[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58340-58346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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