issue-1996-01-09•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-01-09
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-01-09
issue-1996-01-09Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-01-09Proposed 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. 96-337 Extension of Authority for Open-Head Fiber Drum Packaging for Liquid Hazardous Materials
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 688-690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-337]
[[Page 687]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Research and Special Programs Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 Part 171
Extension of Authority for Open-Head Fiber Drum Packaging for Liquid
Hazardous Materials; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 688]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 171
[Docket No. HM-221A; Notice No. 96-1]
RIN 2137-AC77
Extension of Authority for Open-Head Fiber Drum Packaging for
Liquid Hazardous Materials
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 406 of the ``Interstate Commerce
Commission Sunset Act'' (the Act), RSPA is proposing to extend for one
year, until September 30, 1997, the authority to ship certain liquid
hazardous materials in open-head fiber drums that do not meet
performance-oriented packaging standards for hazardous materials in
Packing Group III. The Act provides that a final rule must be issued by
February 27, 1996.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Address comments to Dockets Unit (DHM-30), Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and Special Programs
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket (Docket No. HM-221A)
and be submitted, when possible, in five copies. Persons wishing to
receive confirmation of receipt of their comments should include a
self-addressed stamped postcard. The Dockets Unit is located in Room
8421 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday except Federal holidays, when the office is closed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frazer C. Hilder, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-00001;
telephone 202-366-4400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A central tenet of DOT's regulation of
hazardous materials is the assurance that packagings will retain their
contents during normal conditions of transportation. Prior to 1991, the
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR, 49 CFR Parts 171-180) generally
specified the use of packagings manufactured to design specifications.
However, the HMR also authorized the use of certain non-specification
packagings (including fiber drums) for shipping certain categories of
hazardous materials, such as flammable liquids with a flash point above
73 deg. F, liquid cleaning compounds and other liquid corrosives, and
hazardous wastes and hazardous substances not included in another
hazard class. In general, these specific authorizations had been added
to the HMR when a material posing a low or moderate hazard, which had
not been previously regulated, was first included within the HMR's
classification of hazardous materials. In these cases, DOT had
permitted the continued use of packagings then being used for shipping
the material. These packagings were required to be only ``strong, tight
packages'' that were ``designed and constructed, [with their] contents
so limited, that under conditions normally incident to transportation:
(1) There will be no significant release of the hazardous
materials to the environment;
(2) The effectiveness of the package will not be substantially
reduced; and
(3) There will be no mixture of gases or vapors in the package
which could, through any credible spontaneous increase of heat or
pressure, or through an explosion, significantly reduce the
effectiveness of the packaging.
49 CFR 173.24(a), (b) (1990 ed.)
On December 21, 1990, RSPA issued a final rule in Docket No. HM-181
(55 FR 52401; revisions and response to petitions for reconsideration,
56 FR 66124 [Dec. 20, 1991]; further corrections and amendments, 57 FR
45442, 45446 [Oct. 1, 1992], 46624 [Oct. 9, 1992]). In this rulemaking,
RSPA adopted performance-oriented packaging standards for non-bulk
packagings (up to 450 liters [119 gallons] capacity or 400 kg [882
lbs.] net mass). Hazardous materials have been assigned to Packing
Groups I, II, or III, based on their level of hazard (with Packing
Group I indicating those materials posing the greatest hazards), and
minimum levels of performance were established for each Packing Group.
These ``HM-181 performance standards'' are intended to simulate the
normal transportation environment and to achieve international
uniformity.
In the HM-181 rulemaking, RSPA eliminated most instances where the
HMR previously authorized the use of non-specification packagings,
including packagings for more than 200 environmentally hazardous
substances (such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)). In addition,
RSPA classified as hazardous materials certain lower toxicity poisons
that had not previously been regulated.
To allow for an orderly transition to the HM-181 rules, RSPA
authorized packagings meeting the HM-181 performance standards to be
used immediately but provided a five-year phase-out period (ending on
September 30, 1996) for previously authorized packagings. RSPA
specified that on
October 1, 1996, requirements in parts 172 and 173 of [49 CFR]
for maintenance and use of packagings that were not previously in
effect are effective * * *. [P]ackaging authorizations removed from
part 173 of [49 CFR] by [HM-181] may no longer be used in place of
new packaging requirements.
49 CFR 171.14(a)(1)(iii), previously located at 49 CFR 171.14(b)(8).
On December 29, 1995, the President signed the Act (Pub. L. 104-
88). Section 406 of the Act reads as follows:
SEC. 406. FIBER DRUM PACKAGING
(a) IN GENERAL.--In the administration of chapter 51 of title
49, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue
a final rule within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act authorizing the continued use of fiber drum packaging with a
removable head for the transportation of liquid hazardous materials
with respect to those liquid hazardous materials transported by such
drums pursuant to regulations in effect on September 30, 1991, if--
(1) the packaging is in compliance with regulations of the
Secretary under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act as in
effect on September 30, 1991; and
(2) the packaging will not be used for the transportation of
hazardous materials that include materials which are poisonous by
inhalation or materials in Packing Groups I and II.
