Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61223

However, under the provisions of

paragraph (c) of the final rule, the FAA

may approve requests for adjustments to

the compliance time if data are

submitted to substantiate that such an

adjustment would provide an acceptable

level of safety.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 46 Boeing

Model 777–200 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 16 airplanes of

U.S. registry will be affected by this AD,

that it will take approximately 209 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required actions, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will be supplied by the

manufacturer at no cost to the operators.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $200,640, or $12,540 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

97–23–16 Boeing: Amendment 39–10205.

Docket 97–NM–55–AD.

Applicability: Model 777–200 series

airplanes, as listed in Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 777–23A0027, dated February 13,

1997; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent overheating of the transformers

of the overhead electronics units (OEU),

which potentially could cause a fire in the

transformer assembly and/or other electronic

components of the OEU and could cause

smoke to enter the passenger cabin,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, replace OEU’s having part

numbers (P/N) 285W0029–3, 285W0029–3

MOD A, and 285W0029–3 MOD B, of the

passenger address and entertainment

communication systems with modified

OEU’s having P/N’s 285W0029–5,

285W0029–5 MOD A, and 285W0029–5

MOD B, in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 777–23A0027, dated

February 13, 1997.

Note 2: Boeing Component Service Bulletin

285W0029–23–01, dated February 13, 1997,

describes procedures for reworking OEU’s

having P/N’s 285W0029–3, 285W0029–3

MOD A, and 285W0028–3 MOD B, to a

configuration having a dash number –5, and

a MOD level marking (if applicable).

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install an OEU having P/N

285W0029–3, 285W0029–3 MOD A, or

285W0028–3 MOD B, on any airplane.

(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, 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(e) The replacement shall be done in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 777–23A0027, dated February 13,

1997. This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–

2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

December 22, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 6, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–29823 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–SW–17–AD; Amendment

39–10206; AD 97–12–02]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Helicopter Systems MD900

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing priority letter airworthiness
61224 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

directive (AD), applicable to McDonnell

Douglas Helicopter Systems (MDHS)

Model MD900 helicopters, which

prohibits flight or ground operations of

helicopters with a certain adjustable

collective drive link assembly (link

assembly) installed. This amendment

requires installation of a redesigned

airworthy link assembly after which

further operations are permitted. This

amendment is prompted by recent

incidents in which the link assembly

failed during flight. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent failure of the link assembly,

which could result in loss of control of

the helicopter.

DATES: Effective December 2, 1997.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

January 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–SW–17–

AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Greg DiLibero, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd.,

Lakewood, California 90712, telephone

(562) 627–5231, fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

29, 1997, the FAA issued priority letter

AD 97–12–02, applicable to MDHS

Model MD900 helicopters with

collective drive link assembly (link

assembly) part number (P/N)

900C2010233–103 and P/N

900C2010233–105, installed, which

prohibits flight or ground operations of

the helicopters. That action was

prompted by recent incidents in which

the link assembly failed during flight.

The link assembly is part of the primary

collective flight control system. Based

on these incidents and further testing by

the manufacturer, the FAA determined

that further operations with either

affected link assembly installed

constituted an unsafe condition. That

condition, if not corrected, could result

in failure of the link assembly and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, MDHS

has issued MDHS Service Bulletin (SB)

No. SB900–055R1, dated June 5, 1997,

for the installation of a redesigned link

assembly. The FAA has determined that

installation of redesigned link assembly,

P/N 900C2010233–107, will correct the

unsafe condition. Additionally, in AD

97–12–02, the FAA has noted that the

applicability section incorrectly stated

that the AD applied to Model MD900

helicopters with P/N 900C2010233–103

and P/N 900C2010233–105 installed.

The AD should have stated that it

applied to Model MD900 helicopters

with P/N 900C2010233–103 or P/N

900C2010233–105 installed. This

imprecision in word choice is corrected

in this AD.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other MDHS Model MD900

helicopters of the same type design, this

AD supersedes AD 97–12–02 to require

installation of a redesigned link

assembly. This AD also clarifies the

applicability statement that could be

incorrectly interpreted to mean that two

link assemblies must be installed in

order for the AD to be applicable.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this rule by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

Rules Docket number and be submitted

in triplicate to the address specified

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this rule must

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 97–SW–17–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, may be obtained from 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive to

read as follows:

97–12–02 McDonnell Douglas Helicopter

Systems: Amendment 39–10206. Docket

No. 97–SW–17–AD. Supersedes priority

letter AD 97–12–02.

Applicability: Model MD900 helicopters,

with adjustable collective drive link

assembly (link assembly), part number (P/N)

900C2010233–103 or –105, installed,

certificated in any category.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61225

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

helicopters that have been modified, altered,

or repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (b) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition, or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any helicopter

from the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of the link assembly,

which could result in loss of control of the

helicopter, accomplish the following:

(a) Before further flight, remove the link

assembly, P/N 900C2010233–103 or –105,

and replace with link assembly, P/N

900C2010233–107.

