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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

19852

Vol. 63, No. 77

Wednesday, April 22, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 317 and 381

[Docket No. 98–014N]

Nutrition Labeling; Health Claims on

Meat and Poultry Products

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of

proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS) is

withdrawing its proposed rule,

‘‘Nutrition Labeling; Health Claims on

Meat and Poultry Products,’’ published

in the Federal Register on May 25, 1994

(59 FR 27144). The rule proposed to

amend the Federal meat and poultry

products inspection regulations by

proposing requirements for permitting

the use of health claims on the labeling

of meat and poultry products that

characterize the relationship of a

substance (food or food component) to

a disease or health-related condition.

The rule also proposed regulations

establishing a labeling application

process for such health claims. FSIS’

proposal (Docket No. 93–002P) has

become obsolete because of changes

made by the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) in its original

final rule and in its subsequent

rulemaking on health claims. Therefore,

FSIS intends to propose a more

comprehensive document on health

claims regulations for meat and poultry

products that will parallel those

regulations issued by FDA for other

foods.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: FSIS

Docket Clerk, Docket No. 98–014N,

Room 102, Cotton Annex Building, 300

12th Street, SW, Washington, DC

20250–3700. Any comments received

will be available for public inspection in

the Docket Room from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

William Hudnall, Assistant Deputy

Administrator, Office of Policy, Program

Development, and Evaluation, at (202)

205–0495; FAX (202) 401–1760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Agency’s final rule on health claims on

meat and poultry products would have

authorized health claims related to the

characterization of the relationship of a

substance to a disease or health-related

condition on product labeling. FSIS’

proposed rule paralleled FDA’s original

final rule on health claims that was

issued on January 6, 1993 (58 FR 2478).

However, three subsequent rulemakings

by FDA on additional health claims for

substances such as oat bran and

psyllium have made FSIS’ proposed

rule and its pending final rule obsolete.

Under provisions of recent legislation

establishing new procedures for health

claims, FDA is expected to continue

authorizing health claims for additional

substances on an incremental basis.

With this notice, FSIS is officially

withdrawing its proposed rule (Docket

No. 93–002P) of May 25, 1994, and will

later publish a new proposed rule to

authorize health claims for meat and

poultry products that is parallel to the

extent possible with FDA’s. FSIS also is

prepared to consider future rulemaking

on health claims for additional

substances when it becomes necessary

to do so.

If needed, FSIS will publish another

notice addressing any comments

received on this notice.

Done at Washington, DC, on April 15,

1998.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–10601 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–50–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–100, –200, –300, –400, and

–500 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 all

Boeing Model 737–100, –200, –300,

–400, and –500 series airplanes. This

proposal would require installation of

components for the suppression of

electrical transients, and/or installation

of components to provide shielding and

separation to the fuel system wiring that

is routed to the fuel tanks from adjacent

wiring. The proposal also would require

installation of flame arrestors and

pressure relief valves in the fuel vent

system. This proposal is prompted by

testing results, obtained in support of an

accident investigation, and by reexamination of possible causes of a

similar accident. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

prevent possible ignition of fuel vapors

in the fuel tanks, and external ignition

of the fuel vapor exiting the fuel vent

system and consequent propagation of a

flame front into the fuel tanks.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

50–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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Hartonas, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, telephone (425) 227–2864; or Dorr

Anderson, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S,

telephone (425) 227–2684; FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; fax (425) 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19853

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 98–NM–50–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–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

98–NM–50–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On July 17, 1996, a Boeing Model 747

series airplane was involved in an

accident shortly after takeoff from John

F. Kennedy International Airport in

Jamaica, New York. In support of the

subsequent accident investigation, the

FAA participated in testing of the fuel

quantity indication system (FQIS).

Results of that testing revealed that

higher than expected energy levels

could be induced by high transient

voltage levels in the electrical wiring

and probes of the fuel system. These

energy levels occurred when the wiring

of the FQIS was subjected to

electromagnetic interference (EMI)

testing. EMI or electrical transients may

be generated in the airplane when

switching electrical loads in the wiring

adjacent to the FQIS wiring.

As part of this testing, conductive

debris, such as steel wool and lockwire,

was used to bridge the FQIS probes to

simulate debris that has been found in

fuel tanks during inspections of

transport category airplanes. Results of

the tests indicated that higher than

expected transient voltage levels in the

FQIS wiring and probes could be

induced, and the resulting energy levels

in the FQIS wiring and probes could be

greater than the energy required to

ignite fuel vapor inside a fuel tank.

In addition, recent inspections of the

fuel probe wiring in Model 747 fuel

tanks revealed damaged wiring

insulation, which exposed the

conductors inside the fuel tanks. This

condition, together with the

introduction of induced transients or

short circuit conditions, may result in

potential ignition sources in a fuel tank.

Although the testing and inspections

evaluated FQIS wiring, the same

conditions can be generated with other

wiring that is routed to the fuel tanks.

The conditions described above, if not

corrected, could result in excessive

levels of energy in fuel system wiring

that is routed to the fuel tanks and a

potential source of ignition in the fuel

tanks.