(b) EXPIRATION.--The regulation referred to in subsection (a)
shall expire on the later of September 30, 1997, or the date on
which funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out chapter
51 of title 49, United States Code (relating to transportation of
hazardous materials), for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1997.
(c) STUDY.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a study--
(A) to determine whether the requirements of section 5103(b) of
title 49, United States Code (relating to regulations for safe
transportation), as they pertain to fiber drum packaging with a
removable head can be met for the transportation of liquid hazardous
materials (with respect to those liquid hazardous materials
transported by such drums pursuant to regulations in effect on
September 30, 1991) with standards (including fiber drum industry
standards set forth in a June 8, 1992, exemption application
submitted to the Department of Transportation), other than the
performance-oriented packaging standards adopted under docket number
HM-181 contained in part 178 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations; and
[[Page 689]]
(B) to determine whether a packaging standard (including such
fiber drum industry standards), other than performance-oriented
packaging standards, will provide an equal or greater level of
safety for the transportation of liquid hazardous materials than
would be provided if such performance-oriented packaging standards
were in effect.
(2) COMPLETION.--The study shall be completed before March 1,
1997, and shall be transmitted to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee of the House of Representatives.
(d) SECRETARIAL ACTION.--By September 30, 1997, the Secretary
shall issue final regulations to determine what standards should
apply to fiber drum packaging with a removable head for
transportation of liquid hazardous materials (with respect to those
liquid hazardous materials transported by such drums pursuant to
regulations in effect on September 30, 1991) after September 30,
1997. In issuing such regulations, the Secretary shall give full and
substantial consideration to the results of the study conducted in
subsection (c).
To carry out the mandate in Sections (a) and (b) of the Act, RSPA
is proposing to add a new paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to 49 CFR 171.14.
Interested parties are invited to submit comments on this proposal.
Comments are specifically invited with regard to the possibility that,
under Section (b) of the Act, the transition period for continued use
of non-specification open-head fiber drums for certain liquid hazardous
materials may extend to a future date (beyond September 30, 1997) that
is now uncertain.
RSPA considers that this eventuality may best be dealt with, if
necessary, in the ``final regulations'' to be issued by September 30,
1997, under Section (d) of the Act. At that time, further
appropriations for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1997, may
have been authorized, and the transition period would end on September
30, 1997. Otherwise, RSPA and interested parties should have a better
appreciation at that time for the date when further appropriations may
be authorized. However, RSPA will consider alternatives that commenters
wish to suggest for handling the uncertain length of this extended
transition period for the continued use of non-specification open-head
fiber drums for certain liquid hazardous materials.
Because the Act requires the present rulemaking to be completed by
February 27, 1996, RSPA is specifying a deadline for comments that is
less than the 60 days recommended in Executive Order 12866. To
encourage interested parties to submit comments, and somewhat
compensate for a shortened comment period, RSPA is mailing a
typewritten copy of this Notice to each person who submitted comments
in RSPA's rulemaking proceeding in Docket No. HM-221, Alternate
Standards for Open-Head Fiber Drum Packaging (Termination Notice, 60 FR
50714 [Sept. 29, 1995]). Although RSPA will consider late-filed
comments to the extent practicable, in accordance with 49 CFR 106.23,
the Act's requirement that a final rule be issued within 60 days of
enactment will make it extremely difficult for RSPA to consider
comments received after February 5, 1996.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This notice of proposed rulemaking is not considered a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This notice of
proposed rulemaking is not considered significant under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR
11034; February 26, 1979).
B. Executive Order 12612
This notice of proposed rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance
with the principles and criteria in Executive Order 12612
(``Federalism''). The Federal hazardous material transportation law (49
U.S.C. 5101-5127) contains an express preemption provision that
preempts State, local and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered
subjects. Covered subjects are:
(i) the designation, description, and classification of hazardous
material;
(ii) the packing, repacking, handling, marking, and placarding of
hazardous material;
(iii) the preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
pertaining to hazardous material and requirements related to the
number, contents, and placement of those documents;
(iv) the written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation; and
(v) the design, manufacturing, fabricating, marking, maintenance,
reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a packaging or a container
represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in
transporting hazardous material.
This proposed rule concerns the packaging authorized for certain
hazardous materials. If adopted, this rule would preempt State, local,
or Indian tribe requirements concerning this subject unless the non-
Federal requirements are ``substantively the same as'' the Federal
requirements. RSPA lacks discretion in this area, and preparation of a
federalism assessment is not warranted.
Section 5125(b)(2) of 49 U.S.C. provides that if DOT issues a
regulation concerning any of the covered subjects after November 16,
1990, DOT must determine and publish in the Federal Register the
effective date of Federal preemption. That effective date may not be
earlier than the 90th day, and not later than two years, following the
date of issuance of the final rule. RSPA proposes that October 1, 1996,
would be the effective date of Federal preemption for the continued
authorization of these fiber drums.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule would continue until September 30, 1997,
authority for shipment of certain liquid hazardous materials in open-
head fiber drums that do not meet the performance standards in the HMR.
