30946 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1Airworthiness Review Program—Amendment 

No. 4: Powerplant Amendments (42 FR 15034). 

2 Docket FAA–2006–25325. 

3 72 FR 19793; April 20, 2007. 

4Commuter Operations and General Certification 

and Operations Requirements; Air Carrier and 

Commercial Operator Training Programs; Final 

Rules (60 FR 65832). 

5 § 121.267(a)(2): As part of a pre-departure check, 

visually inspect the pressure indicator for the 

container for loss of pressure within the container. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 121 and 135 

[Docket No.: FAA–2007–26969; Amendment 

Nos. 121–331 and 135–109] 

RIN 2120–AI99 

Change in Extinguishing Agent 

Container Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: On April 20, 2007, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

direct final rule entitled Change in 

Extinguishing Agent Container 

Requirements. The rule aligned the 

operational and certification 

requirements regarding airplane 

extinguishing agent containers or fire 

bottles; and it removed an obsolete 

section reference from part 135. This 

action withdraws the rule because the 

FAA received several adverse 

comments. 

DATES: The direct final rule published at 

72 FR 19793, April 20, 2007, is 

withdrawn effective May 31, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Schlossberg, Aircraft Maintenance 

Division, Flight Standards Service, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591. Telephone: 

(202–267–8908); facsimile: (202–267– 

5115); e-mail: joel.schlossberg@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 20, 2007, the FAA published 

a direct final rule (Amendment Nos. 

121–331 and 135–109, (72 FR 19793)). 

The rule, to have become effective June 

4, 2007, was intended to correct a 

previous oversight that caused the 

certification and operational safety 

requirements regarding overpressurization of airplane extinguishing 

agent containers to prevent bursting to 

be in conflict. 

On March 17, 1977, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a final 

rule 1 that amended 14 CFR 25.1199 to 

allow the discharge end of each 

discharge line from a pressure relief 

connection to be located so that the 

discharge of the fire extinguishing 

container (i.e., fire bottle) would not 

damage the airplane. In other words, the 

rule allows for the termination of the 

discharge line either inside or outside 

the airplane as long as the discharge of 

the fire bottle would not damage the 

airplane. However, the corresponding 

operational requirements in § 121.267, 

and by reference in § 135.169, only 

allow for the termination of the fire 

bottle discharge line outside the 

airplane. As a result of this discrepancy, 

in a request dated July 5, 2006, 

Aeronautical Charters, Inc. submitted a 

petition for exemption 2 from § 121.267 

for its airplane model (Citation 550) 

used in part 135 operations. Because the 

difference between the certification and 

operational requirements caused 

confusion and would likely result in 

more exemption requests, the FAA 

issued the Change in Extinguishing 

Agent Container Requirements direct 

final rule 3 to align the certification and 

operational requirements. 

In addition, the direct final rule 

removed an obsolete section reference 

from part 135. In a December 20, 1995 

rulemaking,4 the FAA removed and 

reserved § 121.213, which contained 

special airworthiness requirements. We 

included those requirements in 

§ 121.211 (Applicability). However, we 

inadvertently left a reference to 

§ 121.213 in § 135.169(a). The direct 

final rule amended part 135 to remove 

the reference to § 121.213. 

The comment period for the direct 

final rule closed on May 21, 2007. 

Discussion of Comments 

We received several adverse 

comments to the direct final rule from 

two commenters—Mr. Steve Donohue of 

ExpressJet, Inc. and Mr. Jason Ostbye of 

Sun Country Airlines. 

Discharge Line Terminates Outside the 

Airplane (§ 121.267(a)(1)) 

Both commenters expressed concern 

about the wording of § 121.267(a) that 

reads: ‘‘The discharge line from the 

relief connection must be installed in a 

manner so it can be inspected from the 

ground.’’ The commenters said this part 

of the rule does not belong in paragraph 

(a) because paragraph (a) applies to both 

subparagraphs (a)(1) (which describes 

the process for inspection of the fire 

bottle when the discharge line 

terminates outside the airplane) and 

(a)(2) (which describes the process for 

inspection of the fire bottle when the 

discharge line terminates inside the 

airplane). The commenters said the 

discussion about inspection ‘‘from the 

ground’’ should be placed in paragraph 

(a)(1). 

