 

replace a non-fireproof seal. Under the 

provisions of paragraph (k) of this third 

supplemental NPRM, we will consider 

requests for approval of an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC) that 

provides an acceptable level of safety, if 

parts availability becomes a problem. 

We have determined that replacement of 

the non-fireproof seal within 6 months 

after doing the inspection in paragraph 

(g) of this third supplemental NPRM 

will not adversely affect safety. We have 

revised this third supplemental NPRM 

accordingly. 

Request To Specify Terminating Action 

The ATA, on behalf of its member 

American Airlines, requested that the 

replacement of the non-fireproof seal be 

done in accordance with Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–78– 

1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 

2005, and that the proposed AD state 

that this replacement is terminating 

action. 

We agree that the replacement of the 

non-fireproof seals can be done in 

accordance with Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–78– 

1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 

2005, and that the replacement of the 

non-fireproof seals is terminating action 

for the inspection required by paragraph 

(g) of this third supplemental NPRM. 

We have added this information to 

paragraph (h) of this AD. 

Requests To Apply AD to Part Rather 

Than Airplane 

The ATA, on behalf of its member Air 

Tran, and Boeing requested that the 

second supplemental NPRM (74 FR 

34518, July 16, 2009) apply only to 

thrust reverser assemblies having 

certain part numbers as opposed to 

applying to the airplane. 

Air Tran explained that thrust 

reversers are rotable, line replaceable 

unit assemblies, which may be 

uninstalled, stand-alone spares, and can 

be rotated among other airplanes. For 

this reason, Air Tran suggested that the 

applicability of the second 

supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 

16, 2009) should be against thrust 

reverser assembly part numbers rather 

than the airplane. 

Boeing explained that the proposed 

applicability in the second 

supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 

16, 2009) is open-ended and would 

apply to new Model 737 airplanes that 

are already compliant. Boeing explained 

further that thrust reversers having part 

number (P/Ns) 315A2295–195 through 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62651 

315A2295–500 were delivered with 

seals with a fireproof section, and that 

interchangeability definitions for thrust 

reversers having P/Ns 315A2245–7 and 

315A2245–8 (fireproof section) do not 

allow these seals to be replaced with 

seals having P/Ns 315A2245–1 and 

315A2245–2 (non-fireproof). Boeing 

recommended limiting the proposed 

applicability to thrust reversers having 

P/Ns 315A2295–3 through 315A2295– 

194, and P/Ns 315A2295–503 through 

315A2295–694. 

We disagree to change the 

applicability of this third supplemental 

NPRM to apply to thrust reversers 

having certain part numbers. The seal is 

not integral to the thrust reverser and is 

replaceable. Therefore, a non-fireproof 

seal could be used on any thrust 

reverser—even a thrust reverser 

originally built with a compliant 

fireproof seal. It is the operator’s 

responsibility to maintain compliance 

once an AD has been accomplished. The 

operator must ensure that the thrust 

reversers on its airplanes have been 

inspected and are using a fireproof seal. 

If an operator replaces a thrust reverser, 

the thrust reverser must be inspected to 

ensure compliance with this third 

supplemental NPRM. We have not 

changed the applicability of this third 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

However, we have determined that 

the inspection required by paragraph (g) 

of this third supplemental NPRM is only 

necessary for certain airplanes. 

Therefore, we have revised paragraph 

(g) of this third supplemental NPRM to 

specify that only the following airplanes 

are subject to the requirements of that 

paragraph: ‘‘For airplanes having an 

original airworthiness certificate issued 

before the effective date of this AD, and 

for airplanes on which the date of 

issuance of the original export 

certificate of airworthiness is before the 

effective date of this AD * * * .’’ 

Request for Clarification of Use of 

Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) as 

Maintenance Record 

All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested 

that we clarify if their IPC can be used 

as a form of maintenance record to 

identify if the airplane has the fireproof 

seal installed. ANA explained that the 

seals are not controlled by any type of 

part-control system, and that operators 

visually verify the stamped part number 

instead. ANA stated that since the 

stamped part number is often 

unreadable, the operator would be 

forced to replace the seal in order to 

remain in compliance with the AD, 

regardless if the seal was already a 

fireproof seal. ANA asserted that 

replacing a possible fireproof seal (to 

remain in compliance with the 

proposed AD) simply because the part 

number is unreadable, is an 

unreasonable action. 

We disagree to allow use of the IPC as 

a maintenance record. If the required 

maintenance records, which do not 

include the IPC, are not available to 

show that the correct fireproof seal has 

been installed, and the part number is 

worn off the aero/fire seals, it is still 

possible to verify that the correct part is 

installed by visually inspecting the seal 

for color content, as specified in 

paragraph (g) of the second 

supplemental NPRM. We have not 

changed this third supplemental NPRM 

in this regard. 

Request for Clarification of the 

Difference in the Applicability Between 

the Original NPRM and the Second 

Supplemental NPRM 

ANA also requested that we clarify 

the difference in the applicability 

between the original NPRM (71 FR 

34025, June 13, 2006) and the second 

supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 

16, 2009). ANA explained that the 

applicability in the original NPRM was 

for all Model 737–600, –700,–700C, 

–800, and –900 series airplanes, which 

is what is listed in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–78– 

1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 

2005 (referenced in the original NPRM 

as the source of service information for 

replacing aero/fire seals). 

We agree to clarify differences in the 

applicability of the various NPRMs. The 

applicability of the original NPRM (71 

FR 34025, June 13, 2006) referenced that 

service bulletin for affected airplanes. 