I certify that the rule proposed in this notice will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This certification is subject to modification as a result of a review
of comments received in response to this proposal.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new information requirements in this proposed rule.
E. Regulations Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 171
Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 171 would be amended
as follows:
PART 171--GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
1. The authority citation for part 171 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
[[Page 690]]
2. In Sec. 171.14, a new paragraph (a)(2)(iii) would be added to
read as follows:
Sec. 171.14 Transitional provisions for implementing requirements
based on the UN Recommendations.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Non-specification fiber drums. Until September 30, 1997, a
non-specification fiber drum with a removable head is authorized for a
liquid hazardous material in Packing Group III that is not poisonous by
inhalation for which this packaging was authorized under the
requirements of Part 172 or Part 173 in effect on September 30, 1991.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC on January 4, 1996, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR Part 106.
Alan I. Roberts,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 96-337 Filed 1-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-282 Heartland Operation To Protect the Environment
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 633-634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-282]
========================================================================
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. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 633]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 61
[Docket No. PRM-61-3]
Heartland Operation To Protect the Environment
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is docketing, as a
petition for rulemaking, a document, dated August 7, 1995, filed with
the Commission by Heartland Operation to Protect the Environment
(HOPE). The petition was assigned Docket No. PRM-61-3 on October 6,
1995. The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations
to adopt a rule regarding government ownership of a low-level
radioactive waste disposal site that is consistent with Federal
statute. In this document, the NRC is announcing the receipt of the
petition and requesting public comment on the suggested amendment.
DATES: Submit comments by March 11, 1996. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so. However, assurance
of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or
before this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC 20555-0001. For a copy of the petition, write to the
Rules Review Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of
Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review
Section, at the same address as above or by telephone: 301-415-7163 or
toll free: 1-800-368-5642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
in the Federal Register on August 3, 1994 (59 FR 39485). The ANPRM
announced that the NRC was considering amending its regulations to
allow private ownership of the land used for a low-level radioactive
waste (LLRW) facility site as an alternative to the current requirement
for Federal or State ownership. In the ANPRM, NRC considered the option
to allow private-land ownership indefinitely, given that adequate land-
use restrictions were imposed. The ANPRM invited comment on 12
questions to assist the NRC in determining if such a change could be
made without adversely impacting public health and safety. The NRC
received 49 comment letters in response to the ANPRM. The NRC prepared
a detailed summary of the comments received.1
\1\ Copies of the summary are available for inspection or
copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street
NW, (Lower Level), Washington DC; the PDR's mailing address is US
NRC, Mail Stop LL-6, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (202) 634-
3273; fax (202) 634-3343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36744), the NRC published a notice
withdrawing the ANPRM published in the Federal Register on August 3,
1994. In the notice of withdrawal, the NRC stated that a rule change to
allow private-land ownership of a LLRW site is not warranted or needed.
The NRC stated that the bases for its decision are that State and
compacts have generally indicated that they do not need, nor would they
allow, private-land ownership and that this rule change could be
potentially disruptive to the current LLRW program.
Petitioner's Concern
The petitioner states that the NRC's present regulation (10 CFR
61.59(a)), which requires disposal of LLRW ``only on land owned in fee
by the Federal or a State government,'' is in conflict with a provision
in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended (42 USC
10171(b)). The act authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy ``to assume
title and custody of low-level radioactive waste and the land on which
such waste is disposed of, upon request by the owner of such waste and
land following termination of the license issued by the Commission
(NRC) for such disposal * * *.'' Therefore, the petitioner proposes
that the NRC regulations should conform to NWPA provision and require
private land ownership during operations and closure of the facility,
then converting title to the site to the U.S. Department of Energy.
The petitioner states that, because of the conflict between the NRC
regulation and the NWPA statute, the NRC regulation is void with regard
to Federal ownership of a LLRW disposal site before commencement of the
receipt of waste. The petitioner asserts that if the regulation is void
with regard to Federal ownership, that it is also silent or
unconstitutional with regard to State ownership. The petitioner
references the following case [New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct.
2408 (1992)].
Several commenters, including the petitioner, made similar comments
on the ANPRM that there is not an adequate basis for requiring Federal
or State land ownership, which therefore would support private
ownership. In the withdrawal of the ANPRM, the Commission stated that
it believes there is adequate statutory authority for NRC to require
Federal or State land ownership. The Commission Paper (SECY-95-152;
dated June 13, 1995) further discussed the NRC staff rationale for
believing that NRC has this authority. The paper stated the staff's
belief that NRC has authority to require Federal or State land
ownership pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in
Section 161b. This section gives the Commission the authority to
promulgate regulations deemed necessary or desirable to protect health
or to minimize danger to life or property.
The petitioner further states that the notice withdrawing the ANPRM
(60 FR 36744) contains no documentation or statement of any issue of
public health and safety as the basis for the regulation; therefore,
the petitioner believes public health and safety cannot be an issue
upon which the NRC regulation is based.
