[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15683]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2012-0102; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-004-AD;
Amendment 39-17072; AD 2012-11-09]
Airworthiness Directives; Various Transport Category Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain transport category airplanes. That AD currently requires
either activating all chemical oxygen generators in the lavatories
until the generator oxygen supply is expended, or removing the oxygen
generator(s); and, for each chemical oxygen generator, after the
generator is expended (or removed), removing or restowing the oxygen
masks and closing the mask dispenser door. This new AD requires
installing a supplemental oxygen system in affected lavatories, which
terminates the requirements of the existing AD. This AD was prompted by
reports that the current design of the oxygen generators presents a
hazard that could jeopardize flight safety. We are issuing this AD to
eliminate a hazard that could jeopardize flight safety, and to ensure
that all lavatories have a supplemental oxygen supply.
DATES: This AD is effective August 10, 2012.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gardlin, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
phone: 425-227-2136; fax: 425-227-1149; email: email@example.com.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556,
March 8, 2011). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11418).
That NPRM proposed to continue to require either activating all
chemical oxygen generators in the lavatories until the generator oxygen
supply is expended, or removing the oxygen generator(s); and, for each
chemical oxygen generator, after the generator is expended (or
removed), removing or restowing the oxygen masks and closing the mask
dispenser door. That NPRM also proposed to require installing a
supplemental oxygen system in affected lavatories, which would
terminate the requirements of the existing AD.
Change to NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012)
We have redesignated Note 1 of the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27,
2012) as new paragraph (h) of this AD, reidentified Note 2 as Note 1,
and reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) and the FAA's response to each
Request To Extend Compliance Time
Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Embraer, American Airlines (AA), Delta
Air Lines, Southwest Airlines (SWA), United Airlines (UA), and All
Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 11418,
February 27, 2012) to extend the 24-month compliance time. Airbus,
Embraer, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) International, AA, and
Boeing noted that the Lavatory Oxygen Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) chartered on this subject established some notional life-cycle
times from the initiation of a design through a fleet retrofit. The
requested compliance time ranged from 36 to 60 months. The ARC
considered even a 4-year compliance time aggressive. Commenters also
noted that there are no actual designs at present; any schedule is at
risk until the design is proven and validated.
We partially agree with the request. Because of the lack of a
retrofit design and the magnitude of the retrofit, and new
configuration(s), on such a large number of affected airplanes, we
agree that the proposed compliance time of 24 months is insufficient.
We also agree that the ARC's detailed assessment would not have
supported a 24-month compliance time. We disagree, however, to extend
the compliance time to 48 months, or longer. Some of the commenters'
concerns, as identified by the ARC, have been alleviated in the AD (for
example, streamlining the compliance process), and it is clear there
are workable design approaches that can be implemented without taking
airplanes out of service. Nonetheless, since no actual designs are yet
approved, the retrofit process cannot begin until a design is approved.
We have extended the compliance time in paragraph (l) of this final
rule to 37 months after the effective date of the AD.
Request To Retain Proposed Compliance Times
The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) and ALPA encouraged the
issuance of the final rule with the compliance times as proposed. AFA
requested that we also incorporate interim measures. The commenters
noted that the total time that lavatories will have been without oxygen
would be about 3.5 years, even with a 24-month compliance time. AFA
pointed out that the FAA's assessment of the safety risk was based on a
finite time, and that we originally estimated a two- to four-year
period to restore oxygen. Thus, retaining the proposed 24-month
compliance time is appropriate.
With respect to the compliance time, we disagree with the request.
Based on the number of affected airplanes and the lack of a design
solution yet approved for any of them, a 24-month compliance time is
not feasible. On the other hand, we acknowledge that compliance will be
due later than the original estimate
of a maximum of 4 years. But the adjusted compliance time is still
within the confidence level of the risk assessment--which was
conservative--conducted in support of AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630
(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). As explained previously, we have extended
the compliance time to 37 months. With respect to interim measures, we
understand the rationale for the request, and operators may, in fact,
elect to employ some interim measures. However, any interim measures
that would be required would take resources away from implementing the
terminating action, and we believe available resources should be
directed at restoring oxygen to the lavatories. We have therefore
determined that interim measures should not be mandated, and that a 37-
month compliance time will provide an adequate level of safety.
Request To Delay AD Issuance Pending Service Information Issuance
ANA and AA requested that we delay issuing the AD until service
information is available. ANA stated that, considering lead time for
parts and preparation for the modification, the compliance time should
be determined after the service information is released. ANA suggested
it would need at least 36 months for appropriate maintenance planning
after the service information is released.
We disagree with the request. Although there are no specific
designs available for the affected airplanes, there are system types in
service that will satisfy the requirements of the AD. Airframe
manufacturers and aftermarket modifiers are working on acceptable
designs, and we expect that there will be more than one solution
available. The FAA's goal is to retrofit supplemental oxygen systems as
quickly as practical. Waiting for service information would
unnecessarily delay that retrofit. We therefore find it necessary to
proceed with issuing this final rule.
