issue-1996-04-10•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-10
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-10
issue-1996-04-10Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-10Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-8957 Notice To Extend Comment Period for the Proposed Amendment to Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category; Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8957]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 440
[WH-FRL-5457-4]
Notice To Extend Comment Period for the Proposed Amendment to Ore
Mining and Dressing Point Source Category; Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 30
day extension of the previous 60 day comment period for the proposed
regulations. The proposed amendment to the ore mining and dressing
point source category was published in the Federal Register on February
12, 1996 (61 FR 5364). This action is being taken to allow additional
time to comment as requested by a number of interested parties.
DATES: The previous date for submission of comments was April 12, 1996.
The new date for submission of written comments on the proposed rule is
May 13, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronald G. Kirby at (202) 260-7168, Engineering and Analysis Division
(Mail Code 4303), Office of Science and Technology, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at (202) 260-7168.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The extended comment period for the proposed
rule now ends on may 13, 1996. The date for submittal of comments on
issues related to the technological alternatives for the A-J site
remains August 2, 1996. All timely written comments submitted in
accordance with the instructions in the Proposed Rule will be
incorporated into the Record and considered before promulgation of the
final rule.
Dated: April 5, 1996.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 96-8957 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8942 2-Bromo-2-Nitro-1,3-Propanediol; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15915-15917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8942]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300421; FRL-5361-3]
RIN 2070-AB18
2-Bromo-2-Nitro-1,3-Propanediol; Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes that residues of 2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-
propanediol (CAS Reg. No. 52-51-7) be exempted from the requirement of
a tolerance when used at levels not to exceed 0.04% as an inert
ingredient (preservative) in pesticide formulations applied to growing
crops, raw agricultural commodities after harvest, and animals. This
proposed regulation was requested by Kennedy Consultants Inc. on behalf
of Knoll Pharmaceuticals, Knoll Microcheck, pursuant to the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: Comments, identified by the docket control number [OPP-300421],
must be received on or before May 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person deliver comments to: Rm. 1132, Crystal
Mall CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential will be included in the public docket by EPA without prior
notice. The public docket is available for public inspection in Rm.
1132 at the Virginia address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number, [OPP-300421]. No CBI should be submitted through e-
mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at
many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic
submissions can be found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Amelia M. Acierto,
Registration Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail
address: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, Arlington, VA, (703)308-8375,
e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Kennedy Consultants Inc., 13 ``C'' Street,
Suite G, Laurel, MD 20707 on behalf of Knoll Pharmaceuticals, Knoll
Microcheck has submitted pesticide petition (PP) 0E03904 to EPA
requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), propose to
amend 40 CFR 180.1001(c) and (e) by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for 2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol when
used as an antimicrobial in-can preservative in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities after harvest,
and animals.
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
[[Page 15916]]
The data submitted in the petition and other relevant material have
been evaluated. As part of the EPA policy statement on inert
ingredients published in the Federal Register of April 22, 1987 (52 FR
13305), the Agency set forth a list of studies which would generally be
used to evaluate the risks posed by the presence of an inert ingredient
in a pesticide formulation. However, where it can be determined without
that data that the inert ingredient will present minimal or no risk,
the Agency generally does not require some or all of the listed studies
to rule on the proposed tolerance or exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for an inert ingredient. The Agency has decided that no
data, in addition to that described below, for 2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-
propanediol will need to be submitted. The rationale for this decision
is described below:
1. An acute rat oral toxicity study with an acute oral LD50 of
1.138 g/kg (0.146) for male rats and 1.138 g/kg
(0.013) for female rats.
2. An acute rat inhalation toxicity study with a 3.5-hour
inhalation LC50 of >5.0 mg/L/hr.
3. A rabbit eye irritation study with irritancy score of 0.43
classifying 2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol as a moderate eye irritant.
4. A rat dermal developmental toxicity study with maternal no
observe effect level (NOEL) >40 mg/kg/day (HDT) considering 2-bromo-2-
nitro-1,3-propanediol as a severe dermal irritant in rats.
5. A rabbit primary dermal irritation study indicating that 2-
bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol is a moderate skin irritant.
6. An acute rabbit dermal toxicity study with dermal LD50 of
>2 g/kg.
7. A guinea pig dermal sensitization study which suggests that 2-
bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol is a skin sensitizer for a 13%
formulation.
8. A rabbit developmental effects study with a NOEL for maternal
toxicity of 40 mg/kg/day and developmental toxicity NOEL of 40 mg/kg/
day; lowest effect level (LEL) for maternal toxicity of 80 mg/kg/day
with a LEL for developmental toxicity of 80 mg/kg/day.
9. Mutagenicity studies including in vitro/in vivo in mouse
erythrocytes (micronucleus assay), chromosomal abberation test in human
lymphocytes, Salmonella typhimurium plate (Ames) tests with and without
activation were negative.
10. The two generation rat reproduction study (drinking water) with
a systemic NOEL of 25 mg/kg/day and lowest effect level (LEL) of 70 mg/
kg/day; reproduction NOEL of 70 mg/kg/day and LEL of 200 mg/kg/day;
developmental NOEL of 25 mg/kg/day and LEL of 70 mg/kg/day.
11. A 2-year rat (drinking water) carcinogenicity study with
asystemic NOEL of 10 mg/kg/day and LEL of 40 mg/kg/day finding 2-bromo-
2-nitro-1,3-propanediol to be not carcinogenic.
12. A 13-week rat gavage study with a NOEL of 20 mg/kg/day and LEL
of 80 mg/kg/day.
