Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25787

propeller spinner does not have to be

removed.

(4) If it cannot be determined who repaired

the crankshaft, compliance with this AD is

required.

(b) Within 10 hours time in service after

the effective date of this AD, accomplish the

following:

(1) Perform a visual inspection as defined

in paragraph (b)(2) of this AD, magnetic

particle inspection, and a dimensional check

of the crankshaft journals, or remove from

service affected crankshafts and replace with

serviceable parts.

(2) For the purpose of this AD, a visual

inspection of the crankshaft is defined as the

inspection of all surfaces of the crankshaft for

cracks which include heat check cracking of

the nitrided bearing surfaces, cracking in the

main or aft fillet of the main bearing journal

and crankpin journal, including checking the

bearing surfaces for scoring, galling,

corrosion, or pitting.

Note 3: Further guidance on all inspection

and acceptance criteria is contained in

applicable TCM or LYC Overhaul or

Maintenance Manuals, or other FAAapproved data.

(3) Replace any crankshaft that fails the

visual inspection, magnetic particle

inspection, or the dimensional check with a

serviceable crankshaft, unless the crankshaft

can be reworked to bring it in compliance

with:

(i) All the overhaul requirements of the

appropriate TCM or LYC Overhaul/

Maintenance Manuals; or

(ii) All of the FAA-approved requirements

for any repair station which currently has

approval for limits other than those in the

appropriate TCM or LYC Overhaul/

Maintenance Manuals.

(4) For the purpose of this AD, a

serviceable crankshaft is one which meets the

requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i) or

(b)(3)(ii) of this AD.

Note 4: Crankshafts removed from TCM

engine models IO–360, IO–520, and TSIO–

520 series engines are also subject to

compliance with AD 97–26–17.

(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, New York

(LYC) or Atlanta (TCM) Aircraft Certification

Offices. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

New York or Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Offices.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Atlanta

Aircraft Certification or New York Aircraft

Certification Office, as applicable.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

May 1, 1998.

Thomas A. Boudreau,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12353 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–128–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Stemme

GmbH & Co. KG Model S10-V

Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to certain

Stemme GmbH & Co. KG (Stemme)

Model S10-V sailplanes. The proposed

action would require replacing the

propeller blade suspension forks with

parts of improved design. The proposed

AD is the result of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI) issued by the airworthiness

authority for Germany. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent propeller

suspension fork failure caused by design

deficiency, which, if not corrected,

could result in loss of a propeller blade

and loss of sailplane controllability.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 15, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97-CE–128-

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Stemme GmbH & Co. KG, Gustav-MeyerAllee 25, D–13355 Berlin, Federal

Republic of Germany. This information

also may be examined at the Rules

Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, Small

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, FAA, 1201

Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone: (816) 426-6934;

facsimile: (816) 426–2169.

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 should identify the

Rules Docket number and be submitted

in triplicate to the address 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 that

summarizes 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 No. 97–CE–128–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, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 97–CE–128–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

Germany, recently notified the FAA that

an unsafe condition may exist on certain

Stemme S10-V sailplanes. The LBA

reports one incident of a failure of the

propeller blade suspension fork during

flight, which caused loss of sailplane

controllability. Investigation of this

incident revealed that the thread end

groove area of the propeller blade

suspension fork does not have an

adequate design. This inadequate design

causes fatigue of the propeller blade

suspension fork to the point of failure.

This condition, if not corrected, could

result in loss of the propeller blade
25788 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

during flight and possible loss of

sailplane controllability.

Relevant Service Information

Stemme has issued Service Bulletin

No. A31–10–020, Am-index: 02.a, dated

October 7, 1996, which specifies

procedures for replacing the propeller

blade suspension fork, part number (P/

N) 10AP–V08, distance ring, P/N 10AP–

V05, and nut, P/N 10AP–V06, with a

new propeller blade suspension fork of

improved design, P/N A09–10AP–V08,

a new distance ring of improved design,

P/N A09–10AP–05, and a new nut of

improved design, P/N A09–10AP–V06.

The LBA classified this service

bulletin as mandatory and issued

German AD 95–177/2, dated January 30,

1997, in order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these sailplanes in

Germany.

The FAA’s Determination

This sailplane model is manufactured

in Germany and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29)

and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the LBA has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above.

The FAA has examined the findings

of the LBA, reviewed all available

information, including the service

information referenced above, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Stemme Model S10-V

sailplanes of the same type design

registered in the United States, the

proposed AD would require replacing

the propeller blade suspension fork,

distance ring, and nut with parts of

improved design. Accomplishment of

the proposed installation would be in

accordance with Stemme GmbH & Co.

KG Service Bulletin No. A31–10–020,

Am-index: 02.a, dated October 7, 1996.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 7 sailplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take 6

hours per sailplane to accomplish the

proposed action, and that the average

labor rate is approximately $60 an hour.

Parts cost approximately $930 per

sailplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the proposed AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $9,030.

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 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) 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 has been placed 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 a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Stemme GmbH & Co. KG: Docket No. 97–CE–

128–AD.