Request To Mandate Development of Service Information and Parts
Delta Air Lines requested that we require design approval holders
to develop and make available the necessary modification instructions
and hardware. Delta noted that other large-scale retrofit projects have
been complicated by a lack of readily available modification hardware
and service instructions.
We disagree with the request. At this point, the FAA is confident
that there will be several modification options available to operators.
All affected airframe manufacturers, as well as oxygen system suppliers
and airplane modifiers, have discussed their intended approaches with
the FAA and appear to have viable solutions. In addition, Section 21.99
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.99) already requires
design approval holders to make design information available to correct
an unsafe condition. Thus, the additional regulatory burden of tracking
and enforcing a design approval holder requirement is not justified in
this case. But if this situation changes, we may consider additional
rulemaking to extend the time to comply with the requirements of the
AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Applicability
Boeing requested that we revise the applicability of the NPRM (77
FR 11418, February 27, 2012). Specifically, Boeing requested removing
airplanes that have systems without chemical oxygen generators (COGs)
installed in the lavatory, and by limiting the applicability to
airplanes modified in accordance with AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630
(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), those with COGs not installed per Special
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 111, Amendment Nos. 21-94, 25-133,
121-354, and 129-50 (76 FR 12550, March 8, 2011), and those with COGs
installed in the lavatory. Since AD 2011-04-09 already proposed to
permit installation of non-COG systems using normally available
approval means, Boeing considered the continued tracking of AD
compliance for that type of system unwarranted. Further, Boeing stated
there might be confusion as to whether AD 2011-04-09 would apply to any
airplane with such a system installed.
We partially agree with the request. We agree that continued
tracking of the non-COG installation as an AD-related action is overly
burdensome. Such systems were not the subject of AD 2011-04-09,
Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011) (which required removal
of the supplemental oxygen). We disagree, however, to change the
applicability of this AD, because the AD already captures the intent of
the request in terms of identifying affected airplanes based on whether
they are in compliance with AD 2011-04-09 or have a chemical oxygen
generator installed in any lavatory. An operator wishing to install a
COG system at a later date will need to use the alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) process. But we agree that, with appropriate
limitations, subsequent modifications to a non-COG system can be
handled under part 43 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
43). We have added a provision in paragraph (l)(2) in this final rule
that permits alterations and repairs to an approved non-COG system in
accordance with 14 CFR part 43, provided the operator's maintenance
program contains an airworthiness limitation that prohibits the
installation of COGs in lavatories.
Request To Utilize Alternative Oxygen Dosage Measurement
AVOX Systems (AVOX) requested that we build in a streamlined
process for oxygen systems using the blood oxygen saturation level
(SaO2) as the means of determining adequate oxygen dosage.
This method will likely result in somewhat smaller oxygen supplies,
which will in turn allow the systems to more easily fit into the
existing spaces, with little or no modification.
The regulations characterize oxygen dosage in terms of tracheal
partial pressure, an indirect method of determining adequate oxygen
supply. We infer that AVOX requested this because the FAA has approved
SaO2 via equivalent level of safety findings in accordance
with Section 21.21(b)(1) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.21(b)(1)), but this has required extensive testing on the part of
the applicants to show that the approach meets the intent of the
requirements. It appears that AVOX would like the FAA to use the
knowledge gained from those actions to allow approval of future
projects in an expedited manner, without the same level of testing. We
agree that, in this case, use of the SaO2 method can be
useful; this method is specifically discussed in FAA Policy Statement
PS ANM-25-04--which was mentioned in the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February
27, 2012) as a possible method of compliance with the requirements of
this AD. FAA Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-04, issued December 21, 2011
is based on the recommendations of an Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) and provides guidance to applicants that want to begin restoring
oxygen to lavatories in advance of rulemaking. This policy will be used
in making approvals of COG installations that will be used to comply
with this AD. The FAA may also propose new airworthiness standards for
the safe installations of COGs using the ARC recommendations. It is not
necessary to change the AD because the information that we can provide
is already available
in the policy statement. We have not changed the final rule regarding
Request To Clarify Certain References
Boeing noted that not all regulations affecting a supplemental
oxygen system are identified in paragraph (k) of the NPRM (77 FR 11418,
February 27, 2012), and could lead operators to conclude that only the
identified paragraphs need to be complied with. Boeing requested that
we revise paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM to refer to all of part 25 and
part 121 (14 CFR part 25 and 14 CFR part 121), rather than specific
We partially agree with the request. We agree that the current
listing of rules could be misinterpreted, because there is already
regulatory relief provided, and the listing is not complete. The
listing matches the regulations for which relief was granted, both in
AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), and
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 111, Amendment Nos. 21-94, 25-
133, 121-354, and 129-50 (76 FR 12550, March 8, 2011), and so in that
sense this list is consistent. But to avoid any confusion, we have
revised paragraph (l) in this final rule (which was paragraph (k) in
the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012)) to refer to ``all
applicable'' regulations. In actual practice, this will not change the
compliance requirements, so there is no additional burden on any
operator to comply with the requirements of this AD.
