Document ID: FAA-2010-1042-0011
Agency: faa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes
Posted Date: 2012-09-07T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55159-55163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22040]

 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

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

[[Page 55159]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1042; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-094-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of 
comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive 
(AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -
900ER series airplanes, Model 747-400F series airplanes, and Model 767-
200 and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM proposed to require an 
inspection for affected serial numbers of the crew oxygen mask stowage 
box units; and replacement of the crew oxygen mask stowage box unit 
with a new crew oxygen mask stowage unit, if necessary. That NPRM was 
prompted by reports indicating that certain crew oxygen mask stowage 
box units were possibly delivered with a burr in the inlet fitting. The 
burr might break loose during test or operation, and might pose an 
ignition source or cause an inlet valve to jam. This action revises 
that NPRM by adding a step to identify and label certain crew oxygen 
mask stowage box units that have already been inspected and reworked by 
the supplier, and allowing operators to install new or serviceable crew 
oxygen mask stowage box units. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM 
to prevent an ignition source, which could result in an oxygen-fed 
fire; or an inlet valve jam in a crew oxygen mask stowage box unit, 
which could result in restricted flow of oxygen. Since these actions 
impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are 
reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment 
on these proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by October 
22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Boeing service information identified in this proposed AD, 
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; 
telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. For Intertechnique service information 
identified in this proposed AD, contact Zodiac, 2, rue Maurice Mallet--
92137 Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex France; telephone +33 1 41 23 23 23; 
fax +33 1 46 48 83 87; Internet http://www.zodiac.com. You may review 
copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport 
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For 
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory 
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street 
address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES 
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after 
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, 
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle 
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 
Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email 
susan.l.monroe@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or 
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address 
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1042; 
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-094-AD'' at the beginning of your 
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We 
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend 
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We 
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we 
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that 
would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-700, -700C, -800, 
and -900ER series airplanes, Model 747-400F series airplanes, and Model 
767-200 and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM published in the Federal 
Register on November 3, 2010 (75 FR 67637). That NPRM proposed to 
require an inspection for affected serial numbers of the crew oxygen 
mask stowage box units; and replacement of the crew oxygen mask stowage 
box unit with a new crew oxygen mask stowage unit, if necessary.

Actions Since Previous NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010) was Issued

    The NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010) referred to the following 
service information:

     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-35A1121, dated December 
14, 2009;

[[Page 55160]]

     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-35A2126, dated October 
8, 2009;
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-35A0057, dated October 
8, 2009; and
     Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, dated 
September 11, 2009.
    After we issued the NPRM, the service information was revised:

     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-35A1121, Revision 1, 
dated November 7, 2011;
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-35A2126, Revision 1, 
dated September 29, 2011;
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-35A0057, Revision 1, 
dated November 17, 2011; and
     Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, Revision 2, 
dated May 10, 2011.

Among other things, the service information provides the following 
changes:

     Adds a step to identify and label certain crew oxygen mask 
stowage box units that have already been inspected and reworked by the 
supplier; and
     Adds a provision to allow operators to install either new 
or serviceable crew oxygen mask stowage box units.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM 
(75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010). The following presents the comments 
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the Previous NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010)

    Boeing, Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), and 
Delta Air Lines (Delta) supported the NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 
2010).

Request To Revise Compliance Time

    ALPA requested that we reduce the compliance time to 12 months 
instead of 24 months, as proposed in the previous NPRM (75 FR 67637, 
November 3, 2010). ALPA noted that certain crew oxygen mask stowage box 
units were possibly delivered with a burr in the inlet fitting, which 
might break loose during test or operation, and might pose an ignition 
source or cause an inlet valve to jam, thus prohibiting or restricting 
the flow of oxygen. ALPA reasoned that there could be a potential 
serious nature of events involving fire and smoke, and that there is a 
necessity to ensure functionality of this safety equipment for the 
flightcrew.
    We disagree with the request to revise the compliance time in the 
supplemental NPRM. The proposed compliance time is in line with the 
manufacturer's recommended compliance time. Also, in developing the 
proposed compliance time, we considered safety implications, parts 
availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely 
accomplishment of replacement of the crew oxygen mask stowage box 
units. Further, operators are permitted to accomplish the requirements 
of an AD at a time earlier than the specified compliance time. If 
additional data are presented that would justify a shorter compliance 
time, we might consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not 
changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request for Clarification of Inspection

    Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that we revise the previous NPRM (75 
FR 67637, November 3, 2010) to include the latest service information. 
JAL explained that Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, dated 
September 11, 2009, does not describe how to differentiate parts before 
and after the actions specified in Intertechnique Service Bulletin 
MXP1/4-35-175, dated September 11, 2009, have been accomplished, so it 
is not sufficient for operators to complete Intertechnique Service 
Bulletin MXP1/4-35175, dated September 11, 2009.
    Continental Airlines (Continental) requested that we revise the 
previous NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010) to clarify which crew 
oxygen mask stowage box units have been inspected, and which crew 
oxygen mask stowage box units still need to be inspected. Continental 
explained that some operators might think a placard should be applied 
to all crew oxygen mask stowage box units after completion of 
Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, dated September 11, 
2009, not only to those crew oxygen mask stowage box units with suspect 
serial numbers itemized in table 1 of Intertechnique Service Bulletin 
MXP1/4-35-175, dated September 11, 2009. Continental based this 
assertion on the assumption that, when a suspect crew oxygen mask 
stowage box unit is found with the placard already installed, it has 
already been re-worked and has since been returned to service.
    We agree to include the revised service information in the 
supplemental NPRM. We have explained the revised service information in 
the ``Actions Since Previous NPRM was Issued'' section of this 
supplemental NPRM. The revised service information addresses the issues 
raised by JAL and Continental. We have revised the paragraphs 
specifying service information in this supplemental NPRM accordingly.

Request for Clarification Regarding Service Information for Other 
Models

    Continental questioned why Boeing did not release service bulletins 
for other fleet types using the same part numbers listed in 
Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, dated September 11, 
2009. Continental explained that it has other fleets (for example, 
Model 737-500, 757-200, and 757-300 airplanes) that have the same crew 
oxygen mask stowage box unit part numbers, as delivered from Boeing. 
Continental reasoned that, because crew oxygen mask stowage box units 
are often swapped from aircraft to aircraft and borrowed from operator 
to operator, it will not only be inspecting its entire Model 737NG 
(next generation) fleet, but its other fleet types for these suspect 
serial numbers.
    We find that clarification is necessary. Some airplanes were 
delivered with the affected part numbers and were not included in the 
applicability of the supplemental NPRM, because the manufacturing 
defect occurred in the time period from July 12, 2007, through November 
20, 2007. Certain airplanes were not included in the service 
information because they were delivered prior to the time interval of 
the defect, thus were not included in the applicability of the 
supplemental NPRM.
    Also, we now understand that the components identified with the 
manufacturing defect may have been installed on airplanes outside the 
effectivity of the service information after delivery (e.g., during 
maintenance activity). We are working to evaluate the associated risk 
and the need for additional action. We might consider further 
rulemaking to address our findings. We have not changed the 
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request for Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC)

    Continental stated that, if a later revision of the referenced 
service information is released, it would request approval of an AMOC 
because of minor discrepancies found in the original service 
information. Continental explained that it understood Revision 1 of the 
service information was going to be released prior to the issuance of 
any rulemaking, and that it has conveyed the minor discrepancies to 
Boeing.
    As stated previously, we have revised this supplemental NPRM to 
refer to the revised service information--which addresses the 
discrepancies identified by Continental.