13. A 13-week dog gavage study with NOEL of 8 mg/kg/day and LEL of
20 mg/kg/day.
The reference dose (RfD) for 2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol based
on the 2-year chronic study (drinking water) in rats with a NOEL of 10
mg/kg/day and using an uncertainty factor of 100 is calculated to be
0.1 mg/kg of body weight (bwt)/day. The estimated worst-case
theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) resulting from this
action will be 0.000024 mg/kg/bwt/day for the overall U.S. population
and represents 0.024 percent of the RfD.
Based upon the above information and review of its use, EPA has
found that, when used in accordance with good agricultural practice,
this ingredient is useful and a tolerance is not necessary to protect
the public health. Therefore, EPA proposes that the exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this document in the Federal Register that this proposal be referred
to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
docket control number, [OPP-300421]. All written comments filed in
response to this petition will be available in the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, at the address given above from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300421] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal MallCM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES '' at
the beginning of this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this proposed rule
from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-3 54, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 29, 1996
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
[[Page 15917]]
2. In Sec. 180.1001 the table in paragraph (c) and paragraph (e) is
amended by adding alphabetically the inert ingredient 2-bromo-2-nitro-
1,3-propanediol (CAS Reg. No. 52-51-7), to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirements of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert Ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3- Not more than Preservative
propanediol (CAS Reg. No. 52- 0.04 percent by
51-7). weight of
pesticide
formulation.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert Ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3- Not more than Preservative
propanediol (CAS Reg. No. 52- 0.04 percent by
51-7). weight of
pesticide
formulation.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-8942 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8941 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15913-15915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8941]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300417; FRL-5353-5]
RIN 2070-AB18
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes that residues of 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane be exempted from the requirement of a tolerance when
used as an inert ingredient (aerosol propellant) in insecticide aerosol
formulations intended to be applied in food handling establishments.
This proposed regulation was requested by Whitmire Research
Laboratories, Inc.
DATE: Comments, identified by the document control number [OPP-300417],
must be received on or before May 10, 1996.
ADDRESS: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C) Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person deliver comments to: Rm. 1128, Crystal
Mall, Building #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential will be included in the public docket by the EPA without
prior notice. The public docket is available for public inspection in
Room 1128 at the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number [OPP-300417]. No CBI should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic
submissions can be found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Amelia M. Acierto
Registration Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: 2800
Crystal Drive, North Tower, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8375, e-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Whitmire Research Laboratories, Inc. 3568
Tree Court Industrial Boulevard, Saint Louis, MO 63122-6620 submitted
pesticide petition (PP) number 5E4439 to EPA requesting that the
Administrator, pursuant to Section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act,
[[Page 15914]]
21 U.S.C. 346a(e), propose to amend 40 CFR 180.1001(c) by establishing
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a) when used as an aerosol propellant in
pesticide formulations intended for application in food handling
establishments. Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not
active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125, and include, but are
not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they
have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
The data submitted in the petition and other relevant material have
been evaluated. As part of the EPA policy statement on inert
ingredients published in the Federal Register of April 22, 1987 (52 FR
13305), the Agency set forth a list of studies which would generally be
used to evaluate the risks posed by the presence of an inert ingredient
in a pesticide formulation. However, where it can be determined without
that data that the inert ingredient will present minimal or no risk,
the Agency generally does not require some or all of the listed studies
to rule on the proposed tolerance or exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for an inert ingredient. The Agency has decided that no
data, in addition to that described below, for 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane will need to be submitted. The rationale for this
decision is described below:
1. HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) exhibits a low degree of
both acute and chronic inhalation toxicity in laboratory animals.
2. Based on the proposed use pattern for the inert ingredient,
concentrations of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane in air resulting from its
use as a propellant in pesticide formulations applied in food handling
establishments are expected to be well below the environmental exposure
level of 1,000 ppm (for short term exposure) recommended by the
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA 1991, Workplace
Environmental Exposure Level Guide: 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) and are
not expected to exceed the RfC of 19.2 ppm for lifetime exposures.
3. HFC-134a has already been listed as one of the acceptable
substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODS) by the EPA's
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program which
implements section 612 of the amended Clean Air Act of 1990 (60 FR
3318, January 13, 1995 and 60 FR 31107, June 13, 1995).
4. The RfC estimate for HFC-134a, with an uncertainty factor of
about 10 of a daily inhalation concentration for the human population
(including sensitive subgroups), is 80 mg/cubic meter of atmosphere or
19.2 ppm.
5. HFC-134a is extremely volatile and would dissipate rapidly when
applied as aerosol making the potential for residues on foods minimal;
consumers are also unlikely to be exposed to concentrations of HFC-134a
approaching the AIHA recommended maximum exposure levels based on the
use of pesticide products which will contain HFC-134a.
Based upon the information above, the toxicological data and
physico-chemical properties, and review of its use, and, based on the
EPA's Office of Radiation listing as an acceptable substitute for a
variety of chlorofluorocarbons which are being banned or phased out
under the Clean Air Act, the Agency has found that, when used in
accordance with labeling use instructions, this ingredient is useful
and a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Therefore, EPA proposes that the exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this document in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal
be referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
document control number.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number OPP-300417 (including comments and data submitted electronically
as described below). A public version of this record, including
printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include
any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub.L. 96-354 Stat. 1164,5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has
determined that
[[Page 15915]]
regulations establishing new tolerances or raising tolerance levels or
establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements do not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A certification statement to this effect was published in the Federal
Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities,
Pesticides and pests, Recording and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 29, 1996.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I, part 180 be
amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.1001(c) is amended by adding alphabetically the
inert ingredient 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2, to
read as follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirements of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (CAS Aerosol propellant
Reg. No. 811-97-2).