After we issued the original NPRM, we 

received information on the 

interchangeability of the affected aero/ 

fire seals. The applicability of the first 

supplemental NPRM (73 FR 51382, 

September 3, 2008) was revised to 

specify ‘‘all’’ Model 737 airplanes 

(including Model 737–900ER series 

airplanes, which had been added to the 

U.S. type certificate data sheet), since all 

of these airplanes could be affected by 

the interchangeability of the seals. No 

change to this third supplemental 

NPRM is necessary in this regard. 

Explanation of Change Made to This 

Proposed AD 

We have revised this proposed AD to 

identify the legal name of the 

manufacturer as published in the most 

recent type certificate data sheet for the 

affected airplane models. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this third 

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 second 

supplemental NPRM (74 FR 34518, July 

16, 2009). 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 third supplemental 

NPRM. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the original NPRM 

(71 FR 34025, June 13, 2006), we have 

increased the labor rate used in the 

Costs of Compliance from $80 per workhour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of 

Compliance information, below, reflects 

this increase in the specified labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 803 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 for part 

number.

1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per 

inspection cycle.

None ....................... $85 per inspection 

cycle.

$68,255 per inspection cycle. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary replacements that would 

be required based on the results of the 

proposed inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need this replacement: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Replacement ........................ 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 ............................................................................ $4,770 $5,195 

According to the manufacturer, some 

of the costs of this proposed AD may be 

covered under warranty, thereby 

reducing the cost impact on affected 

individuals. We do not control warranty 

coverage for affected individuals. As a 

result, we have included all costs in our 

cost estimate. 

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– 

2006–25001; Directorate Identifier 2006– 

NM–079–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

November 25, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 

–800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Joint Aircraft System Component 

(JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 78: Engine exhaust. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD was prompted by a report that 

the top 3 inches of the aero/fire seals of the 

blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque 

boxes are not fireproof. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent a fire in the fan compartment 

(a fire zone) from migrating through the seal 

to a flammable fluid in the thrust reverser 

actuator compartment (a flammable fluid 

leakage zone), which could result in an 

uncontrolled fire. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

Inspection to Determine Type of Aero/Fire 

Seals 

(g) For airplanes having an original 

airworthiness certificate issued before the 

effective date of this AD, and for airplanes on 

which the date of issuance of the original 

export certificate of airworthiness is before 

the effective date of this AD: Within 60 

months or 8,200 flight cycles, whichever 

occurs first, after the effective date of this 

AD, perform a one-time detailed inspection 

to determine the color of the aero/fire seals 

of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser 

torque boxes on the engines. For any aero/fire 

seal having a completely grey color (which is 

the color of seals with part number (P/N) 

315A2245–1 or 315A2245–2), with no red at 

the upper end of the seal, do the actions 

specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. For any 

aero/fire seal having a red color at the upper 

end of the seal (which indicates installation 

of seals with P/N 315A2245–7 or 315A2245– 

8), no further action is required by this AD. 

A review of airplane maintenance records is 

acceptable in lieu of this inspection if from 

that review the part number of the correct 

aero/fire seals (P/N 315A2245–7 or –8) can be 

conclusively determined to be installed. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’ 

Replacement of the Aero/Fire Seals 

(h) For any aero/fire seal identified during 

the inspection/records check required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD to have a nonfireproof seal: Within six months after doing 

the actions required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD, replace the aero/fire seals of the blocker 

doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on 

the engines with new, improved aero/fire 

seals, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–78– 

1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005. 

Replacing the aero/fire seals of the blocker 

doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on 

the engines with new, improved aero/fire 

seals, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–78– 

1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005, 

is terminating action for the inspection 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD. 

Parts Installation 

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

person may install a non-fireproof thrust 

reverser seal having P/N 315A2245–1 or 

P/N 315A2245–2 on any airplane. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62653 

Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance with Previous Service 

Information 

(j) Replacements done before the effective 

date of this AD in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–78– 

1074, dated April 7, 2005, are acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraph (h) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(k)(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 e-mailed 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. 

Related Information 

(l) For more information about this AD, 

contact Chris Parker, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6496; fax: 425–917– 

6590; e-mail: chris.r.parker@faa.gov. 

(m) For 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; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com; 

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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 30, 2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–26104 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1060; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–015–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A310 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above that would 

supersede an existing AD. This 

proposed AD results from mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI) originated by an aviation 

authority of another country to identify 

and correct an unsafe condition on an 

aviation product. The MCAI describes 

the unsafe condition as: 

Within the scope of the Fuel System Safety 

Program (FSSP), analyses of the wire routing 

showed that the route 2S of the fuel electrical 

circuit in the Right Hand (RH) wing must be 

modified in order to ensure better segregation 

between fuel quantity indication wires and 

the 115 Volts Alternating Current (VAC) 

wires of route 2S. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in short circuits leading to arcing, and 

possible fuel tank explosion. 

* * * * * 

The proposed AD would require actions 

that are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 25, 

2011. 

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– 

EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail: 

account.airworth-eas@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: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–2125; 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–2011–1060; Directorate Identifier 

2011–NM–015–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 

On January 3, 2008, we issued AD 

2008–01–05, Amendment 39–15330 (73 

FR 2795, January 16, 2008). That AD 

required actions intended to address an 

unsafe condition on the products listed 

above. 

Since we issued AD 2008–01–05, 

Amendment 39–15330 (73 FR 2795, 

January 16, 2008), we have determined 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS