Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37831 

TABLE 1—PART REMOVAL THRESHOLDS—Continued 

HDTR3414L, HDTR3416R, HDTR3417R that have been 

modified in production by Airbus Modification 47316; 

or modified in service as specified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-78-3010, or Rolls-Royce 

Service Bulletin RB.211–78–C899, before the accumulation of 7,200 total flight cycles since first installation on an airplane.

Before the accumulation of 25,000 total flight cycles 

since the first installation of C-duct on the airplane.

Within 3 months after the 

effective date of this AD. 

HDTR3412L, HDTR3416L, HDTR3417L, HDTR3414R, 

HDTR3419R, HDTR3420R.

Before the accumulation of 25,000 total flight cycles 

since the first installation of C-duct on the airplane.

Within 3 months after the 

effective date of this AD. 

HDTR3413L, HDTR3415R, HDTR3415L, HDTR3418R .. Before the accumulation of 40,000 total flight cycles 

since the C-duct was new.

Within 3 months after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 227–1138; fax (425) 

227–1149. Information may be emailed to: 9- 

ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 

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. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2011–0018, dated February 3, 2011; 

and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A330–78–3010, Revision 03, dated April 28, 

2004; for related information. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness 

Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 

5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email 

airworthiness.A330–A340@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 14, 

2012. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15461 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0617; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–354–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for certain The Boeing Company Model 

737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and 

–900ER series airplanes. That NPRM 

proposed to require repetitive 

operational tests of the engine fuel 

suction feed of the fuel system, and 

other related testing if necessary. That 

NPRM was prompted by a report of an 

in-service occurrence of total loss of 

boost pump pressure of the fuel feed 

system, followed by loss of fuel system 

suction feed capability on one engine, 

and in-flight shutdown of the engine. 

This action revises that NPRM by 

proposing to require repetitive 

operational tests, and other related 

testing and corrective action if 

necessary. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct loss of the engine fuel suction 

feed capability of the fuel system, which 

in the event of total loss of the fuel boost 

pumps could result in dual engine 

flameout, inability to restart the engines, 

and consequent forced landing of the 

airplane. 

Since these actions impose an 

additional burden over that proposed in 

the previous 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 August 9, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37832 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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: Sue 

Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion 

Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@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–2008–0617; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–354–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain The Boeing Company 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

–900, and –900ER series airplanes. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32255). 

That NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive operational tests of the engine 

fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and 

other related testing if necessary. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 

32255, June 6, 2008) Was Issued 

Since we issued the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008), we have 

received comments from operators 

indicating a high level of difficulty 

performing the actions in the previous 

NPRM during maintenance operations. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Section 9, Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) and Certification 

Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), 

D626A001–CMR, Revision August 2011, 

of the Boeing 737–600/700/700C/800/ 

900/900ER Maintenance Planning Data 

(MPD) Document. Among other things, 

Section 9 describes AWL No. 28–AWL– 

101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed 

Operational Test, of Section E., AWLS— 

Fuel Systems, which provides 

procedures for performing repetitive 

operational tests of the engine fuel 

suction feed of the fuel system. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32255, June 6, 2008). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

previous NPRM and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Requests To Change Approved Method 

of Compliance for Operational Test 

Continental Airlines (CAL), Airlines 

for America (A4A) on behalf of its 

member American Airlines (AAL), and 

Sun Country Airlines asked that the 

approved method of compliance 

specified in paragraph (f) of the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 

2008) be changed to refer to the airplane 

maintenance manual (AMM) instead of 

requiring the repetitive tasks. 

CAL and AAL recommended that 

certain language in paragraph (f) of the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 

2008) be changed to require 

incorporation of the operational test into 

the operator’s maintenance program in 

the same manner as the Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness (ICA). 

AAL stated that since there is no 

modification or terminating action for 

the actions specified in the previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008), the 

AD need not mandate the task itself. 

AAL noted that operators should be 

required to incorporate into their 

respective maintenance programs a 

mandatory task, as specified in CMRs, 

AWLs, or airworthiness limitation 

items. AAL stated that this approach 

would be consistent with the processes 

utilized by operators for the SFAR 88 

(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) 

requirements. 

We agree with the requests to refer to 

the AMM. AWL No. 28–AWL–101 refers 

to the AMM. We have replaced 

paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 

FR 32255, June 6, 2008), with a new 

paragraph (g) in this supplemental 

NPRM that would require the 

operational tests as specified in the 

MPD. 

Sun Country Airlines stated that 

related AMM tasks are equivalent 

procedures for performing the 

operational test referred to in paragraph 

(f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, 

June 6, 2008). This commenter stated 

that clarification should be provided as 

to whether using the procedures 

specified in AMM Task 28–22–00–710– 

801 meets the intent of paragraph (f) of 

the previous NPRM. This commenter 

also noted that, because the AMM task 

is already contained in Task Card 28– 

050–00–01, and has a repetitive interval 

identified in the MPD, the repetitive 

action should be removed from the 

previous NPRM and addressed as a 

CMR. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request. The manifold test (Task 28–22– 

00–710–801) is not equivalent to the 

operational test (Task 28–22–00–710– 

802) for the purposes of this proposed 

action. The positive internal fuel line 

pressure applied during the manifold 

test does not simulate the same 

conditions encountered during fuel 

suction feed (i.e., vacuum), and may 

mask a failure. We have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Requests To Clarify if Engine Fuel 

Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in Lieu of 

the Operational Test 

KLM, A4A on behalf of its member 

DAL, and Sun Country Airlines asked 

that we clarify the engine fuel suction 

feed test procedure in the AMM as an 

option to performing the operational 

test. KLM suggested that we consider 

the test procedure done per AMM Task 

28–22–15–710–801 as an alternative 

test. KLM added that this alternative test 

is allowed by MPD 28–050–00, and is 

mentioned in Task Card 28–050–00–01. 

KLM noted that the advantage of this 

alternative test is that it can be 

performed without fuel in the tank; 

therefore, if the tanks are still open 

during the test and the test fails, easy 

access is gained to the damaged area. 

DAL stated that the intention of the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 

2008) seems to be performing an engine 

fuel suction feed test, so paragraph (f) of 

the previous NPRM should be clarified 

to include that test as an option. The 

commenters stated that the engine fuel 

suction feed test in the AMM and the 

operational test in the previous NPRM 

are equivalent tests and are allowed per 

Task Card 28–050–00–01. 

We agree to provide clarification. As 

noted previously, the manifold test 

(Task 28–22–00–710–801) is not 

equivalent to the operational test (Task 

28–22–00–710–802) for the purposes of 

this proposed action. The positive 

internal fuel line pressure applied 

during the manifold test does not 

simulate the same conditions 

encountered during fuel suction feed 

(i.e., vacuum), and may mask a failure. 

Therefore, we have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Include Corrective Action 

Boeing and CAL asked that corrective 

action be included in the proposed 

requirements of the previous NPRM (73 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37833 

FR 32255, June 6, 2008). CAL 

recommended that paragraph (f) of the 

previous NPRM be changed to also 

‘‘correct any discrepancy identified as 

necessary, before further flight. Refer to 

737NG FIM 28–22 task 819.’’ CAL noted 

that the fault isolation manual (FIM) 

should be considered as an ICA that is 

an approved method by the Manager, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA. Boeing stated that the 

requirement in the preamble of the 

previous NPRM (FAA’s Conclusions) for 

additional testing would be better 

described as performing corrective 

action in case the engine suction feed 

operational test is not successful. 

We agree with the requests to include 

corrective action for this supplemental 

NPRM. Since the current revision of the 

AWL does not include the corrective 

action, paragraph (g) of this 

supplemental NPRM specifies that 

corrective action for findings from the 

operational tests be done in accordance 

with a method approved by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA. 

Requests To Revise Repetitive Interval 

CAL, Qantas Airways Ltd (Qantas), 

and Boeing asked that we revise the 

compliance time for the repetitive 

operational test proposed by paragraph 

(f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, 

June 6, 2008). 

CAL asked that the interval be 

extended from 7,500 flight hours to 2Ccheck or 12,500 flight hours, whichever 

occurs first. As justification for 

extending the repetitive interval, CAL 

stated that fleet history revealed no 

reported engine flameout events or 

related operational discrepancies. 

Qantas and Boeing asked that the 

repetitive interval be changed to 7,500 

flight hours or 36 months, whichever 

occurs first. Qantas and Boeing stated 

that, for low-utilization airplanes, it 

would take more than 10 years of 

operation before an operational test 

would be necessary. 

We agree to revise the compliance 

times. We have added new paragraph (g) 

to this supplemental NPRM to include 

an initial test within 7,500 flight hours 

or 36 months, whichever occurs first 

after the maintenance program is 

revised. We have also included a 

repetitive interval of 7,500 flight hours 

or 36 months, whichever occurs first. 