The petitioner also states that the notice of withdrawal contains
the statement: ``The Commission believes that the potential negative
impact of disrupting the current process far outweighs any potential
benefits that
[[Page 634]]
might be derived from making a generic rule change at that time.'' In
response, the petitioner asserts that the Commission's role is to
regulate nuclear material in a manner that protects public health and
safety and the environment, that its role is not to facilitate specific
processes, i.e., the current LLRW disposal process.
The petitioner references the following quote from the notice of
withdrawal:
For over three decades the public has been led to believe that
all LLW disposal sites would necessarily be owned and controlled by
either a Federal or State government. This, we believe, has been an
important factor in convincing many proponent groups and State and
local LLW advisory groups that LLW can and will be disposed of in a
safe manner. To now try and convince these groups that Federal or
State ownership of LLW disposal sites is not required may be
difficult and generate a significant credibility problem.
In response, the petitioner states that credibility problems occur
when misrepresentations, i.e., government ownership is necessary to
ensure proper LLRW management, are initially made and that the
credibility problems are exacerbated the longer the misrepresentations
are allowed to continue. The petitioner believes that there certainly
would appear to be a larger credibility problem for the Commission to
maintain a regulation that is in direct conflict with a statute. The
petitioner offers that the Commission might reflect on the Department
of Energy's recent efforts to gain credibility by coming clean on past
misrepresentations, i.e., secret radiation studies.
Conclusion
The petitioner believes that for the stated reasons, the NRC should
adopt a rule regarding government ownership of LLRW disposal sites that
is consistent with the Federal statute [42 USC 10171(b)].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of January, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-282 Filed 1-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-263 Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 640-642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-263]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-121-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B
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 Saab Model SAAB SF340A and
SAAB 340B series airplanes. This proposal would require visual and dye
penetrant inspection(s) to detect cracks of the nose rib of the rudder,
and stop drilling and blending of minor cracks. The proposal would also
require replacement of the nose rib with a new nose rib and
reinforcement of the nose rib, if estensive cracking is detected or if
an operator elects to terminate the repetitive inspections. This
proposal is prompted by the result of an inspection that revealed a
cracked nose rib on the front spar of the rudder due to vibration-
related stress. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended
to prevent such stress and cracking, which could result in the
deformation of the nose rib; this condition may lead to friction and
jamming between the fin and the rudder and subsequent reduced
controllability of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-121-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 SAAB Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft Product Support, S-
581.88, Linkoping, Sweden. 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.
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-121-AD.'' The
[[Page 641]]
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-121-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Luftfartsverket (LFV), which is the airworthiness authority for
Sweden, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on
certain Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B series airplanes. The LFV
advises that, during a normal zonal inspection of one of these
airplanes, a cracked nose rib was found on the front spar of the
rudder. The cause of such cracking has been attributed to vibration-
related stress to the nose rib. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in cracking and subsequent deformation of the nose rib; this
condition consequently may lead to friction and jamming between the fin
and the rudder, and subsequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
Saab has issued Service Bulletin 340-55-032, dated May 22, 1995,
which describes procedures for visual and dye penetrant inspection(s)
to detect cracks of the nose rib of the rudder, and stop drilling and
blending of minor cracks. The service bulletin also describes
procedures for replacement of the nose rib with a new nose rib and
reinforcement of the nose rib, if any extensive crack is detected or if
an operator elects to terminate the repetitive inspections. The
reinforcement will thicken the nose rib, and, thus, dampen the
vibration. The LFV classified this service bulletin as mandatory and
issued Swedish airworthiness directive (SAD) 1-074, effective date May
22, 1995, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes in Sweden.
This airplane model is manufactured in Sweden 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 LFV has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
LFV, 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 visual and dye penetrant inspection(s) to
detect cracks of the nose rib of the rudder, and stop drilling and
blending of minor cracks. The proposed AD would also require
replacement of the nose rib with a new nose rib and reinforcement of
the nose rib, if any extensive crack is detected or if an operator
elects to terminate the repetitive inspections. The actions would be
required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin
described previously.
The FAA estimates that 221 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 4 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the inspection proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $53,040, or $240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
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), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Saab Aircraft AB: Docket 95-NM-121-AD.
Applicability: Model SAAB SF340A series airplanes having serial
numbers (S/N) 004 through 159 inclusive, and Model SAAB 340B having
S/N's 160 through 369 inclusive; 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 repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (b) of this AD 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 airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent vibration-related stress and cracking and consequent
deformation of the nose rib, which could result in friction and
jamming between the fin and the rudder and subsequent reduced
controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 2,400 total flight hours, or
within 800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, perform a visual and dye penetrant
inspection to detect cracks of the nose rib of the rudder, in
accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 340-55-032, dated May 22,
1995.
(1) If no cracks are detected, repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 800 flight hours, or replace the nose rib
with a new nose rib and reinforce it, in accordance with the service
bulletin. Accomplishment of the replacement and reinforcement
constitutes terminating action for this AD.