[[Page 55161]]

Request for Clarification

    AVOX Systems Inc. (Avox) requested that we revise the NPRM (75 FR 
67637, November 3, 2010) to include certain words, phrases, and 
deletions as follows:
     Where the NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010) proposed to 
require replacing crew oxygen mask stowage box units, Avox requested 
specifying these units as `affected.'
     Where the NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010) proposed to 
require replacing with a new crew oxygen mask stowage box unit, Avox 
requested specifying replacement with a new `or reworked' crew oxygen 
mask stowage box unit.
     Where the NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010) proposed to 
require replacing with a new crew oxygen mask stowage box unit, Avox 
requested adding ``as required.'' Avox explained that, for crew oxygen 
mask stowage box units located on an airplane, it makes sense that 
these crew oxygen mask stowage box units should be inspected to 
determine if the crew oxygen mask stowage box unit is affected by the 
NPRM. If determined to be affected, the crew oxygen mask stowage box 
units should be removed and replaced with compliant crew oxygen mask 
stowage box units.
    We partially agree with the request. We agree to designate units as 
``affected,'' throughout the AD because that term adds clarity. We 
disagree to replace ``if necessary'' in the preamble of this 
supplemental NPRM with ``as required,'' because this phrase does not 
add clarity. We also disagree to add ``or reworked'' because we have 
revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to clarify that replacement crew 
oxygen mask stowage box units must be ``new or serviceable.''

Request To Allow Rework at Repair Station and Return to Service

    Avox requested that we revise the NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 
2010) to allow for removed crew oxygen mask stowage box units to be 
sent to an authorized repair station to be reworked and returned to 
service.
    We partially agree with the request. We note that Intertechnique 
Service Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2011, 
provides for return of the crew oxygen mask stowage box units to four 
authorized Intertechnique locations. However, we have not changed this 
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Include Inspection/Replacement of Spare Crew Oxygen Mask 
Stowage Box Units

    Avox also requested that we revise the NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 
3, 2010) to include an inspection and replacement of spare crew oxygen 
mask stowage box units. Avox explained that, for crew oxygen mask 
stowage box units located in storage as spares, it makes sense that 
these crew oxygen mask stowage box units should be inspected to 
determine if the unit is affected by the NPRM. If determined to be 
affected, the crew oxygen mask stowage box unit should be removed from 
storage and sent to an authorized repair station to be reworked and 
returned to service.
    We disagree with the request. Section 39.3 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR 39.3) does not permit ADs to be written against 
parts that are not installed on an airplane. Therefore, paragraph (h) 
of this supplemental NPRM does not allow an affected spare unit to be 
installed on any airplane. We have not changed this supplemental NPRM 
in this regard.

Request for Review of Airplane Maintenance Records Inspection and Spare 
Parts

    Delta requested that we revise paragraphs (g) and (h) of the NPRM 
(75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010) to include the option of conducting a 
review of airplane or component maintenance records, or spare parts 
purchase records, to demonstrate that an airline does not operate or 
own any crew oxygen mask stowage box units that were manufactured in 
the date range listed in the service information in the NPRM. Delta 
proposed that this action be an acceptable method of compliance in lieu 
of a visual inspection to show that airplane or spare crew oxygen mask 
stowage box units are not affected by the NPRM. Delta reasoned that 
affected crew oxygen mask stowage box unit part numbers can be 
verified, as required by the NPRM, to be not applicable by a part and 
serial number inspection or records review, or by review of purchase 
order records that verify the date of manufacture does not fall in the 
affected manufacturing date range.
    We disagree with the request to include a review of airplane 
maintenance records or spare parts purchase records. Section 39.3 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.3) does not permit ADs to 
be written against parts that are not installed on an airplane. 
Therefore, an AD cannot require that operators inspect, repair, or 
modify a ``spare part.'' Also, because of the rotability of these 
parts, a component level record review may not sufficiently address the 
required action in the supplemental NPRM. As the previous NPRM (75 FR 
67637, November 3, 2010) specified, it is still acceptable to conduct a 
review of airplane maintenance records in lieu of the inspection in 
paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM, if the serial number of the 
crew oxygen mask stowage box unit can be conclusively determined from 
that review. Operators may apply for approval of an AMOC for these 
actions in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (i) of this 
supplemental NPRM, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate 
that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have 
not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all 
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described 
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these 
same type designs. Certain changes described above expand the scope of 
the original NPRM (75 FR 67637, November 3, 2010). As a result, we have 
determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide 
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this supplemental 
NPRM.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This supplemental NPRM would require accomplishing the actions 
specified in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 40 airplanes of U.S. 
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.....................  1 work-hour x $85 per   None.............  $85 per            $3,400 per
                                  hour = $85 per                             inspection cycle.  inspection
                                  inspection cycle.                                             cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 55162]]