The fuel system wire installation on

Model 737–100, –200, –300, –400, and

–500 series airplanes is similar to that

on the Model 747 series airplane

involved in the 1996 accident.

Therefore, those Model 737–100, –200,

–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes

may be subject to the same unsafe

condition revealed on the Model 747–

100, –200, and –300 series airplanes.

The accident investigation has

included a review of previous fuel tank

explosions, including a Model 737–300

series airplane accident on May 11,

1990, in the Philippines. One possible

scenario which may have caused the

1990 accident is an external ignition of

the fuel vapor exiting the fuel vent

system and consequent propagation of a

flame front into the wingtip vent scoop

and through the vent system into the

center tank. The Model 737–300 vent

system does not include flame arrestors

and pressure relief valves and would

allow a flame front to travel unimpeded

into the vent system through the

wingtip vent scoop. The conditions

described above, if not corrected, could

result in a potential source of ignition in

a fuel tank.

The fuel vent system on Model 737–

100, –200, –400, and –500 series

airplanes is identical to that on the

Model 737–300 series airplane.

Therefore, those Model 737–100, –200,

–400, and –500 series airplanes may be

subject to the same unsafe condition

revealed on the Model 737–300 series

airplanes.

FAA’s Conclusions

While none of the above conditions

have been identified at this time as the

cause of the accidents discussed

previously, the FAA concludes that

results of the tests and inspections that

have been performed indicate that

modifications are required to limit the

energy level induced in the fuel system

wiring and FQIS probes. Furthermore,

the FAA has determined that

installation of components for the

suppression of electrical transients, and/

or installation of components to provide

shielding and separation to the fuel

system wiring that is routed to the fuel

tanks from adjacent wiring is necessary

to provide protection from wire-to-wire

electrical short circuit conditions. Such

conditions are a potential source of

ignition in the fuel tanks. In addition,

the FAA has determined that

installation of flame arrestors and

pressure relief valves in the fuel vent

system is necessary to prevent a flame

front from propagating through the fuel

vent system and igniting vapors present

in the fuel tanks.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require installation of components for

the suppression of electrical transients,

and/or installation of components to

provide shielding and separation of the

fuel system wiring that is routed to the

fuel tanks from adjacent wiring. The

proposed AD also would require

installation of flame arrestors and

pressure relief valves in the fuel vent

system. The actions would be required

to be accomplished in accordance with

a method approved by the FAA.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 2,781

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

1,140 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

Since the manufacturer has not yet

developed a modification

commensurate with the requirements of

this proposal, the FAA is unable at this

time to provide specific information as

to the number of work hours or the cost

of parts that would be required to

accomplish the proposed modifications.

A further problem in developing a

specific cost estimate is the fact that

proposed modification costs are

expected to vary from operator to

operator and from airplane to airplane

depending upon airplane configuration.

The proposed compliance time of 12

months should provide ample time for

the development, approval, and

installation of an appropriate

modification.

However, based on similar

modifications accomplished previously

on other airplane models, the FAA can

reasonably estimate that the proposed
19854 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

modification to the fuel system wiring

would require 40 work hours to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. The cost of required

parts is estimated to be $10,000 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of this proposed modification on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$14,136,000, or $12,400 per airplane.

In addition, based on similar

modifications accomplished previously

on other airplane models, the FAA can

reasonably estimate that the proposed

modification to the fuel vent system

would require 48 work hours to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. The cost of required

parts is estimated to be $20,400 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of this proposed modification on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$26,539,200, or $23,280 per airplane.

As indicated earlier in this preamble,

the FAA specifically invites the

submission of comments and other data

regarding the economic aspect of this

proposal.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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.

Regulatory Impact

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), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Boeing: Docket 98–NM–50–AD.

Applicability: All Model 737–100, –200,

–300, –400, and –500 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 (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 possible ignition of fuel vapors

in the fuel tanks, and/or external ignition of

the fuel vapor exiting the fuel vent system

and subsequent propagation of a flame front

into the fuel tanks, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 12 months after the effective

date of this AD, install components for the

suppression of electrical transients, and/or

install components to provide shielding and

separation to the fuel system wiring that is

routed to the fuel tanks from adjacent wiring,

in accordance with a method approved by

the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate.

(b) Within 12 months after the effective

date of this AD, install flame arrestors and

pressure relief valves in the fuel vent system,

in accordance with a method approved by

the Manager, Seattle ACO.

(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

ACO. 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.

(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 April 14,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10590 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–147–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Industrie

Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Model

Piaggio P–180 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

that would have applied to certain

Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche

(I.A.M.) Model Piaggio P–180 airplanes.

The NPRM, if followed with a final rule,

would have required installing a shield

on the front section of the engine

cradles. Airworthiness Directive (AD)

96–09–09 currently requires the same

action as is proposed in this NPRM. The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

inadvertently prepared and issued this

NPRM. With this in mind, the FAA has

determined that the proposed rule

should be withdrawn. This withdrawal

does not prevent the FAA from taking

future rulemaking on this subject.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

David O. Keenan, Project Officer, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, 1201 Walnut, suite

900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;

telephone: (816) 426–6934; facsimile:

(816) 426–2169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to This Action

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to certain I.A.M. Model Piaggio P–