Request To Include Training Requirements
AFA requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27,
2012) to include additional requirements that mandate communication and
training for crewmembers on the proper procedures to follow in the
event of a rapid decompression before the AD-mandated actions have been
accomplished on the airplane. AFA also recommended that crew members be
notified of the progress of operators toward showing compliance; many
operators have already done something similar, but a number have not.
We disagree with the request. As previously determined, the risks
are very low for the time periods involved. The resources needed to
implement AFA's recommended interim steps could be better used in
rapidly incorporating a final design solution. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Cost Estimate
Delta Air Lines requested that we revise the cost analysis to be
more specific to different airplane types and system options, and to
characterize the costs per lavatory. The current cost estimate is an
average over the entire fleet, and so by definition is not accurate for
each affected airplane.
We disagree with the request. The variation in cost per airplane
over the fleet is typical of any cost assessment. While the costs could
be presented on a per-lavatory basis, this would also be an average,
and not necessarily correct for any given lavatory. In addition, the
cost estimates are based on the forecasted most cost-effective
approach. An operator can use a more expensive approach, but the cost
estimate would not account for that increased cost. We have not changed
the final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Clarify Configuration
ANA noted that paragraph (k) of the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27,
2012) would allow operators to choose between two methods of
compliance: with or without chemical oxygen generators. ANA requested
that we clarify what configuration will be selected on production
We disagree with the request. The decision on which configuration
to use is up to the operators and their suppliers. The FAA has criteria
for either approach, and either is acceptable. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Clarify Certain AMOC Provisions
AA requested that paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the NPRM (77 FR 11418,
February 27, 2012) be revised to include a provision relieving the need
for AMOC approval for non-COG installations. AA interprets the existing
provisions as meaning that an AMOC is not required and wants this
We disagree with the request. Information regarding AMOCs related
to non-COG installations was provided in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the
NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) and is retained in this final
rule (in redesignated paragraph (l)(2)(ii)). There is therefore no need
to change the final rule regarding this issue.
Request To Standardize Application of Certain Provision
AA supports the provision specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the
NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) (redesignated as paragraph
(l)(2)(ii) in this final rule), but is concerned that, because the
provision is unusual, it may not be uniformly applied in the field.
We agree that this is an unusual provision. To that end, we have
prepared an Information for Operators (InFO) bulletin 12LAV to help
explain this provision, as well as other outreach measures to help
ensure standardization. We find it is not necessary to change the final
rule to provide further explanation.
Approval Process for Compliance With AD, Using Chemical Oxygen
Because of the issues addressed by AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-
16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), COG installations will require new
considerations in order to be found acceptable as methods of compliance
with this AD. The approval for COG installations will therefore be in a
manner approved by the FAA as discussed below.
Approval Process for Compliance With AD, Using Other Systems
Chemical oxygen generators are one type of system used to provide
supplemental oxygen. While the majority of transport category airplanes
use this system in lavatories, there are other systems as well. If
another system type is used to meet this AD, the original unsafe
condition is not a concern. In that case, the means of compliance is
straightforward, and we have determined that the approval method could
be more flexible than is usually the case for an AD. For example,
delegated organizations cannot normally make compliance findings for
ADs; service information associated with ADs must be adhered to
exactly, or else an AMOC must be approved. For this AD, if the type of
system is other than a COG, then we have determined that these
restrictions could be relaxed. Therefore, paragraph (l)(2) of this AD
contains provisions to permit existing approval processes to be used,
as long as the means of compliance is other than a COG. This provision
takes precedence over current limitations in operators' authority to
use their organizational delegations when showing compliance with an
AD. In addition, if an operator uses service information that is
approved for such installations, deviations from the service
information can be addressed using the operator's normal procedures
without requiring an AMOC.
Paragraph (l) of this AD refers to the FAA oversight office
responsible for approval of modifications used to show compliance. This
will typically be the
aircraft certification office having geographic oversight of the
applicant. In the case of service instructions from design approval
holders of other countries, this would be the Transport Standards
Staff. We anticipate that modifications to meet this AD will require
either supplemental type certificate or amended type certificate
Minimum Equipment List (MEL)
Although there were no comments on this issue, the FAA has
identified a potential conflict with the minimum equipment list
provisions of Sections 121.628 and 129.14 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 121.628 and 14 CFR 129.14). Since any equipment
mandated to be operative by airworthiness directive is excluded from
the MEL unless the airworthiness directive specifically provides such
allowance, we have revised this final rule to add a new paragraph (m)
to allow the use of the MEL, as applicable. We have re-identified
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously--and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012).
