Airworthiness Directives; Koito Industries, Ltd., Seats and Seating Systems Approved Under Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C39b, TSO-C39c, or TSO-C127a, 58340-58346 [2010-23936]

Download as PDF 58340 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules Upshur wage area. There are currently no FWS employees working in Oconto County. * Regulatory Flexibility Act TEXAS I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would affect only Federal agencies and employees. * List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532 Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages. John Berry, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Accordingly, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows: PART 532—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS 1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 2. Appendix C to subpart B is amended by revising the wage area listings for the Shreveport, LA; Texarkana, TX; Milwaukee, WI; and Southwestern Wisconsin wage areas to read as follows: * * * * * * LOUISIANA * * * Shreveport srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Survey Area Louisiana: (parishes) Bossier Caddo Webster Area of Application. Survey Area Plus: Louisiana: (parishes) Bienville Claiborne De Soto East Carroll Jackson Lincoln Morehouse Ouachita Red River Richland Union West Carroll Texas: Cherokee Gregg Harrison Panola Rusk VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 * * * * * * * Texarkana Survey Area Texas: Bowie Arkansas: Little River Miller Area of Application. Survey Area Plus: Texas: Camp Cass Franklin Marion Morris Red River Titus Arkansas: Columbia Hempstead Howard Lafayette Nevada Sevier * * * * * * * * * * * * * [FR Doc. 2010–23956 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325–39–P * WISCONSIN * Florence Forest Jackson Juneau Langlade Lincoln Marathon Marinette Menominee Oneida Pepin Portage Price Richland Rusk Shawano Taylor Vernon Vilas Waupaca Waushara Wood Minnesota: Fillmore Houston Wabasha Winona DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Milwaukee Federal Aviation Administration Survey Area Wisconsin: Milwaukee Ozaukee Washington Waukesha 14 CFR Part 39 Area of Application. Survey Area Plus: Wisconsin: Brown Calumet Door Fond du Lac Kewaunee Manitowoc Oconto Outagamie Racine Sheboygan Walworth Winnebago Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532— Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas * * Airworthiness Directives; Koito Industries, Ltd., Seats and Seating Systems Approved Under Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO–C39b, TSO–C39c, or TSO–C127a [Docket No. FAA–2010–0857; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM–156–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Southwestern Wisconsin Survey Area Wisconsin: Chippewa Eau Claire La Crosse Monroe Trempealeau Area of Application. Survey Area Plus: Wisconsin: Adams Barron Buffalo Clark Crawford Dunn PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Koito Industries, Ltd., seats and seating systems approved under TSO–C39b, TSO–C39c, or TSO–C127a. This proposed AD would require determining if affected seats and seating systems and their components are compliant with certain FAA regulations, and removing those seats, seating systems, and their components from the affected fleet that are shown to be unsafe. This proposed AD results from a determination that the affected seats and seating systems may not meet certain flammability and strength criteria. Failure to meet strength criteria could result in injuries to the flightcrew and passengers during emergency SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM 24SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules landing conditions. In the event of an in-flight or post-emergency landing fire, failure to meet flammability criteria could result in an accelerated propagation of fire. We are proposing this AD to prevent accelerated fires and injuries to the flightcrew and passengers. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 23, 2010. 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. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 (telephone 800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5344; fax (562) 627–5210. 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–2010–0857; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM–156–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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 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 In January 2009, in accordance with the FAA’s bilateral agreement with Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), the JCAB contacted us and advised of noncompliance issues with the Koito seats. We were later advised that the JCAB had been notified of the issues by a whistleblower who reported discrepancies between materials used in production seats and the material of test articles used for showing compliance to flammability requirements. The falsification of certification records, which violates section 21.2 of the Federal Regulations (14 CFR 21.2), was first determined to result in possible non-compliance with the flammability requirements of § 25.853 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.853). At that time, we evaluated whether the disclosed possible non-compliance with the TSO significantly affected compliance with flammability criteria and determined that there was not a safety-of-flight issue, so we did not issue an AD. In November 2009, the JCAB reviewed the safety of all in-service seats, which prompted Koito Industries to disclose additional discrepancies, including the falsification of static, dynamic, and flammability testing on delivered seats. Failure to meet strength criteria could result in injuries to the flightcrew and passengers during emergency landing conditions. In the event of an in-flight or post-emergency landing fire, failure to meet flammability criteria could result in an accelerated propagation of fire. In December 2009, the JCAB and the FAA concluded that all TSO approvals for Koito Industries, Ltd., must be assumed to be non-compliant to the TSO and, by extension, to the regulations. Therefore, all such seats have potential unsafe conditions. Approval Basis for TSO Seats The static, dynamic, and flammability testing requirements include sections 25.561, 25.562, and 25.853 and Appendix F of the Federal Aviation Regulations: • Section 25.561 contains required static loads for emergency landing conditions. Amendment 25–64, effective PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 58341 June 16, 1988, increased the static strength requirements in certain load cases. • Section 25.562, which was created by Amendment 25–64, added dynamic testing requirements and quantified injury criteria and considerations for egress for the new requirements. These criteria improve the level of safety for airplanes that include this amendment level in the certification basis, while older airplanes are not required to meet these criteria. The applicable amendment level of these requirements for a seat installation is dependent on the certification basis of the airplane on which the seats are installed. Because this proposed AD is applicable to all affected seats— regardless of the airplane on which they are installed—we use the current amendment levels of these regulations in the required actions of this proposed AD. We recognize that an aircraft may have a certification basis that does not include 14 CFR 25.562, but has TSO– C127a seats installed. In that case, although the seats are not required to meet 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2) and (c)(7) by the airplane certification basis, they must still comply with the requirements of this proposed AD, which is written against the seats. However, an operator in this situation may request approval of an alternative method of compliance using the airplane certification basis as justification. Establishing the Level of Safety for the Seats Amendment 25–64 was based on accident investigation and dedicated research, after we determined that meeting the emergency load conditions in earlier amendment levels did not ensure adequate performance in an actual accident. We developed dynamic testing criteria with increased load factors as compared to the static strength criteria. These new criteria were intended to achieve the type of structural performance that the static strength criteria were meant to provide, but