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-8941 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8940 Potassium Citrate; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15911-15913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8940]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300420; FRL-5361-2]
Potassium Citrate; Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes that residues of potassium citrate (CAS
Reg. No. 866-84-2) be exempted from the requirement of a tolerance when
used as an inert ingredient (chelating agent and pH control) in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural
commodities after harvest, and animals. This proposed regulation was
requested by Monsanto Company and Zeneca Ag Products pursuant to the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: Comments, identified by the docket control number [OPP-300420],
must be received on or before May 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person deliver comments to: Rm. 1132, Crystal
Mall CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential will be included in the public docket by EPA without prior
notice. The public docket is available for public inspection in Rm.
1132 at the address given above,
[[Page 15912]]
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number, [OPP-300420]. No CBI should be submitted through e-
mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at
many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic
submissions can be found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Amelia M. Acierto,
Registration Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail
address: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, Arlington, VA, (703)308-8375,
e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Monsanto Company, 700 14th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005, has submitted pesticide petition (PP) 6E04607 and
Zeneca Ag Products, 1800 Concord Pike, Wilmington, DE 19850-5458, has
submitted pesticide petition (PP) 6E04637, to EPA requesting that the
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), propose to amend 40 CFR
180.1001(c) and (e) by establishing an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for potassium citrate when used as an inert ingredient
(chelating agent and pH control) in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops, raw agricultural commodities after harvest, and animals.
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
The data submitted in the petition and other relevant material have
been evaluated. As part of the EPA policy statement on inert
ingredients published in the Federal Register of April 22, 1987 (52 FR
13305), the Agency set forth a list of studies which would generally be
used to evaluate the risks posed by the presence of an inert ingredient
in a pesticide formulation. However, where it can be determined without
that data that the inert ingredient will present minimal or no risk,
the Agency generally does not require some or all of the listed studies
to rule on the proposed tolerance or exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for an inert ingredient. The Agency has decided that no
data, in addition to that described below, for potassium citrate will
need to be submitted. The rationale for this decision is described
below:
1. Potassium citrate is a potassium salt of citric acid which is a
naturally occurring metabolite in plant and animal tissues.
2. Potassium citrate has been affirmed as generally recognized as
safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a direct
human food ingredient when used as Multiple Purpose GRAS Food Substance
(21 CFR 184.1625). The conditions of use specify only that potassium
citrate is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with
good manufacturing practice.
3. Other citrates are already exempt from the requirements of a
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1001 when used as inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations applied to growing plants or to raw agricultural
commodities after harvest (citric acid and calcium citrate), to growing
plants only (sodium citrate) or to animals (citric acid). Furthermore,
other related citrates (triethyl citrate and dibasic ammonium citrate)
have been considered by the Agency as inert ingredients of minimal
concern (i.e., classified as List 4B inert ingredients).
Based on the extensive FDA review of potassium citrate, resulting
in this chemical being affirmed as GRAS, its structure and physico-
chemical properties, and the fact that other chemically related
citrates have also been approved for food use applications, the Agency
does not believe that a potential for significant hazard exists when
potassium citrate is used in accordance with good agricultural
practices. The Agency believes that this ingredient is useful and a
tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health. Therefore, EPA
proposes that the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance be
established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this document in the Federal Register that this proposal be referred
to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
docket control number, [OPP-300420]. All written comments filed in
response to this petition will be available in the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, at the address given above from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300420] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal MallCM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES '' at
the beginning of this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this proposed rule
from
[[Page 15913]]
the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-3 54, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 29, 1996.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.1001 is amended by adding alphabetically to the
tables in paragraphs (c) and (e) the inert ingredient ``Potassium
citrate (CAS Reg. No. 866-84-2)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirements of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert Ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Potassium citrate (CAS Reg. Chelating agent, pH
No. 866-84-2). control
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert Ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Potassium citrate (CAS Reg. Chelating agent, pH
No. 866-84-2). control
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-8940 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8921 Montana Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15910-15911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8921]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 926
[SPATS No. MT-018-FOR]
Montana Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing on proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
is announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Montana regulatory
program (hereinafter, the ``Montana program'') under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The proposed amendment
consists of revisions to the Montana Coal and Uranium Bureau's rules
pertaining to permit renewals, permit requirements, and notice of
intent to prospect. The amendment is intended to revise the Montana
program to provide additional safeguards, clarify ambiguities and
improve operational efficiency.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t. on May
10, 1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will
be held on May 6, 1996. Requests to present oral testimony at the
hearing must be received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t. on April 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or hand delivered to the
Casper Field Office Director at the address listed below.
Copies of the Montana program, the proposed amendment, and all
written comments received in response to this document will be
available for public review at the address listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each
requester may receive one free copy of the proposed amendment by
contacting OSM's Casper Field Office.
Guy Padgett, Casper Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, 100 East ``B'' Street, Federal Building--Room 2128,
Casper, Wyoming 82601-1918
Gary Amestoy, Administrator, Reclamation Division, Dept. of
Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 201601, Helena, Montana 59620,
Telephone 406/444-2074
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy Padgett, Telephone: 307/261-6500.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background of the Montana Program
On April 1, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Montana program. General background information on the
Montana program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and conditions of approval of the Montana program can be
found in the April 1, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 21560). Subsequent
actions concerning Montana's program and program amendments can be
found at 30 CFR 926.15, 926.16 and 926.30.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated March 5, 1996, Montana submitted a proposed
amendment to its program pursuant to SMCRA (administrative record No.