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 5,500 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with the actions specified in
Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product operators
Activate COG/expend oxygen Up to 2 work-hours x $0 Up to $170....... Up to $935,000.
supply [actions retained from $85 per hour = up to
AD 2011[dash]04[dash]09, $170.
Amendment 39[dash]16630 (76 FR
12556, March 8, 2011)].
Oxygen system installation (new 24 work-hours x $85 per 6,000 $8,040........... $44,220,000.
action). hour = $2,040.
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
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011, and adding
the following new AD:
2012-11-09 Transport category airplanes: Amendment 39-17072; Docket
No. FAA-2012-0102; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-004-AD.
(a) Effective Date
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 10, 2012.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR
12556, March 8, 2011).
This AD applies to transport category airplanes, in passenger-
carrying operations, as specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of
(1) Airplanes that are in compliance with the requirements of AD
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011).
(2) Airplanes equipped with any chemical oxygen generator
installed in any lavatory and are:
(i) Operating under 14 CFR part 121; or
(ii) U.S.-registered and operating under 14 CFR part 129, with a
maximum passenger capacity of 20 or greater.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by the determination that the current
design of chemical oxygen generators presents a hazard that could
jeopardize flight safety. We are issuing this AD to eliminate this
hazard and ensure that all lavatories have a supplemental oxygen
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Retained Oxygen Generator
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). Within
21 days after March 14, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-04-09,
Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011)), do the actions
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Activate all chemical oxygen generators in the lavatories
until the generator oxygen supply is expended. An operator may also
remove the oxygen generator(s), in accordance with existing
maintenance practice, in lieu of activating it.
(2) For each chemical oxygen generator, after the generator is
expended (or removed), remove or re-stow the oxygen masks and close
the mask dispenser door.
Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Design approval holders are
not expected to release service instructions for the action
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(h) Retained Information About Hazardous Material
This paragraph restates the information in Note 1 of AD 2011-04-
09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). Chemical oxygen
generators are considered a hazardous material and subject to
specific requirements under Title 49 CFR for shipping. Oxygen
generators must be expended prior to disposal but are considered a
hazardous waste; therefore, disposal must be in accordance with all
Federal, State, and local regulations. Expended oxygen generators
are forbidden in air transportation as cargo. For more information,
(i) Retained Compliance With Federal Aviation Regulations of AD 2011-
04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011)
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011).
Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 25.1447, 121.329,
121.333, and 129.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
25.1447, 121.329, 121.333, and 129.13), operators complying with
this AD are authorized to operate affected airplanes until
accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(j) Retained Parts Installation of AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630
(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011)
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). After
March 14, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-04-09), and until
accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (l) of this AD,
no person may install a chemical oxygen generator in any lavatory on
any affected airplane.
(k) Retained Special Flight Permit of AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630
(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011)
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). Special
flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not
allowed for the accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph
(g) of this AD.
(l) New Requirements of This AD: Oxygen System Restoration
Within 37 months after the effective date of this AD, install a
supplemental oxygen system that meets all applicable sections of
parts 25 and 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 25
and 14 CFR part 121) in each lavatory, as specified in paragraph
(l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) If compliance with paragraph (l) of this AD is achieved
using a chemical oxygen generator, the actions specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD must be done in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager of the responsible FAA oversight office
having responsibility over the modification. For a method to be
approved, it must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and
the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(2) If compliance with paragraph (l) of this AD is achieved
without a chemical oxygen generator, the specifications of
paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (l)(2)(ii) of this AD apply. Any repairs or
alterations to a system installed and approved in accordance with
this paragraph may be accomplished in accordance with 14 CFR part
43, provided the operator's maintenance program contains an
airworthiness limitation that prohibits the installation of chemical
oxygen generators in lavatories.
(i) The modification must receive FAA approval in accordance
with 14 CFR part 21 as a major design change. Notwithstanding
operations specification restrictions to the contrary,
organizational approval holders may exercise their full authority in
approving installations that meet the installation requirements of
(ii) Deviation from approved service instructions and subsequent
modifications may be handled by normal operator procedures without
requiring approval of an alternative method of compliance.
(m) Minimum Equipment List (MEL)
Notwithstanding the requirements of 14 CFR 121.628(b)(2) and 14
CFR 129.14, the equipment required by paragraph (l) of this AD may
be included in the Minimum Equipment List, as applicable.
(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Transport Standards Staff, ANM-110, 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 Transport Standards Staff, send it to
the attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
(o) Related Information
For more information about this AD, contact Jeff Gardlin,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-227-2136; fax: 425-227-1149;
(p) Material Incorporated by Reference
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2012.
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
[FR Doc. 2012-15683 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P