could not ensure. In addition, other aspects of emergency landing safety were addressed at that time, which resulted in quantified injury criteria (such as implementation of the Head Injury Criterion (HIC)) and considerations for permanent structural deformations that might affect egress. These injury criteria, while a significant improvement in safety, are not as critical as the dynamic structural retention criteria, and will not be applied in this proposed AD because the primary safety function provided by seats and restraint systems is to remain E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM 24SEP1 58342 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules intact in the event of an accident and provide energy management to allow occupant survival. The new injury criteria provide enhancements beyond this primary function. For this proposed AD, the injury criterion to be used is that the seat and seating system must exhibit no sharp edges during the assessment made for head injury protection. However, in order to make sure that assessment is valid, the seats in question must be shown to incorporate any specific design features or characteristics called out by the drawings for the purposes of reducing head injury. Section 25.853 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.853) contains fire protection requirements for compartment interiors, and specifies which test criteria in Appendix F of 14 CFR part 25 must be met. With respect to flammability, the most significant safety element of the seat is the cushion/ upholstery system. In 1984, we adopted new standards for seat cushion fire resistance in Amendment 25–59, dated October 26, 1984, by adding a new part II to Appendix F of 14 CFR part 25. These requirements were mandated to be retrofitted on the existing fleet. Since that time, the relevant performance standards for seats and seat cushions have been modified to incorporate this requirement as well. While evidence indicates that many parts other than the cushion/upholstery system on the affected Koito seats and seating systems may not meet the Bunsen burner test requirements of part I in Appendix F of 14 CFR part 25, we consider that these non-compliances are not unsafe. The fire threat posed by these parts is of a lower order (i.e., they are smaller and spread apart on the seat), and the materials are typical aircraft materials with performance in a fire that is predictable based on past tests and usage. Unsafe Condition We have determined that falsification of the various tests for the TSO could result in the following unsafe conditions during emergency landing conditions and in the event of an in-flight or postemergency landing fire: • Static failure (non-compliance with 14 CFR 25.561): Broken components may cause sharp edges and become injurious to the occupant, or fail to retain the occupant, when seats and seating systems do not comply with this regulation. • Dynamic failure (non-compliance with 14 CFR 25.562): Leg injuries, lumbar/spinal injury, head injury, seat structure yielding leading to occupant entrapment, and failure to retain the occupant may occur when seats and seating systems do not comply with this regulation. • Fire protection/flammability (noncompliance with 14 CFR 25.853): Inflight and post-emergency landing fires may be accelerated when seat materials do not comply with this regulation. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require determining if affected Koito Industries, Ltd., seats and seating systems, approved under TSO–C39b, TSO–C39c, or TSO–C127a, are compliant with specific FAA regulations containing flammability, static strength, and dynamic strength criteria. This proposed AD would also require removing seats and components that are shown to be unsafe. TABLE—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS Regulation & safety requirement Action & compliance time Structure May remain in service ..................... Replace within 6 years .................... Replace within 2 or 3 years (See Footnote 1). Flammability (See footnote 2) Injury (See footnote 3) Meets 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2) and (c)(7), Amendment level 25–64. Meets 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(ii) and (iii), Amendment level 25– 64. Does not meet 14 CFR 25.561 .... Meets 14 CFR 25.853(c), Amendment level 25–116. Meets 14 CFR 25.853(c), Amendment level 25–116. No sharp edges. Does not meet 14 CFR 25.853(c) Has sharp edges (See Footnote 4). No sharp edges. Footnotes: 1. Seats not meeting the criteria of 14 CFR 25.561 or seats exhibiting sharp edges must be replaced within 2 years; seat cushions not meeting the criteria of 14 CFR 25.853(c) must be replaced within 3 years. 2. Seat cushions replaced to meet 14 CFR 25.853(c) should have consistent lumbar load properties with cushions shown to meet the lumbar criteria. Otherwise, a lumbar load test is required. 3. Predicated on design philosophy being maintained for safety critical parts. 4. Sharp edges would have been produced in the original tests, or in the tests required to meet this AD. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS The Role of the Koito Tests Performed Under the Supervision of JCAB Once the JCAB was aware of the fraudulent behavior, they began a process to re-qualify all of the suspect seat designs. In doing so, they reviewed the detailed designs and grouped them according to similarities that would enable tests of one model to substantiate a similar model. This process involved critical-case determinations and a survey of the designs of the seats in service. To address the JCAB orders, Koito produced new seats and seating VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 systems per the production drawings and performed all the required certification tests on them. The results of these tests are intended to gain an understanding of the state of the fleet and prioritize remedial actions, as necessary. However, the results of these tests may not be entirely usable. While it is very likely that any tests that fail the requirement on the newly produced seats would also fail on seats in service, the reverse may not be true. Due to the falsification of records and drawing control issues, seats in service might not PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 conform to their production drawings. Thus, successful tests of a newly produced seat cannot automatically be used to support seats in service unless the relevant detail design parameters can be verified as consistent between the two. If an operator (or an airframe manufacturer on behalf of an operator) can show that the seats in their fleet match the seat tested to support the JCAB investigation, then those data could be used to show compliance with this proposed AD. Each situation will be handled on a case by case basis. E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM 24SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS The Role of the Airframe Manufacturers (Airbus and Boeing) in Helping Airlines Establish the Status of Their Seats While this proposed AD is applicable to operators of airplanes with the affected seats installed, two airframe manufacturers involved, Airbus and Boeing, may be in a position to assist in complying with the requirements of the proposed AD. This is because many of the seat models affected are similar among different operators, and data gathered to support one seat model may also be used to support other models. Boeing and Airbus have information on which models are similar to each other, and should be able to assist operators in sharing information so that no more than one operator would conduct what amounts to the same tests. However, for this to work, both the airlines and the manufacturers must cooperate and share information. Based on preliminary discussions, we understand that the companies involved do intend to cooperate in order to minimize costs. In fact, much of the grouping of similar seats has already been accomplished by the JCAB in their efforts to ascertain the status of the various designs. This should simplify the process of identifying the models that must be tested. Data the FAA Will Accept To Demonstrate Compliance With the Proposed AD Compliance with this proposed AD would require data to support three types of assessments: • Structural performance; • Flammability; and • Injury prevention. For the structural performance requirements, test data will be necessary. These data should be generated under an approved test plan