MT-15-01, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Montana submitted the proposed
amendment at its own initiative. The provisions of the Administrative
Rules of Montana that Montana proposed to revise were: 26.4.410, permit
renewal; 26.4.1001, permit requirement; and 26.4.1001A, notice of
intent to prospect.
Specifically, Montana proposes to revise the Montana program to 1)
revise the timeframe for the application of strip mine operating permit
renewals from the present 120 to 150 days, to the proposed 240 to 300
days and on an application form provided by the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality; 2) add a requirement that for prospecting
(exploration) activities that are conducted to determine the location,
quality or quantity of a natural mineral deposit and that will
substantially disturb, as defined in ARM 26.4.301, the natural land
surface, a permit will be required; and 3) that a notice of intent be
filed with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for
prospecting (exploration) conducted for the purpose of determining the
location, quality, or quantity of a natural mineral deposit but does
not substantially disturb, as defined in ARM 26.4.301, the natural land
surface.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is
seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment
is deemed adequate, it will become part of the Montana program.
1. Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include
[[Page 15911]]
explanations in support of the commenter's recommendations. Comments
received after the time indicated under DATES or at locations other
than the Casper Field Office will not necessarily be considered in the
final rulemaking or included in the administrative record.
2. Public Hearing
Persons wishing to testify at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m.,
m.d.t., on April 25, 1996. Any disabled individual who has need for a
special accommodation to attend a public hearing should contact the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The location
and time of the hearing will be arranged with those persons requesting
the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to testify at the public
hearing, the hearing will not be held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions.
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all
persons scheduled to testify have been heard. Persons in the audience
who have not been scheduled to testify, and who wish to do so, will be
heard following those who have been scheduled. The hearing will end
after all persons scheduled to testify and persons present in the
audience who wish to testify have been heard.
3. Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to testify at a hearing,
a public meeting, rather than a public hearing may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed
amendment may request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings will be open to the
public and, if possible, notices of meetings will be posted at the
locations listed under ADDRESSES. A written summary of each meeting
will be made a part of the administrative record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
1. Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
2. Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not
applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and
program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated
by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA
(30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11,
732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with
SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other
requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 926
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Russell F. Price,
Acting Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 96-8921 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8918 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15906-15908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8918]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-253-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F27 Mark 100, 200, 300,
400, 500, 600, and 700 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Fokker Model F27 Mark
100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 series airplanes, that currently
requires supplemental structural inspections to detect fatigue cracks,
and repair or replacement, as necessary, to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these airplanes. This action would add or revise
certain significant structural items for which inspection and repair or
replacement is necessary. This proposal is prompted by a structural re-
evaluation conducted by the manufacturer, which identified additional
structural elements where fatigue damage is likely to occur. The
actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent reduced
structural integrity of these airplanes.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-253-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Virginia
[[Page 15907]]
22314. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth E. Harder, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-1721; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-253-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-253-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On August 20, 1992, the FAA issued AD 92-19-07, amendment 39-8365
(57 FR 42693, September 16, 1992), applicable to all Fokker Model F27
Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 series airplanes, to require
supplemental structural inspections to detect fatigue cracks, and
repair or replacement, as necessary, to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these airplanes. That action was prompted by a
structural re-evaluation conducted by the manufacturer, which
identified additional structural elements where fatigue damage is
likely to occur. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent
reduced structural integrity of these airplanes.
Since the issuance of that AD, Fokker has issued Structural
Integrity Program (SIP) Document 27438, Part 1, including revisions up
through August 1, 1995. This document adds or revises certain
significant structural items for which inspection and repair or
replacement is necessary. The additional or revised items are included
as a result of fatigue analysis and tests, service experience, or
follow-up action to an airworthiness directive that required a one-time
inspection and a report of findings to the manufacturer.
The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD), which is the airworthiness
authority for the Netherlands, classified the SIP Document as mandatory
in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in
the Netherlands.
This airplane model is manufactured in the Netherlands and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the RLD has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
RLD, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action
is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 92-19-07 to
continue to require supplemental structural inspections to detect
fatigue cracks, and repair or replacement, as necessary. The proposed
AD would add or revise certain significant structural items for which
inspection and repair or replacement is necessary. The actions would be
required to be accomplished in accordance with the SIP Document
described previously.
There are approximately 34 Model F27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500,
600, and 700 series airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected
by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 92-19-07 take
approximately 295 work hours per airplane per year to accomplish, at an
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact on U.S. operators relative to the requirements of the
previously-issued AD that would be retained in this new AD action is
estimated to be $601,800, or $17,700 per airplane, annually.
The new actions that are proposed in this AD action (including the
implementation of the inspections, repairs, or replacements specified
in the revisions to the SIP Document into an operator's maintenance
program; as well as removal, inspection, and installation of structure)
would take approximately 179 additional work hours per airplane per
year to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators relative to
now the proposed requirements of this AD is estimated to be $365,160,
or $10,740 per airplane, the first year and annually thereafter.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that 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) if promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ``ADDRESSES.''
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
[[Page 15908]]
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8365 (57 FR
42693, September 16, 1992), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
Fokker: Docket 95-NM-253-AD. Supersedes AD 92-19-07, Amendment 39-
8365.
Applicability: All Model F27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600,
and 700 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent reduced structural integrity of these airplanes,
accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after October 21, 1992 (the effective date
of AD 92-19-07, amendment 39-8365), incorporate into the FAA-
approved maintenance program the inspections, inspection intervals,
repairs, or replacements defined in Fokker Structural Integrity
Program (SIP) Document 27438, Part 1, including revisions up through
November 1, 1991; and inspect, repair, and replace, as applicable.