(2) If any minor crack [less than 25.4 mm (1.0 inch) long] is
detected, prior to further
[[Page 642]]
flight, stop drill and blend the crack in accordance with the service
bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 800 flight hours, or replace the nose rib with a new nose rib
and reinforce it, in accordance with the service bulletin.
Accomplishment of the replacement and reinforcement constitutes
terminating action for this AD.
(3) If any extensive crack [greater than or equal to 25.4 mm
(1.0 inch) long] is detected, prior to further flight, replace the
nose rib with a new nose rib and reinforce it, in accordance with
the service bulletin. Accomplishment of this replacement and
reinforcement constitutes terminating action for this AD.
(b) 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.
(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 airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 3, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-263 Filed 1-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-262 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9 (Military) Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 637-640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-262]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-195-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9
(Military) Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD), which would have superseded an existing AD that is
applicable to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9 (military) series
airplanes. The existing AD currently requires the implementation of a
program of structural inspections to detect and correct fatigue
cracking in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's original fatigue design
life goal. The previously proposed action would have required, among
other things, revision of the existing program to require additional
visual inspections of additional structure. The previously proposed
action was prompted by new data submitted by the manufacturer
indicating that certain revisions to the program are necessary in order
to increase the confidence level of the statistical program to ensure
timely detection of cracks in various airplane structures. This action
revises the proposed rule by deleting the requirement to perform
certain visual inspections of Fleet Leader Operator Sampling (FLOS)
Principal Structural Elements (PSE). The actions specified by this
proposed AD are intended to prevent fatigue cracking that could
compromise the structural integrity of these airplanes.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-NM-195-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
[[Page 638]]
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, P.O. Box 1771, Long Beach,
California 90846-1771, Attention: Business Unit Manager, Contract Data
Management, C1-255 (35-22). 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: Sol Davis or David Hsu, Aerospace
Engineers, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (310) 627-5233
for Mr. Davis, or (310) 627-5323 for Mr. Hsu; 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 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 94-NM-195-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. 94-NM-195-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9 (military) series airplanes, was
published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register on May 16, 1995 (60 FR 26007). That NPRM would have required
implementation of a program of structural inspections to detect and
correct fatigue cracking in order to ensure the continued airworthiness
of these airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's original fatigue
design life goal. That NPRM was prompted by new data submitted by the
manufacturer indicating that certain revisions to the program were
necessary in order to increase the confidence level of the statistical
program to ensure timely detection of cracks in various airplane
structures. That condition, if not corrected, could result in fatigue
cracking that could compromise the structural integrity of these
airplanes.
Since the issuance of that NPRM, the FAA has received a comment
from the manufacturer that has caused the FAA to reconsider its
position on certain aspects of the proposed rule.
McDonnell Douglas requests a revision of paragraph (b)(1) of the
proposal for clarification purposes. The manufacturer notes that the
proposal states that operators are required to inspect airplanes before
the threshold (Nth); however, the proposal does not clearly
indicate that operators do not receive credit for these inspections in
the Supplemental Inspection Document (SID) program, unless the aircraft
has exceeded one-half of that threshold (Nth/2). The FAA concurs.
The FAA has revised proposed paragraph (b)(1) to indicate that the
inspections are to be performed prior to reaching the threshold
(Nth), but no earlier than Nth/2.
McDonnell Douglas also requests the deletion of the requirement to
visually inspect the Fleet Leader Operator Sampling (FLOS) Principal
Structural Elements (PSE) that are proposed in paragraph (b)(3). The
manufacturer states that these requirements are redundant to those
required by AD 92-22-08 R1, amendment 39-8591 (58 FR 32281, June 9,
1993), which requires the implementation of a corrosion prevention and
control program to inspect all primary structure, including all PSE's.
The FAA concurs. Paragraph (b)(3) from the original NPRM has been
deleted, and a new NOTE 3 has been added to this supplemental NPRM to
indicate that these visual inspections are not required. However, the
visual inspections that are part of the Non Destructive Inspection
(NDI) procedures specified in Section 2 of Volume II of the SID would
still be required by this AD action. Additionally, paragraph (b)(4)
from the originally proposed rule, which would have required certain
general visual inspections, has been deleted from this supplemental
NPRM since the requirement to perform visual inspections of FLOS PSE's
are no longer required by this AD action.
Also, since issuance of the original NPRM, the FAA has reviewed and
approved Volume III-95 of the SID, dated September 1995, which
eliminates the visual FLOS inspections that were contained in Volume
III-94 of the SID, dated July 1994. Volume III-94 was referenced in the
original NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for
performing visual inspections of PSE's. Therefore, paragraph (b) of
this supplemental NPRM has been revised to reference Volume III-95 as
the appropriate source of service information.
Since these changes significantly revise the originally proposed
rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.
Although other comments were received in response to the original
NPRM, those comments, as well as any other received in response to this
supplemental NPRM, will be addressed in the final rule.