(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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,

who may concur or comment and then send

it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office.

(c) Special flight permits will not be

issued.

(d) This amendment becomes effective on

December 2, 1997.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November

6, 1997.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–30058 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 403

Deceptive Use of ‘‘Leakproof,’’

‘‘Guaranteed Leakproof,’’ Etc., As

Descriptive of Dry Cell Batteries

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; removal.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (the ‘‘FTC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’) announces the repeal of

the Trade Regulation Rule on Deceptive

Use of ‘‘Leakproof,’’ ‘‘Guaranteed

Leakproof,’’ Etc., as Descriptive of Dry

Cell Batteries (‘‘the Dry Cell Battery

Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’), 16 CFR Part 403.

The rulemaking record, changes in

industry practice, and general voluntary

compliance by the industry with the

requirements of an American National

Standards Institute standard for dry cell

batteries, which has provisions similar

to the Rule’s, indicate that the Dry Cell

Battery Rule is no longer necessary or in

the public interest and should be

repealed. This document contains a

Statement of Basis and Purpose for

repeal of the rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

Statement of Basis and Purpose should

be sent to the Public Reference Branch,

Room 130, Federal Trade Commission,

Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Ave.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Neil Blickman, Attorney, Federal Trade

Commission, Bureau of Consumer

Protection, Division of Enforcement,

Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Ave.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20580, (202)

326–3038.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statement of Basis and Purpose

I. Background

On May 20, 1964, the Commission

promulgated a trade regulation rule that

states that in connection with the sale

of dry cell batteries in commerce, the

use of the word ‘‘leakproof,’’ the term

‘‘guaranteed leakproof,’’ or any other

word or term of similar import, or any

abbreviation thereof, in advertising,

labeling, marking or otherwise, as

descriptive of dry cell batteries,

constitutes an unfair method of

competition and an unfair or deceptive

act or practice in violation of section 5

of the FTC Act (16 CFR 403.4). This rule

was based on the Commission’s finding

that, despite efforts by dry cell battery

manufacturers to eliminate electrolyte

leakage, battery leakage and damage

therefrom occurs from the use to which

consumers ordinarily subject dry cell

batteries.

The rule provides that manufacturers

or marketers are not prohibited from

offering or furnishing guarantees that

provide for restitution in the event of

damage from battery leakage, provided

no representation is made, directly or

indirectly, that dry cell batteries will not

leak (16 CFR 403.5). The Rule further

provides that in the event any person

develops a new dry cell battery that he

believes is in fact leakproof, he may

apply to the Commission for an

amendment to the rule, or other

appropriate relief (16 CFR 403.6).

The Commission conducted an

informal review of industry practices by

examining the advertising, labeling and

marketing of dry cell batteries available

for retail sale. This review revealed no

representations that the batteries were

leakproof. The Commission’s review,

therefore, indicated general compliance

with the Rule’s provisions. Moreover,

the Commission has no record of

receiving any complaints regarding noncompliance with the Rule, or of

initiating any law enforcement actions

alleging violations of the Rule.

Additionally, the Commission’s

review indicated general voluntary

compliance by the industry with the

requirements of American National

Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) Standard

C18.1M–1992 Dry Cells and Batteries—

Specifications. The ANSI standard

contains specifications for dry cell

batteries, and requirements for labeling

the products and their packages. The

ANSI standard requires the following

information to be printed on the outside

of each battery (when necessary, the

standard permits some of this

information to be applied to the unit

package): (1) The name or trade name of

the manufacturer; (2) the ANSI/National

Electronic Distributors Association

number, or some other identifying

designation; (3) year and month, week

or day of manufacture, which may be a

code, or the expiration of a guarantee

period, in a clear readable form; (4) the

nominal voltage; (5) terminal polarity;

and (6) warnings or cautionary notes

where applicable. See section 8.1 of

ANSI Standard C18.1M–1992.

The ANSI standard recommends that

dry cell battery manufacturers and

sellers include on their products and

packages several battery user guidelines

and warnings that are relevant to this

proceeding. They are: (1) Although

batteries basically are trouble-free

products, conditions of abuse or misuse

can cause leakage; (2) failure to replace

all batteries in a unit at the same time

may result in battery leakage; (3) mixing

batteries of various chemical systems,

ages, applications, types or

manufacturers may result in poor device

performance and battery leakage; (4)

attempting to recharge a nonrechargeable battery is unsafe because it

could cause leakage; (5) reverse

insertion of batteries may cause

charging, which may result in leakage;

(6) devices that operate on either

household current or battery power may

subject batteries to a charging current,

which may cause leakage; (7) do not

store batteries or battery-powered

equipment in high-temperature areas;