The non-destructive inspection techniques referenced in the SIP
Document provide acceptable methods for accomplishing the
inspections required by this AD. If any cracking is detected,
inspection results must be reported to Fokker in accordance with the
instructions of the SIP Document. Information collection
requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have
been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(b) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate into the FAA-approved maintenance program the
inspections, inspection intervals, repairs, or replacements defined
in Fokker SIP Document 27438, Part 1, including revisions up through
August 1, 1995; and inspect, repair, and replace, as applicable. The
non-destructive inspection techniques referenced in the SIP Document
provide acceptable methods for accomplishing the inspections
required by this AD. If any cracking is detected, inspection results
must be reported to Fokker in accordance with the instructions of
the SIP Document.
(c) Cracked structure detected during the inspections required
by paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD must be repaired or replaced,
prior to further flight, in accordance with the instructions in
Fokker SIP Document 27438, Part 1, including revisions up through
November 1, 1991; or Fokker SIP Document 27438, Part 1, including
revisions up through August 1, 1995; respectively; or in accordance
with other data meeting the certification basis of the airplane
which is approved by the FAA or by the Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD).
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 4, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8918 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8917 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-15 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15904-15906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8917]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-39-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and
DC-10-15 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-10-10 and DC-10-15 series airplanes. This proposal would require an
inspection for evidence of missing chrome and for corrosion on the
chrome surfaces, or verification that the forward trunnion bolts have
been chrome plated in a specific manner; and rework or replacement of
the bolts, if necessary. This proposal is prompted by a report of
chrome flaking on the bearing surface of the trunnion bolts due to
improper cleaning of the base material prior to chrome plating. The
actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent premature
failure of the trunnion bolts and subsequent collapse of the main
landing gear (MLG) as a result of chrome flaking and severe corrosion
on the bearing surface and in the mechanical fuse.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-39-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Moreland or Ron Atmur,
Aerospace Engineers, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712; telephone (310) 627-5238 or (310) 627-5224; fax (310)
627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address
[[Page 15905]]
specified above. All communications received on or before the closing
date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking
action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may
be changed in light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-39-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 96-NM-39-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On January 23, 1996, the FAA issued AD 96-03-05, amendment 39-9502
(61 FR 5281, February 12, 1996), which is applicable to certain
McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes and Model DC-10-30, DC-
10-40, and KC-10A (military) airplanes. For Model MD-11 series
airplanes, that AD requires an inspection to determine the serial
number of the forward trunnion bolts on the main landing gear (MLG),
and rework or replacement of the bolts, if necessary. For Model DC-10-
30, DC-10-40, and KC-10A (military) airplanes, that AD requires an
inspection for evidence of missing chrome and for corrosion on the
chrome surfaces, or verification that the forward trunnion bolts have
been chrome plated in a specific manner; and rework or replacement of
the bolts, if necessary. That AD was prompted by reports of chrome
flaking on the bearing surface of the trunnion bolts due to improper
cleaning of the base material prior to chrome plating. The actions
specified by that AD are intended to prevent premature failure of the
trunnion bolts and subsequent collapse of the MLG as a result of severe
corrosion on the bearing surface and in the mechanical fuse due to
chrome flaking.
Since the issuance of AD 96-03-05, the FAA has received reports
indicating that the trunnion bolts on certain Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-
15 series airplanes were chrome plated during the same time frame using
the same process as the trunnion bolts installed on airplanes affected
by AD 96-03-05. Additionally, the FAA has received a report of chrome
flaking on the bearing surface of the trunnion bolt installed on the
MLG of a Model DC-10-10 series airplane.
Subsequently, the FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas
Service Bulletin DC10-32-241, dated December 13, 1995, which describes
procedures for a visual inspection for evidence of missing chrome and
for corrosion on the chrome surfaces of the trunnion bolts, or
verification that the forward trunnion bolts have been chrome plated in
a specific manner. The service bulletin also provides procedures for
certain rework or replacement of the bolts with serviceable parts, if
necessary. Accomplishment of the rework or replacement will minimize
the possibility of chrome flaking on the forward trunnion bolts.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require a visual inspection for evidence of missing
chrome and for corrosion on the chrome surfaces, or verification that
the forward trunnion bolts have been chrome plated in a specific
manner; and rework or replacement of the bolts, if necessary. The
inspection, verification, and certain corrective actions would be
required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin
described previously. A portion of the rework would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the Component Maintenance Manual or a
method approved by the FAA.
There are approximately 139 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and
DC-10-15 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide
fleet. The FAA estimates that 121 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work
hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$7,260, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that 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) if promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 96-NM-39-AD.
Applicability: Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-15 series airplanes, as
listed in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-32-241, dated
December 13, 1995; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or
[[Page 15906]]
repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is
affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent premature failure of the trunnion bolts and
subsequent collapse of the main landing gear (MLG), accomplish the
following:
(a) For airplanes on which the forward trunnion bolts, part
number (P/N) ARG7557-501, installed on the left and right MLG's,
have accumulated 6,000 or more total flight hours, or 2,000 or more
total flight cycles, as of the date of the inspection or
verification required by paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2), respectively,
of this AD: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-32-241,
dated December 13, 1995.
(1) Remove the bolts and perform a visual inspection for
evidence of missing chrome and for corrosion on the chrome surfaces,
in accordance with the service bulletin.
(i) If no evidence of missing chrome and no corrosion on the
chrome surfaces are found, no further action is required by this AD.