There are approximately 889 Model DC-9 and C-9 (military) series
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA
estimates that 568 airplanes of U.S. registry and 38 U.S. operators
would be affected by this proposed AD.
Incorporation of the SID program into an operator's maintenance
program, as required by AD 94-03-01, is estimated to necessitate 1,062
work hours (per operator), at an average labor rate of $60 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the cost to the 38 affected U.S.
operators to incorporate the SID program is estimated to be $2,421,360.
The incorporation of the revised procedures proposed in this AD
action would require approximately 20 additional work hours per
operator to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost to the 38 affected U.S. operators to
incorporate these revised
[[Page 639]]
procedures into the SID program into an operator's maintenance program
is estimated to be $45,600.
The recurring inspection costs, as required by AD 94-03-01, are
estimated to be 362 work hours per airplane per year, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the recurring
inspection costs required by AD 94-01-03 are estimated to be $21,720
per airplane, or $12,336,960 for the affected U.S. fleet.
The recurring inspection procedures added to the program by this
proposed AD action would not add any new additional economic burden on
affected operators since certain inspections would be added while
others would be deleted.
Based on the figures discussed above, the cost impact of this AD is
estimated to be $12,382,560 for the first year, and $12,336,960 for
each year thereafter. These cost impact figures discussed above is
based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the
proposed requirements of this AD action. However, it can be reasonably
be assumed that the majority of the affected operators have already
initiated the SID program (as required by AD 94-03-01).
Additionally, the number of required work hours for each proposed
inspection (and for the SID program), as indicated above, is presented
as if the accomplishment of those actions were to be conducted as
``stand alone'' actions. However, in actual practice, these actions for
the most part will be accomplished coincidentally or in combination
with normally scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance
program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of necessary additional
work hours will be minimal in many instances. Further, any cost
associated with special airplane scheduling can be expected to be
minimal.
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), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8807 (59 FR
6538, February 11, 1994), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 94-NM-195-AD. Supersedes AD 94-03-01,
Amendment 39-8807.
Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, -50, and C-9
(military) series airplanes; certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure the continuing structural integrity of these
airplanes, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after March 14, 1994 (the effective date of
AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8807), incorporate a revision into the
FAA-approved maintenance inspection program which provides for
inspection(s) of the Principal Structural Elements (PSE) defined in
McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection
Document (SID),'' Section 2 of Volume I of Revision 3, dated April
1991, in accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-92, dated July
1992, of the SID.
(1) Visual inspections of all PSE's on airplanes listed in
Volume III-92, dated July 1992, of the SID planning data, are
required by the fleet leader-operator sampling (FLOS) program at
least once during the interval between the start date (SDATE) and
the end date (EDATE) established for each PSE. These visual
inspections are defined in Section 3 of Volume II, dated April 1991,
of the SID, and are required only for those airplanes that have not
been inspected previously in accordance with Section 2 of Volume II,
dated April 1991, of the SID.
(2) The Non Destructive Inspection (NDI) techniques set forth in
Section 2 of Volume II, dated April 1991, of the SID provide
acceptable methods for accomplishing the inspections required by
this paragraph.
(3) All inspection results (negative or positive) must be
reported to McDonnell Douglas, in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III-92, dated July 1992, of the
SID. 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.
Note 1: Volume II, dated April 1991, of the SID is comprised of
the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Volume designation- level shown
on volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20-........................................... 3
Volume II-20/30-........................................... 4
Volume II-40-.............................................. 3
Volume II-50-.............................................. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 2: NDI inspections accomplished in accordance with the
following Volume II of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume designation- Revision level- Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20-................. 3-................ Apr. 1991.
Volume II-10/20-................. 2-................ Apr. 1990.
Volume II-10/20-................. 1-................ June 1989.
Volume II/20-.................... Original-......... Nov. 1987.
Volume II-20/30-................. 4-................ Apr. 1991.
Volume II-20/30-................. 3-................ Apr. 1990.
Volume II-20/30-................. 2-................ June 1989.
Volume II-20/30-................. 1-................ Nov. 1987.
Volume II-40-.................... 3-................ Apr. 1991.
Volume II-40-.................... 2-................ Apr. 1990.
Volume II-40-.................... 1-................ June 1989.
Volume II-40-.................... Original-......... Nov. 1987.
Volume II-50-.................... 3-................ Apr. 1991.
Volume II-50-.................... 2-................ Apr. 1990.
Volume II-50-.................... 1-................ June 1989.
Volume II-50-.................... Original-......... Nov. 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
the revision of the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, with a revision that provides
for inspection(s) of the PSE's defined in McDonnell Douglas Report
No. L26-008, ``DC-9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),''
Section 2 of Volume I of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-008, ``DC-
9 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Revision 4, dated July
1993, in accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-95, dated September
1995, of the SID.
Note 3: Operators should note that certain visual inspections of
FLOS PSE's that were previously specified in earlier revisions of
Volume III of the SID are no longer specified in Volume III-95 of
the SID.