and would require oversight of an airworthiness authority (or delegated agent). Tests conducted to support Koito Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA) are not acceptable. As noted above, tests conducted as part of the JCAB investigation may be acceptable if the conformity of the seats in service can be verified. Otherwise, new data are needed. Similarly, for the flammability data, we will require that tests are conducted under an approved test plan or with the oversight of an aviation authority. We are aware of past Koito burner testing conducted at test facilities that were not VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 done in accordance with FAA-approved test methods. Data generated to support the JCAB’s investigation must be done in accordance with FAA-approved test methods. In this case, the simplest solution for an operator may be to acquire new cushions. However, if operators choose to try and substantiate their cushions, they might need to fabricate test samples using actual cushions. Since actual cushions and test cushions are of different shapes and sizes, several production cushions will likely be needed to make one test sample set. Also, since upholstery is one area of customization between airlines, it is unlikely that one operator’s data can support another. In this case, an operator should consult with the FAA in making test samples so that valid results are produced. For injury criteria, we will accept photographic evidence from the Koito TSO tests to determine whether there are any sharp edges (this would require that the tests in question are shown to be valid). We will accept data from any of the tests performed to meet the other requirements of this proposed AD. Limitations on Seats Found Not To Be Fully Compliant, but Are Safe to Remain in Service Because this proposed AD will not require full compliance with every applicable regulation, seats on which the requirements of this proposed AD are completed successfully and are permitted to remain in service are limited in how they can be used. That is, unless they are shown to fully comply with the regulatory requirements, this proposed AD would restrict the installation of such seats and would require specific marking. These seats can be used as a direct spare for the same part number seat. However, any other use of such seats would be considered a new installation approval and would be required to comply with all regulations. Thus, seats not meeting all regulations could not be installed except as noted above, and if removed from an approved arrangement, would have to be destroyed or rendered unusable in some other manner acceptable to the FAA. In addition, if these seats are reinstalled, they would have to be marked in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD so that their status is known to any person who inspects them. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 58343 Replacement Components Wear-out component replacement parts such as food trays, arm rest covers, and non-structural members may be manufactured and installed on seats affected by this proposed AD until the compliance time specified in this proposed AD. These parts must comply with flammability and injury prevention requirements. Parts produced under 14 CFR part 43, parts manufacturer approval (PMA) through licensing agreement, or PMA through identicality that could be based on fraudulent data would require an assessment of their compliance. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 40,365 passenger seats installed on airplanes in the U.S. fleet. There are 278 airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per workhour. The estimated cost to determine if the affected seats and seating systems and their components are in compliance (i.e., estimate the cost of static, dynamic and flammability testing, labor) is approximately $100,000 for the U.S. fleet. The estimated cost of the consumed article such as the seat row and materials consumed for flammability testing is approximately $490,000 for the U.S. fleet. The estimated cost to remove affected seats and seating systems and their components is approximately $285,000 for the U.S. fleet (this estimate assumes that the removal of all seats and seating systems in the fleet). The total estimated cost of this proposed AD for the U.S. fleet is $875,000. Operators may need to replace only certain components. It is not feasible to include the cost of individual components in this proposed AD because we have no way of determining which components may need replacement. Operators may need to replace the affected seat with a new seat. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to replace the different types of seats. We have no way of determining how many seats may need to be replaced after testing is done to determine if the seats are in compliance. Certain operators may need to replace any type of seat that are generalized by description and estimated per seat cost in the following table. E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM 24SEP1 58344 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules TABLE—SEAT REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES Seat style/class Aircraft style, foot rest, and recline mechanism Economy .................................... First, Business ........................... Business ..................................... Business ..................................... First ............................................ Narrow/Wide Body; Mechanical ............................................................ Narrow Body; Mechanical ..................................................................... Wide Body; Mechanical ........................................................................ Wide Body; Electrical ............................................................................ Wide Body; Lay flat single place, Electrical ......................................... 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. 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), and 3. 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. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Cost per passenger seat $2,300 $7,500 $10,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $75,000 to $150,000 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 AD: Koito Industries, Ltd: Docket No. FAA–2010– 0857; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM– 156–AD. Comments Due Date (a) We must receive comments by November 8, 2010. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Koito Industries, Ltd., seats and seating systems having a model number identified in Table 1 of this AD that are approved under technical standard order (TSO) TSO–C39b, TSO–C39c, or TSO–C127a, and installed on, but not limited to, airplanes of the manufacturers identified in Table 2 of this AD, all type certificated models in any category. TABLE 1—SEAT MODELS srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Model Numbers AFS–105, AFS–136, AFS–235, AFS–315, ARS–183, ARS–189, ARS–190, ARS–200, ARS–242, ARS–242–TA, ARS–254, ARS–255, ARS–263, ARS–276, ARS–277, ARS–281, ARS–289, ARS–29, ARS–29–03, ARS–304, ARS–308, ARS–311, ARS–311–A, ARS–311–B, ARS–336, ARS-339, ARS–341, ARS–347 ARS–352, ARS–354, ARS–357, ARS– 360, ARS–384, ARS–385, ARS–392, ARS-397, ARS–398, ARS–415, ARS–417, ARS–418, ARS–419, ARS–423, ARS–424, ARS–425, ARS-427, ARS-431, ARS–437, ARS–446, ARS–447, ARS–448, ARS–451, ARS–452, ARS–465, ARS-478, ARS–480, ARS–482, ARS–483, ARS–493, ARS-494, ARS–507, ARS–510, ARS–511, ARS–514, ARS–516, ARS–518, ARS–527, ARS–542, ARS-543, ARS–550, ARS–552, ARS–553, ARS–554, ARS–571, ARS–574, ARS–577, ARS-588, ARS–589, ARS–591, ARS–592, ARS–593, ARS–594, ARS–595, ARS–596, ARS-597, ARS–598, ARS–599, ARS–600, ARS–601, ARS–604, ARS–605, ARS–607, ARS–610, ARS–611, ARS–613, ARS-615, ARS–616, ARS–617, ARS–620, ARS–626, ARS–627, ARS–629, ARS–636, ARS-641, ARS–642, ARS–643, ARS–644, ARS–646, ARS–647, ARS–649, ARS–651, ARS-652, ARS–657, ARS–658, ARS–659, ARS–667, ARS–668, ARS–669, ARS–670, ARS-671, ARS–672, ARS–673, ARS–674, ARS–694, ARS–697, ARS–704, ARS–707, ARS–709, ARS–710, ARS–813, ARS–814, ARS–815, ARS–823, ARS–831, ARS–832, ARS–833, ARS–835, ARS-836, ARS–837, ARS–838, ARS–840, ARS–841, ARS–843, ARS–844, ARS–846, ARS-847, ARS–849, ARS–851, ARS–852, ARS–853, ARS–857, ARS–858, ARS–859, ARS-861, ARS–862, ARS–869, ASS–197D, ASS–215, ASS–30, ASS–30–1, B–317, F11M11, F44A33, VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM 24SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 58345 TABLE 1—SEAT MODELS—Continued Model Numbers P11B31, P11B33, P11M93, P21B33, P21B35, P21B73, P22A23, P32B73, P52B41, P56B63, PB7–2001, T–316, Y11B31, Y11B33, Y11B73, Y15B73, Y21A23, Y21B73, Y27B73, YE1B35, YG7B35, YH1B73, YK2B73. TABLE 2—AFFECTED AIRPLANES Manufacturer Product subtype Airbus ........................................................................................................................................... The Boeing Company .................................................................................................................. McDonnell Douglas Corporation .................................................................................................. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ................................................................................................. Fokker Services B.V. ................................................................................................................... Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings. Unsafe Condition (e) This AD results from a determination that the affected seats and seating systems may not meet certain flammability, static strength and dynamic strength criteria. Failure to meet static and dynamic strength criteria could result in injuries to the flightcrew and passengers during emergency landing conditions. In the event of an inflight or post-emergency landing fire, failure to meet flammability criteria could result in an accelerated fire. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent accelerated fires and injuries to the flightcrew and passengers. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Compliance (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Determination of Compliance and Removal (g) Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, determine if the seats and seating systems and their components are compliant with FAA regulations, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a method to be approved, the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Before re-installing any seat or seating system, modify the existing TSO tag by defacing the TSO number and letter of designation, e.g., overstrike the TSO identification with an ‘‘X’’ (such as ‘‘TSO– C127a’’ is defaced to look like ‘‘XXXXXXXXXX’’), and add a tag that specifies non-compliance to the TSO number VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport and letter designation, this AD number, and removal date if applicable. Note 1: Determining if the seats and seating systems and their components are compliant may be made by independent re-qualification of the affected TSO article that has thorough control of the design and production process. Note 2: Components of seats and seating systems include any non-metallic exposed part, assembly, or item. A component can include a seat cushion, recline cable, hook and loop (hook and loop is a generic term for Velcro), leather cover that is glued to seat, head rest, or arm cap. (1) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seats approved under TSO–C39b or TSO–C39c that are not shown to be compliant with 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(ii) and 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(iii): Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, remove the non-compliant seats. (2) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seating systems approved under TSO–C127a that are not shown to be compliant with either of the regulations specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD: Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, remove the noncompliant seating systems. (i) 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(ii) and 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(iii). (ii) 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2), and 14 CFR 25.562(c)(7). (3) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seating systems approved under TSO–C127a that are shown to be compliant with 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(ii) and 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(iii), but are not shown to be compliant with 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2), and 14 CFR 25.562(c)(7): Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, remove the non-compliant seating systems. (4) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seats approved under TSO–C39b or TSO–C39c and seating systems approved under TSO–C127a PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Airplane. Airplane. Airplane. Airplane. Airplane. that are shown to exhibit sharp or injurious surfaces in testing conducted to satisfy the original TSO authorization program, or subsequent verification tests in accordance with this AD: Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, remove the noncompliant seats and seating systems. (5) For components of Koito Industries, Ltd., seats approved under TSO–C39b or TSO–C39c and components of seating systems approved under TSO–C127a that are not shown to be compliant with 14 CFR 25.853(c): Within 3 years after the effective date of this AD, remove the non-compliant components. If a seat cushion is replaced, the replacement seat cushion must have consistent seat bottom stiffness and seat reference point locations using the guidance found in paragraph 9 of Appendix 3 of FAA Advisory Circular 25.562–1B, dated January 10, 2006. Parts Installation (h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any Koito Industries, Ltd., seats and seating systems having any model number identified in Table 1 of this AD that are approved under Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO–C39b, TSO–C39c, or TSO– C127a on any airplane; and no person may install any component of any affected seat and seating system on any airplane, unless the component is shown to meet the applicable airworthiness requirements; except that a seat, seating system, or component may be re-installed on the airplane from which it was originally removed, provided it is removed from service within the applicable compliance time specified in this AD. Non-compliant seats and seating systems and their components that are removed from service are not eligible for installation on another airplane or by another airline or any other aviation entity. E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM 24SEP1 58346 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712– 4137; telephone (562) 627–5344; fax (562) 627–5210. (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 17, 2010. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2010–23936 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 261 [EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–0312; SW FRL– 9206–9] Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Eastman Chemical Company–Texas Operations (Eastman) to exclude (or delist) certain solid wastes generated by its Longview, Texas, facility from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of the impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 25, 2010. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– RCRA–2009–0312 by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: peace.michelle@epa.gov. 3. Mail: Michelle Peace, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Michelle Peace, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further technical information concerning this document or for appointments to view the docket or the SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 Eastman facility petition, contact Michelle Peace, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by calling (214) 665–7430 or by e-mail at peace.michelle@epa.gov. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving Eastman Chemical Company’s delisting petition as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: September 8, 2010. Bill Luthans, Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division. [FR Doc. 2010–23962 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM 24SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58340-58346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23936]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0857; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-156-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Koito Industries, Ltd., Seats and 
Seating Systems Approved Under Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C39b, 
TSO-C39c, or TSO-C127a