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide 
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs'' 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not 
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed 
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-1042; Directorate Identifier 
2010-NM-094-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 22, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in 
any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) 
of this AD.
    (1) Model 737-700, -700C, -800, -900ER series airplanes, as 
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-35A1121, Revision 1, 
dated November 7, 2011.
    (2) Model 747-400F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing 
Alert Service Bulletin 747-35A2126, Revision 1, dated September 29, 
2011.
    (3) Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, as identified in 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-35A0057, Revision 1, dated 
November 17, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association 
(ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports indicating that certain crew 
oxygen mask stowage box units were possibly delivered with a burr in 
the inlet fitting. The burr may break loose during test or operation 
and might pose an ignition source or cause an inlet valve to jam. We 
are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source, which could 
result in an oxygen-fed fire; or an inlet valve to jam in a crew 
oxygen mask stowage box unit, which could result in restricted flow 
of oxygen.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a 
general visual inspection to determine if the serial number of the 
crew oxygen mask stowage box unit is identified in the Appendix of 
Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, Revision 2, dated May 
10, 2011, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the 
applicable Boeing alert service bulletin specified in paragraph 
(c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD. A review of airplane 
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the 
serial number of the crew oxygen mask stowage box unit can be 
conclusively determined from that review.
    (1) If any crew oxygen mask stowage box unit has a serial number 
identified in table 1 of the Appendix of Intertechnique Service 
Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2011: Before 
further flight, replace the crew oxygen mask stowage box unit with a 
new or serviceable unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment 
Instructions of the applicable Boeing alert service bulletin 
specified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD.
    (2) If any crew oxygen mask stowage box unit has a serial number 
identified in table 2 of the Appendix of Intertechnique Service 
Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2011: Before 
further flight, add the letter ``I'' to the end of the serial number 
(identified as ``SER'') on the identification label, in accordance 
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Intertechnique Service 
Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2011; and 
reinstall in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the 
applicable Boeing alert service bulletin specified in paragraph 
(c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD.
    (3) If no crew oxygen mask stowage box unit has a serial number 
identified in the Appendix of Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/
4-35-175, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2011: Before further flight, 
reinstall the crew oxygen mask stowage box unit, in accordance with 
the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Boeing alert 
service bulletin specified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of 
this AD.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a 
crew oxygen mask stowage box unit with a serial number listed in the 
Appendix of Intertechnique Service Bulletin MXP1/4-35-175, Revision 
2, dated May 10, 2011, on any airplane.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local 
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending 
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 
attention of the person identified in the Related Information 
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding 
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, 
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, 
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 
Lind

[[Page 55163]]

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone: 425-917-6457; 
fax: 425-917-6590; email: susan.l.monroe@faa.gov.
    (2) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, 
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; 
telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet 
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. For Intertechnique service 
information identified in this AD, contact Zodiac, 2, rue Maurice 
Mallet--92137 Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex France; telephone +33 1 41 
23 23 23; fax +33 1 46 48 83 87; Internet http://www.zodiac.com. You 
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at 
the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 31, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-22040 Filed 9-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P