Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 99 / Thursday, May 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 27941

Executive Order 12866 and the

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been determined to

be not significant and, therefore, has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

The Administrator has made an initial

determination that this direct final rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities, as defined by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). The direct

final rule will permit the use of liquid

nitrogen as a contact freezant for meat

and meat products. Use of this freezant

is voluntary. Because the freezant does

not add anything to the product

ingredients, a label change is not

required. Decisions by individual

manufacturers on whether to use this

freezant will be based on their

conclusions as to whether the benefits

of use of this freezant outweigh the

costs, including following the safety

precautions mandated by OSHA.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 318

Food additives, Meat inspection.

Final Rule

For the reasons discussed in this

preamble, FSIS is amending 9 CFR part

318 as follows:

PART 318—ENTRY INTO OFFICIAL

ESTABLISHMENTS; REINSPECTION

AND PREPARATION OF PRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for part 318

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901–1906; 21

U.S.C. 601–695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.

2. In the chart in § 318.7 (c)(4), under

the Class of Substance ‘‘Gases’’ a new

entry for the substance ‘‘liquid

nitrogen’’ is added right after ‘‘carbon

dioxide solid (dry ice)’’ to read as

follows:

§ 318.7 Approval of substances for use in

the preparation of products.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) * * *

Class of substance Substance Purpose Products Amount

* * * * * * *

Gases

* * * * * * *

Liquid nitrogen ........... Contact freezant ........ Various ...................... Sufficient for purpose.

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

Done at Washington, DC, on May 14, 1997.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–13408 Filed 5–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–201–AD; Amendment

39–10036; AD 97–11–07]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–90–30 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all McDonnell Douglas

Model MD–90–30 airplanes, that

requires revising the Airworthiness

Limitations Section of the Instructions

for Continued Airworthiness [MD–90–

30 Airworthiness Limitations

Instructions (ALI)]. The revision will

incorporate certain compliance times for

inspections to detect fatigue cracking of

principal structural elements (PSE) and

to add PSE’s to the ALI. This

amendment is prompted by analysis of

data that identified reduced initial

inspection thresholds, reduced

repetitive inspection intervals for PSE’s,

and other PSE’s to be added to the ALI.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to ensure that fatigue cracking

of various PSE’s are detected and

corrected; such fatigue cracking could

adversely affect the structural integrity

of these airplanes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Information pertaining to

this rulemaking action may be examined

at the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate,

Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brent Bandley, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (562) 627–

5237; fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to all McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–90–30 airplanes

was published in the Federal Register

on March 7, 1997 (62 FR 10490). That

action proposed to require operators to

revise the Airworthiness Limitations

Section of the Instructions for

Continued Airworthiness [MD–90–30

Airworthiness Limitations Instructions

(ALI)]. The revision would incorporate

certain compliance times for inspections

to detect fatigue cracking of principal

structural elements (PSE) and to add

PSE’s to the ALI.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the two

comments received.

Both commenters support the

proposed 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 as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 15

McDonnell Douglas Model MD–90–30

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

11 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the required actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $660, or $60 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.
27942 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 99 / Thursday, May 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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, 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:

97–11–07 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment

39–10036. Docket 96–NM–201–AD.

Applicability: All Model MD–90–30

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 (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To ensure continued structural integrity of

these airplanes, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 180 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Airworthiness

Limitations Section of the Instructions for

Continued Airworthiness [Airworthiness

Limitations Instructions (ALI), McDonnell

Douglas Report No. MDC–94K9000, dated

November 1994] to incorporate the Item,

Location, and Inspection Interval of the

following principal structural elements: This

may be accomplished by inserting a copy of

Revision 1 of the ALI, dated January 1995, or

a copy of this AD into the ALI.

Item Location

Inspection interval

(in landings)

Initial Repeat

Item 53.30.02.3 ..... Skin Panels, STA 237 to 1395 Fuselage Skin in Constant Section from Longeron 3 Left to

Longeron 3 Right.

60,000 11,000

Item 53.30.02.4 ..... Skin Panels, STA 237 to 1395 Fuselage Hoop Skin Splice in Constant Section from Longeron 5 Left to Longeron 5 Right.60,000 30,000

Item 54.10.04.1 ..... Thrust Bulkhead, Pylon—STA Yn 170.5—Rear Spar and Engine Thrust Support Fitting

(Upper and Lower).

15,000 4,500

(b) Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued

Airworthiness [Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI), McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC–94K9000, dated November 1994]

to incorporate the Item, Location, and Inspection Interval of the following principal structural elements: This may be accomplished

by inserting a copy of Revision 2 to the ALI, dated July 1996, or a copy this AD into the ALI.

Item Location

Inspection interval

(in landings)

Initial Repeat

Item 55.13.01.1 ..... Plates/Skin—Upper STA Xh 27.2 Left to Xh 27.2 Right—Upper Aft Skin Plank with Integral

Stringers from Xh 7.234 to Xh 26.859.

60,000 8,100

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of

this AD: After the actions specified in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD have been

accomplished, no alternative inspections or

inspection intervals may be approved for the

parts specified in paragraph (a) and (b) of this

AD.

(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 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, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(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.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

June 26, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16,

1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–13467 Filed 5–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U