(ii) If any evidence of missing chrome or any corrosion on the
chrome surfaces is found, prior to further flight, accomplish either
paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) or (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Remove the chrome plating on the trunnion bolt in accordance
with the service bulletin; replace the plating in accordance with
the Component Maintenance Manual (CMM), Chapter 20-10-02, Revision
31, dated September 1, 1991, or in accordance with a method approved
by a McDonnell Douglas Designated Engineering Representative (DER)
who has been given a special delegation by the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, to make such a finding; and reinstall the reworked bolt
in accordance with the service bulletin.
(B) Replace the trunnion bolt with a serviceable part in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(2) Verify whether the forward trunnion bolts, P/N ARG7557-501,
installed on the left and right MLG's, have been chrome plated since
original manufacture, in accordance with the CMM, Chapter 20-10-02,
Revision 31, dated September 1, 1991, or in accordance with a method
approved by a McDonnell Douglas DER who has been given a special
delegation by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make such a finding.
(i) If the bolts have been chrome plated since original
manufacture, in accordance with the CMM, Chapter 20-10-02, Revision
31, dated September 1, 1991, or in accordance with a method approved
by a McDonnell Douglas DER who has been given a special delegation
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make such a finding: No further
action is required by this AD.
(ii) If any bolt has not been chrome plated since original
manufacture, in accordance with the CMM, Chapter 20-10-02, Revision
31, dated September 1, 1991, or in accordance with a method approved
by a McDonnell Douglas DER who has been given a special delegation
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make such a finding: Prior to
further flight, accomplish the requirements of either paragraph
(a)(1)(ii)(A) or (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD in accordance with the
service bulletin.
(b) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (a)
of this AD: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD,
verify whether the forward trunnion bolts, P/N ARG7557-501,
installed on the left and right MLG's, have been chrome plated since
original manufacture, in accordance with the CMM, Chapter 20-10-02,
Revision 31, dated September 1, 1991, or in accordance with a method
approved by a McDonnell Douglas DER who has been given a special
delegation by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make such a finding.
(1) If the bolts have been chrome plated since original
manufacture, in accordance with the CMM, Chapter 20-10-02, Revision
31, dated September 1, 1991, or in accordance with a method approved
by a McDonnell Douglas DER who has been given a special delegation
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make such a finding: No further
action is required by this AD.
(2) If any bolt has not been chrome plated since original
manufacture, in accordance with the CMM, Chapter 20-10-02, Revision
31, dated September 1, 1991, or in accordance with a method approved
by a McDonnell Douglas DER who has been given a special delegation
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make such a finding: Prior to
further flight, accomplish the requirements of either paragraph
(b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this AD in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-32-241, dated December 13, 1995.
(i) Remove the chrome plating on the trunnion bolt in accordance
with the service bulletin; replace the plating in accordance with
the Component Maintenance Manual (CMM), Chapter 20-10-02, Revision
31, dated September 1, 1991, or in accordance with a method approved
by a McDonnell Douglas Designated Engineering Representative (DER)
who has been given a special delegation by the Manager, Los Angeles
ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, to make such a finding;
and reinstall the reworked bolt in accordance with the service
bulletin. Or
(ii) Replace the trunnion bolt with a serviceable part in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 4, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8917 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8916 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 and 0070 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15908-15910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8916]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-171-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 and 0070
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100
and 0070 series airplanes. This proposal would require modification of
the wheel brake assembly on the main landing gear. This proposal is
prompted by reports of aluminum brake pistons that have ballooned and
failed. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
prevent such failure of the pistons, which could result in leakage of
the hydraulic fluid, resultant loss of braking capability, and a
possible brake fire.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-171-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. This information may be examined at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Harder, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-1721; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
[[Page 15909]]
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-171-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-171-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD), which is the airworthiness
authority for the Netherlands, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe
condition may exist on certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 and 0070
series airplanes. The RLD advises that it has received reports of
ballooned (bulging) aluminum brake pistons found on Fokker Model F28
Mark 0100 series airplanes. Some of these aluminum brake pistons had
cracked and caused hydraulic leakage, which resulted in brake fires.
Investigation revealed that heavy braking during a high kinetic energy
landing or during a rejected takeoff (RTO) may result in high brake
temperatures. These high temperatures are transferred to the aluminum
brake pistons, and may result in bulging, cracking, and subsequent
failure of the pistons. Such failure of the aluminum pistons, if not
corrected, could result in leakage of hydraulic fluid, resultant loss
of braking capability, and a possible brake fire.
The aluminum brake pistons installed on certain Fokker Model Mark
0100 series airplanes are identical to those installed on certain
Fokker Model Mark 0070 series airplanes; therefore, both of these
airplane models are subject to the same identified unsafe condition.
Fokker has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-32-092, dated January 11,
1995, which describes procedures for modification of the wheel brake
assembly on the main landing gear. The modification entails replacing
the aluminum brake pistons of certain brake assemblies with stainless
steel pistons, which can tolerate higher temperatures. The Fokker
service bulletin refers to Aircraft Braking Systems Service Bulletin
Fo100-32-63, dated January 13, 1995, as an additional source of service
information for accomplishment of the replacement. The Aircraft Braking
Systems service bulletin also describes an alternative procedure that
involves installation of a cylinder sleeve kit, which will provide a
longer wear brake assembly when certain other modifications are
performed.
The RLD classified the Fokker service bulletin as mandatory and
issued Dutch airworthiness directive BLA 1995-013 (A), dated February
28, 1995, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes in the Netherlands.