We agree with the commenters that 

§ 121.267(a) as worded is confusing 

since it implies that the statement about 

inspection ‘‘from the ground’’ applies to 

a discharge line that terminates either 

inside or outside the airplane. We 

intended for the following text to be 

placed in § 121.267(a)(1): 

The discharge line terminates outside the 

airplane. The discharge line from the relief 

connection must be installed in a manner so 

it can be inspected on the ground * * * 

We intend to correct this oversight in 

a future rulemaking action. 

Discharge Line Terminates Inside the 

Airplane (§ 121.267(a)(2)) 

Both commenters said § 121.267(a)(2) 

implies that all fire bottles have 

pressure indicators; however, many 

lavatory extinguishers, for example, do 

not have such indicators. Therefore, to 

comply with the rule, each lavatory 

extinguisher would need to be removed 

and weighed as part of each predeparture check to ensure that it has not 

discharged. Mr. Ostbye said operators 

would incur significant costs as a result. 

After further review, we believe the 

regulation as written may be misleading 

because it specifies inspection of 

pressure indicators but some fire bottles 

do not have such indicators. We intend 

to clarify this issue in a future 

rulemaking action. 

Mr. Ostbye said the FAA should 

define the term ‘‘inside the airplane.’’ In 

support of this recommendation, he said 

the following: The discharge line of an 

engine fire bottle on a 737NG terminates 

in the main wheel well. The discharge 

line of the APU (auxiliary power unit) 

bottle discharges in the tail 

compartment. And, cargo fire bottles 

discharge in the lower lobe of the 

fuselage. Therefore, compliance with 

§ 121.267(a)(2) 5 would cause operators 

to incur significant costs because access 

and inspection of these fire bottles 

would require a mechanic with a ladder 

and the removal of cargo compartment 

panels. 

Mr. Ostbye also said the rule should 

address use of bottle discharge lights in 

the cockpit in lieu of visually inspecting 

the bottle pressure indicator. He said if 

bottle discharge lights in the cockpit 

satisfy the requirement to visually 

inspect the pressure indicator, then the 

process of having a mechanic involved 

in the inspection and having to remove 

panels would not be necessary. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 30947 

We do not agree that the term ‘‘inside 

the airplane’’ needs to be defined. As 

discussed in the preamble to the direct 

final rule, historically, fire extinguishing 

agents were corrosive materials that 

could degrade an airplane. As a result, 

earlier FAA regulations required any 

discharge for pressure relief to be 

outside the airplane. However, when 

industry developed non-corrosive 

extinguishing agents, the certification 

regulations were revised in the 1970s to 

allow for termination of the pressure 

relief discharge line in such a way as to 

not damage the airplane. The intent of 

§ 121.267(a)(2) and (b) was to ensure 

that when a discharge line terminated 

inside the airplane, only a non-corrosive 

extinguishing agent was used so that 

discharge of the agent would not 

damage the airplane. 

We do agree, however, that any future 

change to the regulation should take 

into account current industry practices 

and approved methods such as 

inspecting fire bottle discharge lights in 

the cockpit as a means to determine low 

pressure or discharge of an 

extinguishing agent container. 

Reason for Withdrawal 

As stated in 14 CFR 11.31(c), if the 

FAA receives an adverse comment to a 

direct final rule or a comment stating 

the intent to file such a comment, the 

FAA advises the public by publishing a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

notice may withdraw the direct final 

rule in whole or in part. 

After further review, and in 

consideration of the comments to the 

Change in Extinguishing Agent 

Container Requirements direct final 

rule, the FAA has determined that the 

rule should be withdrawn in its entirety. 

This will allow us more time to further 

examine the issues the commenters 

raised and determine the course of 

action that best serves the public’s 

interest. 

Accordingly, the FAA withdraws 

Amendments Nos. 121–331 and 135–

109, published at 72 FR 19793 on April 

20, 2007. However, withdrawal of these 

Amendments does not preclude the 

FAA from issuing another rule on the 

subject matter in the future or 

committing the agency to any future 

course of action. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 30, 

2007. 

Kerry B. Long, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 07–2784 Filed 5–31–07; 11:32 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2