(1) Prior to reaching the threshold (Nth), but no earlier
than one-half of the threshold (Nth/2), specified for all PSE's
listed in Volume
[[Page 640]]
III-95, dated September 1995, of the SID, inspect each PSE sample in
accordance with the NDI procedures set forth in Section 2 of Volume
II, dated July 1993. Thereafter, repeat the inspection for that PSE
at intervals not to exceed DNDI/2 of the NDI procedure that is
specified in Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of the SID.
(2) The NDI techniques set forth in Section 2 of Volume II,
dated July 1993, of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph.
(3) All inspection results (negative or positive) must be
reported to McDonnell Douglas, in accordance with the instructions
contained in Section 2 of Volume III-95, dated September 1995, of
the SID. 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.
Note 4: Volume II, dated July 1993, of the SID is comprised of
the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Volume designation- level shown
on volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20-........................................... 4
Volume II-20/30-........................................... 5
Volume II-40-.............................................. 4
Volume II-50-.............................................. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 5: NDI inspections accomplished in accordance with the
following Volume II of the SID provide acceptable methods for
accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume designation Revision level Date of revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II-10/20.................. 4................. July 1993.
Volume II-10/20.................. 3................. Apr. 1991.
Volume II-10/20.................. 2................. Apr. 1990.
Volume II-10/20.................. 1................. June 1989.
Volume II/20..................... Original.......... Nov. 1987.
Volume II-20/30.................. 5................. July 1993.
Volume II-20/30.................. 4................. Apr. 1991.
Volume II-20/30.................. 3................. Apr. 1990.
Volume II-20/30.................. 2................. June 1989.
Volume II-20/30.................. 1................. Nov. 1987.
Volume II-40..................... 4................. July 1993.
Volume II-40..................... 3................. Apr. 1991.
Volume II-40..................... 2................. Apr. 1990.
Volume II-40..................... 1................. June 1989.
Volume II-40..................... Original.......... Nov. 1987.
Volume II-50..................... 4................. July 1993.
Volume II-50..................... 3................. Apr. 1991.
Volume II-50..................... 2................. Apr. 1990.
Volume II-50..................... 1................. June 1989.
Volume II-50..................... Original.......... Nov. 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Any cracked structure detected during the inspections
required by either paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate.
Note 6: Requests for approval of any PSE repair that would
affect the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that is
required by this AD should include a damage tolerance assessment for
that PSE.
(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, 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. Alternative methods of compliance
previously granted for AD 94-03-01, amendment 39-8807, continue to
be considered as acceptable alternative methods of compliance with
this amendment.
Note 7: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(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 January 3, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-262 Filed 1-08-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-261 Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-7 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 636-637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-261]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-110-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-7 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 de Havilland Model DHC-7
series airplanes. This proposal would require modification of the
emergency lights circuitry. This proposal is prompted by reports of the
emergency lights turning on inadvertently due to voltage spikes from
other equipment, and reports that the existing emergency light switch
arrangement allows the flight compartment and flight attendant's panel
switches to override each other. The actions specified by the proposed
AD are intended to prevent such failures of the emergency light
systems, which could prevent the use of the emergency lights in the
event of an emergency.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-110-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 Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division,
Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. This information
may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street,
Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems
and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate,
New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor,
Valley Stream, New York 11581; telephone (516) 256-7511; fax (516) 568-
2716.
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-110-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-110-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
Transport Canada Aviation, which is the airworthiness authority for
Canada, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on
certain de Havilland Model DHC-7 series airplanes. Transport Canada
Aviation advises that it has received reports indicating that the
emergency lights on these airplanes have inadvertently turned on due to
voltage spikes from other equipment when the main battery power is
switched off. Transport Canada Aviation also advises that the existing
emergency light switch arrangement can allow the flight compartment
panel switch and the flight attendant's panel switch to override each
other. Such failures of the emergency lighting system, if not
corrected, could prevent the use of the emergency lights in the event
of an emergency.
De Havilland has issued Service Bulletin 7-33-7, dated October 17,
1980, which describes procedures for modification of the emergency
lights circuitry. The modification (Modification No. 7/1697) involves
revising the switching logic of the emergency lights. This modification
also entails reworking the wiring in the relay panel of the electrical
equipment bay, and replacing the current emergency light switch (part
number MS24659-21A) located on the passenger warning panel on the
flight attendant's panel with a new type of switch. Accomplishment of
this modification will ensure that the emergency lights can be turned
on when necessary, that the emergency lights will not turn on
inadvertently, and that the flight compartment and flight attendant's
panel switches do not override each other. Transport Canada Aviation
classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Canadian
airworthiness directive CF-95-04, dated March 9, 1995, in order to
assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.
This airplane model is manufactured in Canada 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, Transport Canada Aviation has kept
the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined
the findings of Transport Canada Aviation, 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 require modification of the
emergency lights circuitry. The actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described
previously.