This airplane model is manufactured in the Netherlands and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the RLD has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
RLD, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action
is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require modification of the wheel brake assembly on
the main landing gear either by replacing the aluminum brake pistons
with stainless steel brake pistons, or by installing a cylinder sleeve
kit. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance
with the service bulletins described previously.
The FAA estimates that 122 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD.
The proposed replacement of the brake pistons, if accomplished,
would take approximately 9 work hours per airplane (when accomplished
as part of a normal brake overhaul), at an average labor rate of $60
per work hour. Required parts would be provided by the manufacturer at
no cost to operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this
proposed replacement action on U.S. operators is estimated to be $540
per airplane.
The proposed installation of the cylinder sleeve kit, if
accomplished, would take approximately 9 work hours per airplane (when
accomplished as part of a normal brake overhaul), at an average labor
rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately
$4,400 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this
proposed installation action on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$4,940 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements
of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions
in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that 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) if promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Fokker: Docket 95-NM-171-AD.
Applicability: Model F28 Mark 0100 and 0070 series airplanes;
equipped with Aircraft Braking Systems Corporation (ABSC) brake
assemblies having part number (P/N) 5008132-2, -3, -4, -5, -6, or -
7, all serial numbers; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
[[Page 15910]]
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent loss of braking capability and possible brake fire
due to failure of the brake pistons, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, or at
the next scheduled or unscheduled brake overhaul, whichever occurs
first: Modify ABSC wheel brake assemblies having P/N 5008132-2, -3,
-4, -5, -6, or -7, all serial numbers, by accomplishing either
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Replace the brake assemblies with modified units having
stainless steel pistons, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-092, dated January
11, 1995. Or
(2) Install a cylinder sleeve kit in accordance with Aircraft
Braking Systems Service Bulletin Fo100-32-63, dated January 13,
1995.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
an ABSC brake assembly having part number 5008132-2, -3, -4, -5, -6,
or -7, on any airplane unless it has been modified in accordance
with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-092, dated January 11, 1995,
or Aircraft Braking Systems Service Bulletin Fo100-32-63, dated
January 13, 1995.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 4, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8916 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8888 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars; Tire Selection and Rims; Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars; Tire Identification and Recordkeeping
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15917-15918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8888]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 574
[Docket No. 95-69, Notice 02]
RIN 2127-AF80
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: New Non-Pneumatic Tires
for Passenger Cars; Tire Selection and Rims; Tire Selection and Rims
for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars; Tire Identification and
Recordkeeping
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice terminates a rulemaking proceeding in which NHTSA
proposed to rescind the Federal motor vehicle safety standard
(Standard) establishing performance and labeling requirements for non-
pneumatic spare tires on new passenger cars. The notice further
proposed to rescind related portions of several other tire standards
and regulations. The basis for the proposed rescission was that non-
pneumatic spare tires were not being produced and that there were not
any known plans to develop or produce any. However, a comment on the
notice revealed that non-pneumatic spare tires are in fact under
development. In light
[[Page 15918]]
of that comment, and since retention of the non-pneumatic tire
provisions is necessary not only to regulate these tires, but also to
provide an exception to the general requirement that new passenger cars
and light trucks be equipped with pneumatic tires, the agency has
decided to terminate this rulemaking action.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Robert M.
Clarke, Chief, Vehicle Dynamics Division, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street S.W., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-5278; FAX (202)
366-4329.
For legal issues: Walter Myers, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street
S.W., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-
3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the late 1980's, motor vehicle and tire manufacturers embarked
on research and development of non-pneumatic tires for possible use as
temporary, light, and inexpensive spare tires on new passenger cars.
Anticipating such development, NHTSA established Standard No. 129, New
non-pneumatic tires for passenger cars (55 FR 29581, July 20, 1990), to
become effective August 20, 1990. In the same notice, NHTSA amended
Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims, Standard No. 120, Tire
selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, and 49
CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, to permit
equipping new passenger cars and light trucks with non-pneumatic spare
tires and establish labeling requirements. Thereafter, for various
technical reasons, development of non-pneumatic tires was suspended and
none were produced.
On March 4, 1994, the President issued a directive entitled
``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative'' to the heads of all Federal
departments and agencies, directing them to review all regulations for
which they were responsible in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and eliminate unneeded ones and update the ones still needed. Pursuant
to that directive, NHTSA reviewed its standards and regulations and
tentatively concluded that the non-pneumatic spare tire provisions were
unneeded and could therefore be rescinded. Consequently, NHTSA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to rescind
those provisions.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The proposal to rescind Standard No. 129, the exceptions for non-
pneumatic spare tires in Standard Nos. 110 and 120, and the applicable
provisions of 49 CFR Part 574 was published in an NPRM on September 26,
1995 (60 FR 49541), with a comment closing date of November 27, 1995.
NHTSA stated that no such tires were being produced and, to the
agency's knowledge, none were under development for future production.
The agency suggested that it did not make any sense to retain the
standard and the exceptions if there were no foreseeable plans to
produce non-pneumatic tires. The agency did, however, solicit comments
on whether, if a new non-pneumatic spare tire technology were developed
in the future, existing requirements would be sufficiently generic to
accommodate whatever non-pneumatic technology was likely to be
employed.
Public Comment
Two comments were received in response to the NPRM. Chrysler
Corporation supported the proposal, stating that neither tire
manufacturers nor the automotive industry showed any interest in the
further development of non-pneumatic tires.
However, American Tire Corporation of Ravenna, Ohio (American)
opposed the proposal. American stated that it is a new company, founded
in 1995, and that it had patented a new tire technology called
``Dynamic Steerable Spring'' that encompasses both pneumatic and non-
pneumatic technology. American asserted that the new technology will
produce a lower- cost tire/wheel system, will provide ``unprecedented''
safety and, being trouble-free, will eliminate mobility down-times.
American stated that it has signed development and manufacturing
license agreements with U.S., Asian, and European tire and wheel
manufacturers and that it is negotiating agreements with others. The
company plans to provide a prototype tire to DOT in the spring of 1996.
American stated that the current non-pneumatic tire provisions have
been ``very useful as a technology screening procedure which allowed
engineers to assess new technology without endangering the public.''
The company requested, therefore, that NHTSA not rescind Standard No.
129.
Agency Decision
Based upon its consideration of available information, particularly
the comments of American Tire Corporation, NHTSA has decided not to
rescind Standard No. 129 and the related provisions of Standard Nos.
110 and 120 and 49 CFR Part 574. As discussed above, NHTSA originally
proposed to rescind the non-pneumatic tire requirements in the belief
that such tires were not being produced or even considered for
development. However, based upon American's comment that a tire
incorporating a new non-pneumatic technology is indeed under
development, NHTSA now concludes that it should retain the existing
provisions establishing performance and labeling requirements for non-
pneumatic spare tires, including the provisions of Standard Nos. 110
and 120 permitting equipping new vehicles with non-pneumatic tires. In
view of American's comment and the apparent ability of the existing
provisions in Standard No. 129 to accommodate the technology currently
under development, the agency need not reach the question it posed in
the NPRM about the ability of the Standard to accommodate future non-
pneumatic tire technology.
For the reasons stated above, NHTSA is therefore terminating this
rulemaking action.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. Secs. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on April 4, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-8888 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8851 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, A Division of Textron Canada, Ltd. Model 206L-1 Helicopters
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15903-15904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8851]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 10, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15903]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-SW-35-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, A Division of
Textron Canada, Ltd. Model 206L-1 Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to Bell Helicopter Textron, A
Division of Textron Canada, Ltd. (BHTC) Model 206L-1 helicopters that
have a Kratos turbine outlet temperature (TOT) indicator (Kratos
indicator) installed. This proposal would require replacing certain
Kratos indicators. This proposal is prompted by manufacturer's tests
and FAA analyses that show certain Kratos indicators may incorrectly
provide low-temperature readings when battery voltage is below 10
volts. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent
false low-temperature indications, which could result in overheating of
the engine turbine (turbine) and subsequent thermal fatigue damage to
the turbine wheel.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:
Rules Docket No. 95-SW-35-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. -
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from BHTC, 12,800 Rue de L'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec, Canada
J7J1R4, ATTN: Product Support Engineering Light Helicopters. This
information may be examined at the FAA, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jennifer Kuehn, Aerospace
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5366,
fax (817) 222-5960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited -
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. -
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket. -
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 95-SW-35-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs -
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-SW-35-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
Discussion -
This notice proposes the adoption of a new AD that is applicable to
BHTC Model 206L-1 helicopters. Manufacturer's tests and subsequent FAA
analyses show that certain Kratos indicators, part number (P/N)
124.444-6 or 124.444-20, may incorrectly provide low-temperature
readings when battery voltage is below 10 volts. -
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., the previous type certificate
holder, has issued Alert Service Bulletin 206L-94-94, Revision A, dated
July 11, 1994, which specifies removing the Kratos indicator and
replacing it with an Ametek indicator, P/N 206-075-680-105 or P/N 206-
375-006-101. This notice proposes to require replacement of the Kratos
indicator, P/N 124.444-6 or 124.444-20, with any airworthy Model 206L-1
TOT indicator, except for Kratos indicator, P/N 124.444-6 or 124.444-
20. This helicopter model is type certificated for operation in the
United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral
airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness
agreement, the Canadian Airworthiness Authority has kept the FAA
informed of the situation described above. The FAA has reviewed all
available information and determined that AD action is necessary for
products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the
United States. -
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other BHTC Model 206L-1 helicopters of the same
type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would
require removing the Kratos indicator and replacing it with an
airworthy TOT indicator within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with
the service bulletin described previously.-
The FAA estimates that 100 helicopters of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 8 work
hours per helicopter to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately $8,300 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$878,000. -
[[Page 15904]]
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. -
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that 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) if promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 -
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment -
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:
Bell Helicopter Textron, a Division of Textron Canada, Ltd.: Docket
No. 95-SW-35-AD.
-Applicability: Model 206L-1 helicopters that have a Kratos
turbine outlet temperature (TOT) indicator (Kratos indicator), part
number (P/N) 124.444-6 or 124.444-20, installed, certificated in any
category.
-Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (b) to request approval from the FAA. This
approval may address either no action, if the current configuration
eliminates the unsafe condition, or different actions necessary to
address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such a request
should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any helicopter from the applicability of this AD.
-Compliance: Required within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD, unless accomplished previously. -
To prevent false low-temperature indications, which could result
in overheating of the engine turbine (turbine) and subsequent
thermal fatigue damage to the turbine wheel, accomplish the
following: -
(a) Remove the Kratos indicator, P/N 124.444-6 or 124.444-20,
and replace it with any airworthy Model 206L-1 TOT indicator, except
for the Kratos TOT indicator, P/N 124.444-6 or 124.444-20.
-Note 2: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Alert Service Bulletin
206L-94-94, Revision A, dated July 11, 1994, pertains to this AD.
-(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used when approved by the Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office,
Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests
through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or
comment and then send it to the Manager, Rotorcraft Certification
Office.--
-Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Rotorcraft Certification Office.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 2, 1996.
Eric Bries,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8851 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.