Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70787

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(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.

Incorporation by Reference

(d) The installation shall be done in

accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin

120–53–0064, dated October 31, 1995. 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

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao

Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895

Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta,

Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Brazilian airworthiness directive 95–11–

01, dated November 22, 1995.

Effective Date

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

January 2, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 15, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–29801 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–163–AD; Amendment

39–12001; AD 2000–23–28]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 777 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Boeing Model 777

series airplanes, that currently requires

repetitive testing of the engine fire

shutoff switch (EFSS) to determine if

the override mechanism and the switch

handle are operational, and replacement

of the EFSS, if necessary. That AD also

requires, for certain airplanes,

installation of a collar on a specific

circuit breaker of the standby power

management panel, and installation of

placards to advise the flightcrew that

the override mechanism must be pushed

in order to pull the fire switch. This

amendment adds various actions that

would terminate the repetitive testing

requirements. This amendment is

prompted by a report indicating that a

solenoid and an override mechanism of

the EFSS were not operational due to

overheating of the solenoid. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent damage to the EFSS solenoid

and to the override mechanism, and

consequent failure of the EFSS due to

overheating of the solenoid; such failure

could result in the inability of the

flightcrew to discharge the fire

extinguishing agent in the event of an

engine fire.

DATES: Effective January 2, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–

26A0009, dated October 23, 1997, as

listed in the regulations, is approved by

the Director of the Federal Register as of

January 2, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–

26A0012, dated May 1, 1997, as listed

in the regulations, was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of May 27, 1997 (62 FR

25837, May 12, 1997).

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Reising, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA,

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2683; fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 97–10–11,

amendment 39–10023 (62 FR 25837,

May 12, 1997), which is applicable to all

Boeing Model 777 series airplanes, was

published in the Federal Register on

May 19, 2000 (65 FR 31837). The action

proposed to terminate the repetitive

testing of the engine fire shutoff switch

(EFSS) required by AD 97–10–11.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Supportive Comment

One commenter concurs with the

proposed rule and indicates that it has

almost completed the terminating action

on its entire fleet.

Request for Exemption

One commenter, an operator, requests

that an exemption be added to the

proposed rule for airplanes recently

delivered, if the operator can prove by

inventory records that it has at no time

purchased or borrowed the EFSS with

the part numbers specified in this

proposed rule. The commenter states

that the proposal does not affect

operators with recently delivered

airplanes that were not affected by AD

97–10–11. Additionally, the commenter

notes that at no time did it have the old

EFSS in its system nor did it replace an

EFSS on any of its in-service airplanes.

The commenter concludes that this

proposed rule should not be applicable

to it.

The FAA is unable to grant an

exemption in light of the fact that

paragraph (d) of this final rule prohibits

future installation of the defective EFSS

[engine fire control module having part

number (P/N) 233W6201–1, or engine

fire switches having P/N S231W263–1

or –2]. Therefore, this requirement

affects any airplanes delivered after this

final rule is issued. However, the FAA

recognizes from the commenter’s

interpretation of paragraph (c) of the

final rule that this paragraph requires

further clarification. The FAA’s intent is

to require removal and replacement of

the engine fire control module only if it

contains a defective EFSS. Therefore,

paragraph (c) of this final rule has been

revised to add an option to verify that

the improved engine fire control module

is installed, which would constitute

terminating action for the repetitive

testing requirements in paragraph (b) of

the final rule.

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 with the change

70788 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

previously described. The FAA has

determined that this change will neither

increase the economic burden on any

operator nor increase the scope of the

AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 196

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

48 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 97–10–11, and retained

in this AD, take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the currently required actions on the

U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,880,

or $60 per airplane, per testing cycle.

The new actions that are required by

this AD action take approximately 1

work hour per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Required parts will cost

approximately $4,054 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the new requirements of this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$197,472, or $4,114 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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. The cost impact

figures discussed in AD rulemaking

actions represent only the time

necessary to perform the specific actions

actually required by the AD. These

figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have a substantial direct effect on

the States, on the relationship between

the national Government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

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

removing amendment 39–10023 (62 FR

25837, May 12, 1997), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

amendment 39–12001, to read as

follows:

2000–23–28 Boeing: Amendment 39–12001.

Docket 99–NM–163–AD. Supersedes AD

97–10–11, Amendment 39–10023.

Applicability: All Model 777 series

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

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 (e) 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 damage to the engine fire

shutoff switch (EFSS) solenoid and to the

override mechanism, and consequent failure

of the EFSS, which could result in the

inability of the flightcrew to discharge the

fire extinguishing agent in the event of an

engine fire, accomplish the following:

Restatement of Actions Required by AD 97–

10–11

Repetitive Testing of the EFSS

(a) For all airplanes: Within 14 days after

May 27, 1997 (the effective date of AD 97–

10–11, amendment 39–10023), perform a test

of the EFSS of both the left- and right-hand

engines to determine if the override

mechanism and the switch handle are

operational, in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 777–26A0012, dated May 1,

1997.

(1) If the override mechanism and the

switch handle of the EFSS are operational,

prior to further flight, accomplish the

requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii)

of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with

the alert service bulletin.

(i) For Group 1 airplanes identified in the

alert service bulletin: Install a collar on

circuit breaker C26612 of panel P310 of the

standby power management panel. Following

accomplishment of this installation, prior to

further flight, install placards near the EFSS

of both engines and near the auxiliary power

unit (APU) EFSS to advise the flightcrew that

the override mechanism must be pushed in

order to pull the fire switch.