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for 
certain Koito Industries, Ltd., seats and seating systems approved 
under TSO-C39b, TSO-C39c, or TSO-C127a. This proposed AD would require 
determining if affected seats and seating systems and their components 
are compliant with certain FAA regulations, and removing those seats, 
seating systems, and their components from the affected fleet that are 
shown to be unsafe. This proposed AD results from a determination that 
the affected seats and seating systems may not meet certain 
flammability and strength criteria. Failure to meet strength criteria 
could result in injuries to the flightcrew and passengers during 
emergency

[[Page 58341]]

landing conditions. In the event of an in-flight or post-emergency 
landing fire, failure to meet flammability criteria could result in an 
accelerated propagation of fire. We are proposing this AD to prevent 
accelerated fires and injuries to the flightcrew and passengers.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 23, 
2010.

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.

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 (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the 
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly 
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer, 
Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-
4137; telephone (562) 627-5344; fax (562) 627-5210.

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-2010-0857; 
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-156-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

    In January 2009, in accordance with the FAA's bilateral agreement 
with Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), the JCAB contacted us and 
advised of non-compliance issues with the Koito seats. We were later 
advised that the JCAB had been notified of the issues by a 
whistleblower who reported discrepancies between materials used in 
production seats and the material of test articles used for showing 
compliance to flammability requirements. The falsification of 
certification records, which violates section 21.2 of the Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR 21.2), was first determined to result in possible 
non-compliance with the flammability requirements of Sec.  25.853 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.853). At that time, we 
evaluated whether the disclosed possible non-compliance with the TSO 
significantly affected compliance with flammability criteria and 
determined that there was not a safety-of-flight issue, so we did not 
issue an AD.
    In November 2009, the JCAB reviewed the safety of all in-service 
seats, which prompted Koito Industries to disclose additional 
discrepancies, including the falsification of static, dynamic, and 
flammability testing on delivered seats. Failure to meet strength 
criteria could result in injuries to the flightcrew and passengers 
during emergency landing conditions. In the event of an in-flight or 
post-emergency landing fire, failure to meet flammability criteria 
could result in an accelerated propagation of fire.
    In December 2009, the JCAB and the FAA concluded that all TSO 
approvals for Koito Industries, Ltd., must be assumed to be non-
compliant to the TSO and, by extension, to the regulations. Therefore, 
all such seats have potential unsafe conditions.

Approval Basis for TSO Seats

    The static, dynamic, and flammability testing requirements include 
sections 25.561, 25.562, and 25.853 and Appendix F of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations:
     Section 25.561 contains required static loads for 
emergency landing conditions. Amendment 25-64, effective June 16, 1988, 
increased the static strength requirements in certain load cases.
     Section 25.562, which was created by Amendment 25-64, 
added dynamic testing requirements and quantified injury criteria and 
considerations for egress for the new requirements. These criteria 
improve the level of safety for airplanes that include this amendment 
level in the certification basis, while older airplanes are not 
required to meet these criteria.
    The applicable amendment level of these requirements for a seat 
installation is dependent on the certification basis of the airplane on 
which the seats are installed. Because this proposed AD is applicable 
to all affected seats--regardless of the airplane on which they are 
installed--we use the current amendment levels of these regulations in 
the required actions of this proposed AD.
    We recognize that an aircraft may have a certification basis that 
does not include 14 CFR 25.562, but has TSO-C127a seats installed. In 
that case, although the seats are not required to meet 14 CFR 
25.562(b)(2) and (c)(7) by the airplane certification basis, they must 
still comply with the requirements of this proposed AD, which is 
written against the seats. However, an operator in this situation may 
request approval of an alternative method of compliance using the 
airplane certification basis as justification.

Establishing the Level of Safety for the Seats

    Amendment 25-64 was based on accident investigation and dedicated 
research, after we determined that meeting the emergency load 
conditions in earlier amendment levels did not ensure adequate 
performance in an actual accident. We developed dynamic testing 
criteria with increased load factors as compared to the static strength 
criteria. These new criteria were intended to achieve the type of 
structural performance that the static strength criteria were meant to 
provide, but could not ensure.
    In addition, other aspects of emergency landing safety were 
addressed at that time, which resulted in quantified injury criteria 
(such as implementation of the Head Injury Criterion (HIC)) and 
considerations for permanent structural deformations that might affect 
egress. These injury criteria, while a significant improvement in 
safety, are not as critical as the dynamic structural retention 
criteria, and will not be applied in this proposed AD because the 
primary safety function provided by seats and restraint systems is to 
remain

[[Page 58342]]

intact in the event of an accident and provide energy management to 
allow occupant survival. The new injury criteria provide enhancements 
beyond this primary function. For this proposed AD, the injury 
criterion to be used is that the seat and seating system must exhibit 
no sharp edges during the assessment made for head injury protection. 
However, in order to make sure that assessment is valid, the seats in 
question must be shown to incorporate any specific design features or 
characteristics called out by the drawings for the purposes of reducing 
head injury.
    Section 25.853 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.853) 
contains fire protection requirements for compartment interiors, and 
specifies which test criteria in Appendix F of 14 CFR part 25 must be 
met. With respect to flammability, the most significant safety element 
of the seat is the cushion/upholstery system. In 1984, we adopted new 
standards for seat cushion fire resistance in Amendment 25-59, dated 
October 26, 1984, by adding a new part II to Appendix F of 14 CFR part 
25. These requirements were mandated to be retrofitted on the existing 
fleet. Since that time, the relevant performance standards for seats 
and seat cushions have been modified to incorporate this requirement as 
well.
    While evidence indicates that many parts other than the cushion/
upholstery system on the affected Koito seats and seating systems may 
not meet the Bunsen burner test requirements of part I in Appendix F of 
14 CFR part 25, we consider that these non-compliances are not unsafe. 
The fire threat posed by these parts is of a lower order (i.e., they 
are smaller and spread apart on the seat), and the materials are 
typical aircraft materials with performance in a fire that is 
predictable based on past tests and usage.