Request To Include Warning 

Information 

CAL suggested that the Boeing service 

manuals include a critical design 

configuration control limitations 

(CDCCL) warning identification 

statement to alert maintenance 

personnel of the importance of 

regulatory compliance, as well as the 

configuration control requirement of the 

task. CAL did not include any 

justification for this request. 

We agree that a CDCCL warning 

statement would serve as direct 

communication to maintenance 

personnel that there is an AD associated 

with certain maintenance actions, but 

do not find this additional measure 

necessary to adequately address the 

unsafe condition. We have made no 

change to the supplemental NPRM in 

this regard. 

Request To Clarify the Reason for the 

Unsafe Condition 

Boeing asked that we clarify the 

unsafe condition identified in the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 

2008) by specifying that the AD results 

from a report of an in-service occurrence 

of total loss of pressure of the fuel feed 

system, followed by loss of fuel system 

suction feed capability on one engine. 

We agree to clarify the unsafe 

condition. We have revised the 

Summary section and paragraph (e) of 

this supplemental NPRM accordingly. 

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance 

Section 

A4A, on behalf of its member DAL, 

asked that the cost estimate be changed. 

DAL stated that the cost estimate 

specified in the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32255, June 6, 2008) is too low, and 

asked that it be changed. DAL noted that 

$80 per product based on 1 work hour 

per product does not include the cost of 

fuel. DAL estimated that the cost of fuel 

alone would be $83 per test occurrence; 

for the 71 airplanes in its fleet, this 

translates to a cost of $5,893 per test 

cycle. 

We do not agree that the cost estimate 

should be changed. ADs, which require 

specific actions to address specific 

unsafe conditions, appear to impose 

costs that would not otherwise be borne 

by operators. However, because of the 

general obligation of operators to 

maintain and operate their airplanes in 

an airworthy condition, this appearance 

is deceptive. Attributing those fuel costs 

solely to the issuance of this AD is 

unrealistic because, in the interest of 

maintaining and operating safe 

airplanes, prudent operators would 

accomplish the required actions even if 

they were not required to do so by the 

AD. In any case, we have determined 

that direct and incidental costs are still 

outweighed by the safety benefits of the 

AD. Except for updating the hourly 

labor rate to $85, we have made no 

further change to the cost estimates 

provided in this supplemental NPRM. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM because we evaluated all the 

relevant information and determined 

the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

in other products of the same type 

design. Certain changes described above 

expand the scope of the original NPRM 

(73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008). As a result, 

we have determined that it is necessary 

to reopen the comment period to 

provide additional opportunity for the 

public to comment on this supplemental 

NPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of the 

Supplemental NPRM 

This supplemental NPRM revises the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 

2008); by proposing to require repetitive 

operational tests of the engine fuel 

suction feed of the fuel system, and 

would require other related testing and 

corrective action if necessary. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008), 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 

would affect 1,080 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. We estimate the following costs 

to comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Operational Test ........................................................... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ............................... $85 $91,800 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37834 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the on-condition actions or 

the optional terminating action 

specified in this AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2008–0617; Directorate Identifier 2007– 

NM–354–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by August 9, 

2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, 

and –900ER series airplanes, certificated in 

any category, with a date of issuance of the 

original airworthiness certificate or the date 

of issuance of the original export certificate 

of airworthiness before March 22, 2011. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of an 

in-service occurrence of total loss of boost 

pump pressure of the fuel feed system, 

followed by loss of fuel system suction feed 

capability on one engine, and in-flight 

shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct loss of the engine 

fuel suction feed capability of the fuel 

system, which in the event of total loss of the 

fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine 

flameout, inability to restart the engines, and 

consequent forced landing of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Initial/Repetitive Operational Tests 

Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first: Do the initial operational test 

identified in AWL No. 28–AWL–101, Engine 

Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of 

Section E., AWLS—Fuel Systems of Section 

9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and 

Certification Maintenance Requirements 

(CMRs), D626A001–CMR, Revision August 

2011, of Boeing 737–600/700/700C/800/900/ 

900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) 

Document. Repeat the test thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight hours or 

36 months, whichever is earlier. If the test is 

not considered successful, as specified in 

AWL No. 28–AWL–101, before further flight, 

perform all related testing and corrective 

actions, using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (h) of this AD. Thereafter, except 

as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no 

alternative procedure or repeat test intervals 

will be allowed. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 18, 

2012. 

John P. Piccola, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15469 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2012–0035] 

16 CFR Part 1500 

Revocation of Certain Requirements 

Pertaining to Caps Intended for Use 

With Toy Guns and Toy Guns Not 

Intended for Use With Caps 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Section 106 of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) considers the 

provisions of ASTM International 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1