[[Page 637]]
The FAA estimates that 14 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 8 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $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 the proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $6,720, or $480 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), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
De Havilland, Inc.: Docket 95-NM-110-AD.
Applicability: Model DHC-7 series airplanes, serial numbers 3
through 27 inclusive, on which de Havilland Modification No. 7/1697
has not been installed; 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 use the authority
provided in paragraph (c) 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 airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent failure of the emergency lighting system due to
voltage spikes from other equipment or due to inadvertent override
of the emergency lighting switches, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the emergency lights circuitry by accomplishing de Havilland
Modification No. 7/1697 (Emergency Lights--Revised Switching Logic),
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of de Havilland
Service Bulletin No. 7-33-7, dated October 17, 1980.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
an emergency light switch, part number MS24659-21A, on any airplane
subject to this AD.
(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 January 3, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-261 Filed 1-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-260 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, -200, and -300 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 634-636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-260]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-93-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, -200, and -300
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-100, -200, and -
300 series airplanes, that would have required an inspection to
determine if hinge bolts and nuts are installed in the overhead stowage
bins, and the installation of hinge bolts and nuts, if necessary. That
proposal was prompted by reports that overhead stowage bins in the
passenger compartment have fallen out of position due to missing hinge
bolts. This action revises the proposed rule by revising the
applicability to include additional airplanes. The actions specified by
this proposed AD are intended to ensure that hinge bolts are installed
in the overhead storage bins. Missing hinge bolts could result in the
overhead stowage bins falling out of position and injuring airplane
occupants.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-93-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 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorothy Lundy, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; telephone (206) 227-1675; fax (206) 227-1181.
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-93-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-93-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to
certain Boeing Model 747-100, -200, and -300 series airplanes, was
published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register on August 23, 1995 (60 FR 43728). That NPRM would have
required a one-time visual inspection to determine if the hinge bolts
and nuts are installed in the overhead stowage bins. That NPRM also
would have required installation of hinge bolts and nuts, if necessary.
That NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that overhead stowage bins
in the passenger compartment of certain Model 747 series airplanes have
fallen out of position and injured passengers due to missing hinge
bolts. Missing
[[Page 635]]
hinge bolts could result in the overhead stowage bins falling out of
position and injuring airplane occupants.
Since the issuance of that NPRM, the FAA has reviewed and approved
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3095, Revision 1, dated September
28, 1995. This service bulletin revises the effectivity listing of the
original issue of the service bulletin by adding airplanes RA006, and
RD251 through RD262 inclusive. In addition, certain passenger airplanes
(which have been converted to special freighters) are removed from the
effectivity of the alert service bulletin. This revision of the service
bulletin does not describe any additional work requirements.
The FAA has determined that these additional airplanes are subject
to the same unsafe condition as described previously, and therefore,
must be subject to the requirements of the proposed AD. The FAA has
revised the proposal to add these airplanes to the applicability of the
rule.
Since this change expands the scope of the originally proposed
rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.
In addition, the FAA has given due consideration to the following
comments received in response to the proposal:
Three commenters request that the ``credit time'' for inspections
accomplished prior to the effective date of the AD be extended. The
commenters note that several operators have accomplished the inspection
on their fleets as far back as when the original service bulletin was
issued in April 1995. Because the proposed AD would provide credit only
if the inspection previously had been accomplished within the last 6
months prior to the effective date of the AD, these operators would be
required to perform the inspection again. Therefore, one of these
commenters requests that the credit time be extended from 6 months to
18 months prior to the effective date of the rule.
The FAA concurs. Since the relevant service bulletin containing the
instructions for the inspection was issued originally in April 1995,
the FAA considers that inspections conducted at least since then will
satisfy the intent of the proposed AD. In light of this, and taking
into account the number of days normally required for the rulemaking
process, the FAA has revised the proposal to provide credit for
inspections that were accomplished within 18 months prior to the
effective date of this AD. The FAA finds that extending this credit
time for previously accomplished inspections will not adversely affect
safety and will prevent an unnecessary economic burden on operators who
have performed the inspection within that credit time.
There are approximately 573 Model 747-100, -200, and -300 series
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA
estimates that 157 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 $9,420, 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 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Boeing: Docket 95-NM-93-AD.
Applicability: Model 747-100, -200, and -300 series airplanes,
as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3095, Revision 1,
dated September 28, 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 repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (b) of this AD 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 airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated.
To ensure that hinge bolts are installed in the overhead storage
bins, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, unless
accomplished previously within the last 18 months prior to the
effective date of this AD, perform a one-time visual inspection to
determine if hinge bolts and nuts are installed in the overhead
stowage bins, in accordance with either Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-25A3095, dated April 27, 1995, or Revision 1, dated
September 28, 1995.
(1) If the hinge bolts and nuts are installed, no further action
is required by this AD.
(2) If any hinge bolt or nut is not installed, prior to further
flight, install a hinge bolt and nut in accordance with either alert
service bulletin.
(b) 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, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 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, Seattle ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
[[Page 636]]
(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 airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 3, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-260 Filed 1-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.