Unsafe Condition

    We have determined that falsification of the various tests for the 
TSO could result in the following unsafe conditions during emergency 
landing conditions and in the event of an in-flight or post-emergency 
landing fire:
     Static failure (non-compliance with 14 CFR 25.561): Broken 
components may cause sharp edges and become injurious to the occupant, 
or fail to retain the occupant, when seats and seating systems do not 
comply with this regulation.
     Dynamic failure (non-compliance with 14 CFR 25.562): Leg 
injuries, lumbar/spinal injury, head injury, seat structure yielding 
leading to occupant entrapment, and failure to retain the occupant may 
occur when seats and seating systems do not comply with this 
regulation.
     Fire protection/flammability (non-compliance with 14 CFR 
25.853): In-flight and post-emergency landing fires may be accelerated 
when seat materials do not comply with this regulation.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant 
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is 
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. 
This proposed AD would require determining if affected Koito 
Industries, Ltd., seats and seating systems, approved under TSO-C39b, 
TSO-C39c, or TSO-C127a, are compliant with specific FAA regulations 
containing flammability, static strength, and dynamic strength 
criteria. This proposed AD would also require removing seats and 
components that are shown to be unsafe.

                               Table--Summary of Proposed Actions and Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Regulation & safety requirement
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Action & compliance time                                    Flammability  (See
                                           Structure                 footnote 2)        Injury  (See footnote 3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May remain in service............  Meets 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2)  Meets 14 CFR 25.853(c),   No sharp edges.
                                    and (c)(7), Amendment      Amendment level 25-116.
                                    level 25-64.
Replace within 6 years...........  Meets 14 CFR               Meets 14 CFR 25.853(c),   No sharp edges.
                                    25.561(b)(3)(ii) and       Amendment level 25-116.
                                    (iii), Amendment level
                                    25-64.
Replace within 2 or 3 years (See   Does not meet 14 CFR       Does not meet 14 CFR      Has sharp edges (See
 Footnote 1).                       25.561.                    25.853(c).                Footnote 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
1. Seats not meeting the criteria of 14 CFR 25.561 or seats exhibiting sharp edges must be replaced within 2
  years; seat cushions not meeting the criteria of 14 CFR 25.853(c) must be replaced within 3 years.
2. Seat cushions replaced to meet 14 CFR 25.853(c) should have consistent lumbar load properties with cushions
  shown to meet the lumbar criteria. Otherwise, a lumbar load test is required.
3. Predicated on design philosophy being maintained for safety critical parts.
4. Sharp edges would have been produced in the original tests, or in the tests required to meet this AD.

The Role of the Koito Tests Performed Under the Supervision of JCAB

    Once the JCAB was aware of the fraudulent behavior, they began a 
process to re-qualify all of the suspect seat designs. In doing so, 
they reviewed the detailed designs and grouped them according to 
similarities that would enable tests of one model to substantiate a 
similar model. This process involved critical-case determinations and a 
survey of the designs of the seats in service. To address the JCAB 
orders, Koito produced new seats and seating systems per the production 
drawings and performed all the required certification tests on them. 
The results of these tests are intended to gain an understanding of the 
state of the fleet and prioritize remedial actions, as necessary.
    However, the results of these tests may not be entirely usable. 
While it is very likely that any tests that fail the requirement on the 
newly produced seats would also fail on seats in service, the reverse 
may not be true. Due to the falsification of records and drawing 
control issues, seats in service might not conform to their production 
drawings. Thus, successful tests of a newly produced seat cannot 
automatically be used to support seats in service unless the relevant 
detail design parameters can be verified as consistent between the two. 
If an operator (or an airframe manufacturer on behalf of an operator) 
can show that the seats in their fleet match the seat tested to support 
the JCAB investigation, then those data could be used to show 
compliance with this proposed AD. Each situation will be handled on a 
case by case basis.

[[Page 58343]]

The Role of the Airframe Manufacturers (Airbus and Boeing) in Helping 
Airlines Establish the Status of Their Seats

    While this proposed AD is applicable to operators of airplanes with 
the affected seats installed, two airframe manufacturers involved, 
Airbus and Boeing, may be in a position to assist in complying with the 
requirements of the proposed AD. This is because many of the seat 
models affected are similar among different operators, and data 
gathered to support one seat model may also be used to support other 
models. Boeing and Airbus have information on which models are similar 
to each other, and should be able to assist operators in sharing 
information so that no more than one operator would conduct what 
amounts to the same tests. However, for this to work, both the airlines 
and the manufacturers must cooperate and share information. Based on 
preliminary discussions, we understand that the companies involved do 
intend to cooperate in order to minimize costs. In fact, much of the 
grouping of similar seats has already been accomplished by the JCAB in 
their efforts to ascertain the status of the various designs. This 
should simplify the process of identifying the models that must be 
tested.