(ii) For Group 2 airplanes identified in the

alert service bulletin: Ensure that a collar is

installed on circuit breaker C26612 of panel

P310 of the standby power management

panel. If a collar is not installed, prior to

further flight, install a collar on circuit

breaker C26612 of panel P310 of the standby

power management panel.

(2) If the override mechanism or the switch

handle of the EFSS is not operational, prior

to further flight, replace the EFSS with a new

or serviceable EFSS, in accordance with the

alert service bulletin.

(b) For all airplanes: Repeat the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight

hours.

New Actions Required by This AD

Terminating Action

(c) For all airplanes: Within 2 years after

the effective date of this AD, accomplish the

actions specified in either paragraph (c)(1) or

(c)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 777–26A0009, dated

October 23, 1997.

(1) Verify that the airplane does not have

an engine fire control module having part

number (P/N) 233W6201–1, and that the

airplane configuration is equivalent to that

specified in the alert service bulletin. If the

airplane meets the requirements in this

paragraph, no further action is required by

this AD.

(2) If the airplane does not meet the

requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of

this AD: Remove the engine fire control

module, P/N 233W6201–1, and replace it

with P/N 233W6201–5; activate the circuit

breaker C26612 in the P310 panel; and

remove the placards in the flight deck

compartment; in accordance with the alert

service bulletin. Accomplishment of this

paragraph constitutes terminating action for

the repetitive testing requirements of

paragraph (b) of this AD.

Spares

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

person shall install an engine fire control

module, P/N 233W6201–1, or engine fire

switches P/N S231W263–1 or –2, on any

airplane.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70789

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) 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.

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.

Special Flight Permits

(f) 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.

Incorporation by Reference

(g) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–

26A0012, dated May 1, 1997, and Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 777–26A0009, dated

October 23, 1997.

(1) The incorporation by reference of

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–26A0009,

dated October 23, 1997, is approved by the

Director of the Federal Register in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) The incorporation by reference of

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–26A0012,

dated May 1, 1997, was approved previously

by the Director of the Federal Register as of

May 27, 1997 (62 FR 25837, May 12, 1997).

(3) 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.

Effective Date

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

January 2, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 15, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–29799 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 176

[Docket No. 99F–1719]

Indirect Food Additives: Paper and

Paperboard Components

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

food additive regulations to provide for

the safe use of 4-(diiodomethylsulfonyl)

toluene as a slimicide in the

manufacture of food-contact paper and

paperboard. This action is in response

to a petition filed by Angus Chemical

Co.

DATES: This rule is effective November

28, 2000. Submit written objections and

requests for a hearing by December 28,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to

the Dockets Management Branch (HFA–

305), Food and Drug Administration,

5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,

MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark A. Hepp, Center for Food Safety

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–215), Food

and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20204, 202–418–3098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice

published in the Federal Register of

June 11, 1999 (64 FR 31593), FDA

announced that a food additive petition

(FAP 9B4668) had been filed by Angus

Chemical Co., c/o Phillip A. Johns,

10900 Silent Wood Pl., North Potomac,

MD 20878–4829. The petition proposed

to amend the food additive regulations

in § 176.300 Slimicides (21 CFR

176.300) to provide for the safe use of

4-(diiodomethylsulfonyl) toluene as a

slimicide in the manufacture of foodcontact paper and paperboard.

FDA has evaluated data in the

petition and other relevant material.

Based on this information, the agency

concludes that: (1) The proposed use of

the additive as a slimicide in the

manufacture of food-contact paper and

paperboard is safe, (2) the additive will

achieve its intended technical effect,

and therefore, (3) the regulations in

§ 176.300 should be amended as set

forth below.

In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR

171.1(h)), the petition and the

documents that FDA considered and

relied upon in reaching its decision to

approve the petition are available for

inspection at the Center for Food Safety

and Applied Nutrition by appointment

with the information contact person

listed above. As provided in § 171.1(h),

the agency will delete from the

documents any materials that are not

available for public disclosure before

making the documents available for

inspection.

The agency has carefully considered

the potential environmental effects of

this rule as announced in the notice of

filing for the petition. No new

information or comments have been

received that would affect the agency’s

previous determination that there is no

significant impact on the human

environment and that an environmental

impact statement is not required.

This final rule contains no collection

of information. Therefore, clearance by

the Office of Management and Budget

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 is not required.

Any person who will be adversely

affected by this regulation may at any

time file with the Dockets Management

Branch (address above) written

objections by December 28, 2000. Each

objection shall be separately numbered,

and each numbered objection shall

specify with particularity the provisions

of the regulation to which objection is

made and the grounds for the objection.

Each numbered objection on which a

hearing is requested shall specifically so

state. Failure to request a hearing for

any particular objection shall constitute

a waiver of the right to a hearing on that

objection. Each numbered objection for

which a hearing is requested shall

include a detailed description and

analysis of the specific factual

information intended to be presented in

support of the objection in the event

that a hearing is held. Failure to include

such a description and analysis for any

particular objection shall constitute a

waiver of the right to a hearing on the

objection. Three copies of all documents

are to be submitted and are to be

identified with the docket number

found in brackets in the heading of this

document. Any objections received in

response to the regulation may be seen

in the Dockets Management Branch

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 176

Food additives, Food packaging.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs, and redelegated to

the Director, Center for Food Safety and

Applied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 176 is

amended as follows:

PART 176—INDIRECT FOOD

ADDITIVES: PAPER AND

PAPERBOARD COMPONENTS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 176 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 346, 348,

379e.

2. Section 176.300 is amended in the

table in paragraph (c) by alphabetically

adding an entry under the headings

‘‘List of substances’’ and ‘‘Limitations’’

to read as follows: