Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 20311

12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, 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 German AD No. 93–081, dated March 15,

1993.

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

June 7, 1998.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on April

15, 1998.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10594 Filed 4–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–127–AD; Amendment

39–10498; AD 98–09–17]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747–200F and –200C Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to all Boeing Model 747–

200F and –200C series airplanes. This

action requires repetitive inspections or

a one-time inspection to detect cracking

of certain areas of the upper deck floor

beams; and corrective actions, if

necessary. This amendment is prompted

by reports indicating that fatigue cracks

were found in the upper chord and web

of upper deck floor beams. The actions

specified in this AD are intended to

prevent such fatigue cracking and the

resultant failure of such floor beams.

Failure of the floor beam could result in

damage to critical flight control cables

and wire bundles that pass through the

floor beam, and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane; failure of

the floor beam also could result in the

failure of the adjacent fuselage frames

and skin, and consequent rapid

decompression of the airplane.

DATES: Effective May 11, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 11,

1998.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

June 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

127–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

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 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob

Breneman, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2776;

fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

has received two reports indicating that,

during modification of Boeing Model

747–200F series airplanes, fatigue

cracking was found in the upper chord

and web of the upper deck floor beams

at body stations (BS) 340, 360, 380, and

400. One of these airplanes had

accumulated approximately 19,100 total

flight cycles, and the other

approximately 18,500 total flight cycles.

In addition, cracks were found at BS 380

on a 747–200F series airplane that had

accumulated 11,586 total flight cycles.

The subject cracking was found in the

upper chord of the upper deck floor

beams, at the fastener location common

to the fuselage frame inner chord.

Cracks in this location are not detectable

by visual inspection until the crack

propagates to the horizontal flange of

the chord. Analysis has demonstrated

that, when a crack of the upper chord

reaches the horizontal flange, the crack

would propagate extremely rapidly,

allowing little time to detect the crack

prior to complete failure of the upper

chord.

The upper deck floor beams are

attached to the adjacent fuselage frames

and provide a significant contribution to

the structural integrity of the flat-sided

fuselage. These floor beams also contain

critical flight control cables and wire

bundles that originate from the flight

deck and flight engineer’s control panel.

The subject upper deck floor beams are

made from 7075-T6511 aluminum,

which is less durable and more

susceptible to fatigue cracking than

2024 aluminum, which is used on

passenger airplanes.

Unsafe Conditions

Fatigue cracking of the upper chord

and web, if not corrected could result in

failure of the upper deck floor beams

and consequent damage to critical flight

control cables and wire bundles that

pass through the floor beams. Such

damage could lead to uncommanded

input to flight controls and reduced

controllability of the airplane.

In addition, because the subject

fatigue cracking has been found at

multiple adjacent floor beam locations,

failure of one floor beam could

precipitate the failure of adjacent floor

beams. Failure of these floor beams

could cause the failure of the adjacent

fuselage frames and skin, which could

result in rapid decompression of the

airplane.

Similar Models

Boeing Model 747–200C series

airplanes have the same upper deck

floor beam configuration to that on the

affected Model 747–200F series

airplanes. Therefore, both of these

models may be subject to the same

unsafe condition.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

53A2420, dated March 26, 1998, which

describes procedures for performing

repetitive detailed visual inspections to

detect cracks of the upper chord, web,

and strap of the upper deck floor beams

at BS 340 through BS 520 inclusive; and

repair, if necessary. The alert service

bulletin also describes procedures for a

one-time open hole high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspection to detect

cracking at BS 340 through BS 420

inclusive, which would eliminate the

need for the repetitive detailed visual

inspections.

Explanation of the Requirements of the

Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design, this AD is being issued to

prevent reduced controllability of the

airplane and/or rapid decompression of

the airplane due to fatigue cracking in

the upper deck floor beams. This AD

requires accomplishment of the actions

specified in the alert service bulletin

described previously, except as

provided below.

Differences Between Rule and Alert

Service Bulletin

This AD differs from the alert service

bulletin in the following three respects:
20312 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1. The alert service bulletin specifies

that the manufacturer may be contacted

for disposition of repair conditions.

However, this AD requires the repair of

those conditions to be accomplished in

accordance with a method approved by

the FAA.

2. The alert service bulletin requires

a visual inspection of the upper deck

floor beams at BS 460 and BS 480. This

AD does not require inspection of this

area because the upper chords of these

floor beams are made from a 2024

material, which is more durable than

the other upper deck floor beams and is

less susceptible to the same type of

fatigue cracking.

3. The alert service bulletin does not

require repeat detailed visual

inspections or any open hole eddy

current inspection of the upper deck

floor beams at BS 440 through BS 520.

For this area, this AD requires that the

detailed visual inspection, if

accomplished, be repetitively

performed; and also requires that an

open hole HFEC inspection eventually

be accomplished. The floor beams at BS

440 through BS 520 (with the exception

of floor beams at BS 460 and BS 480) are

made from the same, less durable 7075–

T6511 material and are subjected to the

same operational loads as the floor

beams with reported fatigue cracking;

therefore, these beams are subject to the

same type of fatigue cracking. Operators

should note that procedures specified in

Figures 2 and 4 of the alert service

bulletin are identical.

Interim Action

This is considered to be interim

action. The manufacturer advises that it

currently is developing a preventive

modification that will positively address

the unsafe condition addressed by this

AD. Once this modification is

developed, approved, and available, the

FAA may consider additional

rulemaking.

Determination of Rule’s Effective Date

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 shall 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 Number 98–NM–127–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

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.

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, 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:

98–09–17 Boeing: Amendment 39–10498.

Docket 98–NM–127–AD.

Applicability: All Model 747–200F and

–200C 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 (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 prevent reduced controllability of the

airplane and/or rapid decompression of the

airplane due to fatigue cracking in the upper

deck floor beams, accomplish the following:

Note 2: For this AD, ‘‘flight cycles’’ are

considered to be flight cycles with a cabin

pressure differential greater than 2.0 pounds

per square inch.

(a) For airplanes that have accumulated

less than 18,000 total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Prior to the

accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or

within 250 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later,

inspect the upper chord, web, and strap of

the upper deck floor beams at body station

(BS) 340 through BS 440 inclusive, and the

upper deck floor beams at BS 500 and BS

520, on the right and left sides of the

airplane, in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD. The inspections shall be
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 20313

accomplished in accordance with Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2420, dated

March 26, 1998.

(1) Perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect cracks in accordance with Figure 2 of

the alert service bulletin.

(i) Repeat the detailed visual inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 flight

cycles, until the requirements of paragraph

(a)(1)(ii) are accomplished.

(ii) Within 500 flight cycles after

accomplishment of the initial detailed visual

inspection, accomplish paragraph (a)(2) of

this AD.

(2) Perform a one-time open hole high

frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to

detect cracks in accordance with Figure 3 of

the alert service bulletin.

Accomplishment of this action constitutes

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirements of this AD.

(b) For airplanes that have accumulated

18,000 or more total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Within 25 flight

cycles after the effective date of this AD,

inspect the upper chord, web, and strap of

the upper deck floor beams at BS 340 through

BS 440 inclusive, and the upper deck floor

beams at BS 500 and BS 520, on the right and

left sides of the airplane, in accordance with

paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD. The

inspections shall be accomplished in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–53A2420, dated March 26,

1998.

(1) Perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect cracks in accordance with Figure 2 of

the alert service bulletin.

(i) Repeat the detailed visual inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 flight

cycles, until the requirements of paragraph

(b)(1)(ii) are accomplished.

(ii) Within 250 flight cycles after

accomplishment of the initial detailed visual

inspection, accomplish paragraph (b)(2) of

this AD.

(2) Perform a one-time open hole HFEC

inspection to detect cracks in accordance

with Figure 3 of the alert service bulletin.

Accomplishment of this action constitutes

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirements of this AD.

(c) If any cracking is found during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate.

(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, 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle 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) The inspections shall be done in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–53A2420, dated March 26,

1998. 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.

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

May 11, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 20,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10919 Filed 4–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 177

[Docket No. 92F–0290]

Indirect Food Additives: Polymers

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 poly(p-oxyphenylene poxyphenylene p-carboxyphenylene)

resins as a component of food-contact

articles intended for repeated use. This

action responds to a petition filed by ICI

Americas, Inc.

DATES: This regulation is effective April

24, 1998; written objections and

requests for a hearing by May 26, 1998.

ADDRESS: Submit written objections to

the Dockets Management Branch (HFA–

305), Food and Drug Administration,

12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1–23,

Rockville, MD 20857.

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:

I. Background

In a notice published in the Federal

Register of August 27, 1992 (57 FR

38840), FDA announced that a food

additive petition (FAP 2B4333) had

been filed by ICI Americas, Inc.,

Concord Pike and Murphy Rd.,

Wilmington, DE 19897 (now Victrex

USA, Inc., 601 Willowbrook Lane, West

Chester, PA 19382). The petition

proposed to amend the food additive

regulations to provide for the safe use of

polyetheretherketone resins as articles

or components of articles intended to

contact food. Polyetheretherketone

resins are also known by the chemical

name poly(p-oxyphenylene poxyphenylene p-carboxyphenylene).

The petition stated that the subject

resins are intended only for repeated

use in contact with food.

In its evaluation of the safety of this

additive, FDA has reviewed the safety of

the additive itself and the chemical

impurities that may be present in the

additive resulting from its

manufacturing process. Although the

additive itself has not been shown to

cause cancer, it has been found to

contain minute amounts of

hydroquinone as a byproduct impurity

of its production. Hydroquinone has

been shown to cause cancer in test

animals. Residual amounts of reactants

and byproduct impurities, such as

hydroquinone, are commonly found as

contaminants in chemical products,

including food additives.

II. Determination of Safety

Under section 409(c)(3)(A) of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(the act) (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A)), the socalled ‘‘general safety clause,’’ a food

additive cannot be approved for a

particular use unless a fair evaluation of

the evidence establishes that the

additive is safe for that use. FDA’s food

additive regulations (21 CFR 170.3(i))

define safe as ‘‘a reasonable certainty in

the minds of competent scientists that

the substance is not harmful under the

intended conditions of use.’’

The food additives anticancer, or

Delaney, clause (section 409(c)(3)(A))

further of the act (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A))

further provides that no food additive

shall be deemed safe if it is found to

induce cancer when ingested by man or

animal. Importantly, however, the

Delaney clause applies to the additive

itself and not to impurities in the

additive. That is, where an additive

itself has not been shown to cause

cancer, but contains a carcinogenic

impurity, the additive is properly

evaluated under the general safety

standard using risk assessment

procedures to determine whether there

is a reasonable certainty that no harm

will result from the intended use of the

additive (Scott v. FDA, 728 F.2d. 322

(6th Cir. 1984)).