Data the FAA Will Accept To Demonstrate Compliance With the Proposed AD

    Compliance with this proposed AD would require data to support 
three types of assessments:
     Structural performance;
     Flammability; and
     Injury prevention.
    For the structural performance requirements, test data will be 
necessary. These data should be generated under an approved test plan 
and would require oversight of an airworthiness authority (or delegated 
agent). Tests conducted to support Koito Technical Standard Order 
Authorization (TSOA) are not acceptable. As noted above, tests 
conducted as part of the JCAB investigation may be acceptable if the 
conformity of the seats in service can be verified. Otherwise, new data 
are needed.
    Similarly, for the flammability data, we will require that tests 
are conducted under an approved test plan or with the oversight of an 
aviation authority. We are aware of past Koito burner testing conducted 
at test facilities that were not done in accordance with FAA-approved 
test methods. Data generated to support the JCAB's investigation must 
be done in accordance with FAA-approved test methods. In this case, the 
simplest solution for an operator may be to acquire new cushions. 
However, if operators choose to try and substantiate their cushions, 
they might need to fabricate test samples using actual cushions. Since 
actual cushions and test cushions are of different shapes and sizes, 
several production cushions will likely be needed to make one test 
sample set. Also, since upholstery is one area of customization between 
airlines, it is unlikely that one operator's data can support another. 
In this case, an operator should consult with the FAA in making test 
samples so that valid results are produced.
    For injury criteria, we will accept photographic evidence from the 
Koito TSO tests to determine whether there are any sharp edges (this 
would require that the tests in question are shown to be valid). We 
will accept data from any of the tests performed to meet the other 
requirements of this proposed AD.

Limitations on Seats Found Not To Be Fully Compliant, but Are Safe to 
Remain in Service

    Because this proposed AD will not require full compliance with 
every applicable regulation, seats on which the requirements of this 
proposed AD are completed successfully and are permitted to remain in 
service are limited in how they can be used. That is, unless they are 
shown to fully comply with the regulatory requirements, this proposed 
AD would restrict the installation of such seats and would require 
specific marking. These seats can be used as a direct spare for the 
same part number seat. However, any other use of such seats would be 
considered a new installation approval and would be required to comply 
with all regulations. Thus, seats not meeting all regulations could not 
be installed except as noted above, and if removed from an approved 
arrangement, would have to be destroyed or rendered unusable in some 
other manner acceptable to the FAA.
    In addition, if these seats are re-installed, they would have to be 
marked in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD so that their status 
is known to any person who inspects them.

Replacement Components

    Wear-out component replacement parts such as food trays, arm rest 
covers, and non-structural members may be manufactured and installed on 
seats affected by this proposed AD until the compliance time specified 
in this proposed AD. These parts must comply with flammability and 
injury prevention requirements. Parts produced under 14 CFR part 43, 
parts manufacturer approval (PMA) through licensing agreement, or PMA 
through identicality that could be based on fraudulent data would 
require an assessment of their compliance.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 40,365 passenger 
seats installed on airplanes in the U.S. fleet. There are 278 airplanes 
of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    The estimated cost to determine if the affected seats and seating 
systems and their components are in compliance (i.e., estimate the cost 
of static, dynamic and flammability testing, labor) is approximately 
$100,000 for the U.S. fleet. The estimated cost of the consumed article 
such as the seat row and materials consumed for flammability testing is 
approximately $490,000 for the U.S. fleet. The estimated cost to remove 
affected seats and seating systems and their components is 
approximately $285,000 for the U.S. fleet (this estimate assumes that 
the removal of all seats and seating systems in the fleet). The total 
estimated cost of this proposed AD for the U.S. fleet is $875,000.
    Operators may need to replace only certain components. It is not 
feasible to include the cost of individual components in this proposed 
AD because we have no way of determining which components may need 
replacement.
    Operators may need to replace the affected seat with a new seat. 
The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to 
replace the different types of seats. We have no way of determining how 
many seats may need to be replaced after testing is done to determine 
if the seats are in compliance. Certain operators may need to replace 
any type of seat that are generalized by description and estimated per 
seat cost in the following table.

[[Page 58344]]



                                     Table--Seat Replacement Cost Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Aircraft style, foot rest, and recline
          Seat style/class                              mechanism                      Cost per passenger seat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economy.............................  Narrow/Wide Body; Mechanical................  $2,300
First, Business.....................  Narrow Body; Mechanical.....................  $7,500
Business............................  Wide Body; Mechanical.......................  $10,000
Business............................  Wide Body; Electrical.......................  $25,000 to $35,000
First...............................  Wide Body; Lay flat single place, Electrical  $75,000 to $150,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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), and
    3. 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of 
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 AD:

Koito Industries, Ltd: Docket No. FAA-2010-0857; Directorate 
Identifier 2010-NM-156-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 8, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Koito Industries, Ltd., seats and seating 
systems having a model number identified in Table 1 of this AD that 
are approved under technical standard order (TSO) TSO-C39b, TSO-
C39c, or TSO-C127a, and installed on, but not limited to, airplanes 
of the manufacturers identified in Table 2 of this AD, all type 
certificated models in any category.

                          Table 1--Seat Models
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Model Numbers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFS-105, AFS-136,
AFS-235, AFS-315,
ARS-183, ARS-189, ARS-190,
ARS-200, ARS-242, ARS-242-TA, ARS-254, ARS-255, ARS-263, ARS-276, ARS-
 277, ARS-281, ARS-289,
ARS-29, ARS-29-03,
ARS-304, ARS-308, ARS-311, ARS-311-A, ARS-311-B, ARS-336, ARS[dash]339,
 ARS-341, ARS-347 ARS-352, ARS-354, ARS-357, ARS-360, ARS-384, ARS-385,
 ARS-392, ARS[dash]397, ARS-398,
ARS-415, ARS-417, ARS-418, ARS-419, ARS-423, ARS-424, ARS-425,
 ARS[dash]427, ARS[dash]431, ARS-437, ARS-446, ARS-447, ARS-448, ARS-
 451, ARS-452, ARS-465, ARS[dash]478, ARS-480, ARS-482, ARS-483, ARS-
 493, ARS[dash]494,
ARS-507, ARS-510, ARS-511, ARS-514, ARS-516, ARS-518, ARS-527, ARS-542,
 ARS[dash]543, ARS-550, ARS-552, ARS-553, ARS-554, ARS-571, ARS-574, ARS-
 577, ARS[dash]588, ARS-589, ARS-591, ARS-592, ARS-593, ARS-594, ARS-
 595, ARS-596, ARS[dash]597, ARS-598, ARS-599,
ARS-600, ARS-601, ARS-604, ARS-605, ARS-607, ARS-610, ARS-611, ARS-613,
 ARS[dash]615, ARS-616, ARS-617, ARS-620, ARS-626, ARS-627, ARS-629, ARS-
 636, ARS[dash]641, ARS-642, ARS-643, ARS-644, ARS-646, ARS-647, ARS-
 649, ARS-651, ARS[dash]652, ARS-657, ARS-658, ARS-659, ARS-667, ARS-
 668, ARS-669, ARS-670, ARS[dash]671, ARS-672, ARS-673, ARS-674, ARS-
 694, ARS-697,
ARS-704, ARS-707, ARS-709, ARS-710,
ARS-813, ARS-814, ARS-815, ARS-823, ARS-831, ARS-832, ARS-833, ARS-835,
 ARS[dash]836, ARS-837, ARS-838, ARS-840, ARS-841, ARS-843, ARS-844, ARS-
 846, ARS[dash]847, ARS-849, ARS-851, ARS-852, ARS-853, ARS-857, ARS-
 858, ARS-859, ARS[dash]861, ARS-862, ARS-869,
ASS-197D,
ASS-215,
ASS-30, ASS-30-1,
B-317,
F11M11,
F44A33,

[[Page 58345]]

 
P11B31, P11B33, P11M93,
P21B33, P21B35, P21B73,
P22A23,
P32B73,
P52B41,
P56B63,
PB7-2001,
T-316,
Y11B31, Y11B33, Y11B73, Y15B73,
Y21A23, Y21B73,
Y27B73,
YE1B35,
YG7B35,
YH1B73,
YK2B73.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Table 2--Affected Airplanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Manufacturer                        Product subtype
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus....................................  Transport Airplane.
The Boeing Company........................  Transport Airplane.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation.............  Transport Airplane.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd..........  Transport Airplane.
Fokker Services B.V.......................  Transport Airplane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25: 
Equipment/Furnishings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a determination that the affected seats 
and seating systems may not meet certain flammability, static 
strength and dynamic strength criteria. Failure to meet static and 
dynamic strength criteria could result in injuries to the flightcrew 
and passengers during emergency landing conditions. In the event of 
an in-flight or post-emergency landing fire, failure to meet 
flammability criteria could result in an accelerated fire. The 
Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent 
accelerated fires and injuries to the flightcrew and passengers.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this 
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the 
actions have already been done.

Determination of Compliance and Removal

    (g) Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, 
determine if the seats and seating systems and their components are 
compliant with FAA regulations, in accordance with a method approved 
by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA. For a method to be approved, the approval must specifically 
refer to this AD. Before re-installing any seat or seating system, 
modify the existing TSO tag by defacing the TSO number and letter of 
designation, e.g., overstrike the TSO identification with an ``X'' 
(such as ``TSO-C127a'' is defaced to look like ``XXXXXXXXXX''), and 
add a tag that specifies non-compliance to the TSO number and letter 
designation, this AD number, and removal date if applicable.

    Note 1: Determining if the seats and seating systems and their 
components are compliant may be made by independent re-qualification 
of the affected TSO article that has thorough control of the design 
and production process.


    Note 2: Components of seats and seating systems include any non-
metallic exposed part, assembly, or item. A component can include a 
seat cushion, recline cable, hook and loop (hook and loop is a 
generic term for Velcro), leather cover that is glued to seat, head 
rest, or arm cap.

    (1) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seats approved under TSO-C39b or 
TSO-C39c that are not shown to be compliant with 14 CFR 
25.561(b)(3)(ii) and 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(iii): Within 2 years after 
the effective date of this AD, remove the non-compliant seats.
    (2) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seating systems approved under 
TSO-C127a that are not shown to be compliant with either of the 
regulations specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this 
AD: Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, remove the 
non-compliant seating systems.
    (i) 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(ii) and 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(iii).
    (ii) 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2), and 14 CFR 25.562(c)(7).
    (3) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seating systems approved under 
TSO-C127a that are shown to be compliant with 14 CFR 
25.561(b)(3)(ii) and 14 CFR 25.561(b)(3)(iii), but are not shown to 
be compliant with 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2), and 14 CFR 25.562(c)(7): 
Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, remove the non-
compliant seating systems.
    (4) For Koito Industries, Ltd., seats approved under TSO-C39b or 
TSO-C39c and seating systems approved under TSO-C127a that are shown 
to exhibit sharp or injurious surfaces in testing conducted to 
satisfy the original TSO authorization program, or subsequent 
verification tests in accordance with this AD: Within 2 years after 
the effective date of this AD, remove the non-compliant seats and 
seating systems.
    (5) For components of Koito Industries, Ltd., seats approved 
under TSO-C39b or TSO-C39c and components of seating systems 
approved under TSO-C127a that are not shown to be compliant with 14 
CFR 25.853(c): Within 3 years after the effective date of this AD, 
remove the non-compliant components. If a seat cushion is replaced, 
the replacement seat cushion must have consistent seat bottom 
stiffness and seat reference point locations using the guidance 
found in paragraph 9 of Appendix 3 of FAA Advisory Circular 25.562-
1B, dated January 10, 2006.

Parts Installation

    (h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install 
any Koito Industries, Ltd., seats and seating systems having any 
model number identified in Table 1 of this AD that are approved 
under Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C39b, TSO-C39c, or TSO-
C127a on any airplane; and no person may install any component of 
any affected seat and seating system on any airplane, unless the 
component is shown to meet the applicable airworthiness 
requirements; except that a seat, seating system, or component may 
be re-installed on the airplane from which it was originally 
removed, provided it is removed from service within the applicable 
compliance time specified in this AD. Non-compliant seats and 
seating systems and their components that are removed from service 
are not eligible for installation on another airplane or by another 
airline or any other aviation entity.

[[Page 58346]]

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 
ATTN: Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-
150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone 
(562) 627-5344; fax (562) 627-5210.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different 
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. 
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC 
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or 
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a 
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. 
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 17, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-23936 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P