Applicability: Model S10–V sailplanes

(serial numbers (S/N) 14–002 through 14–

026, and converted sailplanes S/N 4–003M

through 14–036M), certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplane

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

sailplanes 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 upon the

accumulation of 100 hours total time-inservice (TIS) on the sailplane propeller or

within the next 10 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, unless already accomplished.

To prevent propeller suspension fork

failure caused by design deficiency, which, if

not corrected, could result in loss of a

propeller blade and loss of sailplane

controllability, accomplish the following:

(a) Replace the propeller blade suspension

fork, part number (P/N) 10AP–V08 (or an

FAA-approved equivalent P/N), with new P/

N A09–10AP–V08 (or an FAA-approved

equivalent P/N), distance ring, P/N 10AP–

V05 (or an FAA-approved equivalent P/N),

with new P/N A09–10AP–V05 (or an FAAapproved equivalent P/N), and nut, P/N

10AP–V06 (or an FAA-approved equivalent

P/N), with new P/N A09–10AP–V06 (or an

FAA-approved equivalent part number) in

accordance with Stemme GmbH & Co. KG

Service Bulletin No. A31–10–020, Am-index:

02.a, dated October 7, 1996.

(b) 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 sailplane

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance times that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The request

shall be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Small Airplane

Directorate.

(d) Questions or technical information

related to pages 3 and 4 of Stemme GmbH &

Co. KG Service Bulletin, Modification v.p.

propeller/failure blade suspension, No. A31–

10–020, Am-index: 02.a, dated October 7,

1996, should be directed to Stemme GmbH

& Co. KG, Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, D–13355

Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany. This

service information may be examined at the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in German AD 95–177/2, dated January 30,

1997.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25789

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 4,

1998.

Marvin R. Nuss,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12383 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. 98N–0294]

Beverages: Bottled Water; Companion

Document to Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is proposing to

amend its regulations to lift the stay of

the effective date for the allowable

levels in the bottled water quality

standard for nine chemical

contaminants, i.e., antimony, beryllium,

cyanide, nickel, thallium, diquat,

endothall, glyphosate, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD

(dioxin), that was imposed in a final

rule published on March 26, 1996. By

lifting the stay of the effective date,

bottled water manufacturers will be

required to monitor source waters and

finished bottled water products at least

once a year for these nine chemical

contaminants under the current good

manufacturing practice (CGMP)

regulations for bottled water. FDA is

required to issue monitoring

requirements for the nine chemical

contaminants under the Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments of 1996 (SDWA

Amendments). This proposed rule is a

companion to the direct final rule

published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register.

DATES: Submit written comments by

July 27, 1998. See section VIII. of this

document for the proposed effective

date of a final rule based on this

document.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

on the companion proposed rule to the

Dockets Management Branch (HFA–

305), Food and Drug Administration,

12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1–23,

Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Henry Kim, Center for Food Safety and

Applied Nutrition (HFS–306), Food and

Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20204, 202–260–0631.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

This proposed rule is a companion to

the direct final rule published in the

final rules section of this issue of the

Federal Register. The companion

proposed rule and the direct final rule

are substantively identical. This

companion proposed rule will provide

the procedural framework to finalize the

rule in the event the direct final rule

receives significant adverse comment

and is withdrawn. The comment period

for the companion proposed rule runs

concurrently with the comment period

of the direct final rule. Any comments

received under the companion proposed

rule will be treated as comments

regarding the direct final rule. FDA is

publishing the direct final rule because

the agency anticipates that it will

receive no significant adverse comment.

A detailed discussion of this rule is set

forth in section II of the direct final rule.

If no significant adverse comment is

received in response to the direct final

rule, no further action will be taken

related to this proposed rule. Instead,

FDA will publish a confirmation notice

no later than August 6, 1998. FDA

intends the direct final rule to become

effective 180 days after publication of

the confirmation notice. If FDA receives

significant adverse comment, the agency

will withdraw the direct final rule. FDA

will proceed to respond to all of the

comments received regarding the rule,

and, if appropriate, the rule will be

finalized under this companion

proposed rule using notice-andcomment procedure. The comment

period for this companion proposed rule

runs concurrently with the comment

period for the direct final rule. Any

comments received under this

companion proposed rule will also be

considered as comments regarding the

direct final rule.

Before the enactment of the SDWA

Amendments on August 6, 1996, section

410 of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 349)

required that, whenever the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

prescribed interim or revised National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations

(NPDWR’s) under section 1412 of the

Public Health Service Act SDWA (42

U.S.C. 300f through 300j–9)), FDA

consult with EPA and either amend its

regulations for bottled drinking water in

§ 165.110 (21 CFR 165.110) or publish

in the Federal Register its reasons for

not making such amendments.

In accordance with section 410 of the

act, FDA published in the Federal

Register of March 26, 1996 (61 FR

13258), a final rule (hereinafter ‘‘the

March 1996 final rule’’) that amended

the quality standard for bottled water by

establishing or revising the allowable

levels for 5 inorganic chemicals (IOC’s)

and 17 synthetic organic chemicals

(SOC’s), including 3 synthetic volatile

organic chemicals (VOC’s), 9 pesticide

chemicals, and 5 nonpesticide

chemicals. This action was in response

to EPA’s issuance of NPDWR’s

consisting of maximum contaminant

levels (MCL’s) for the same 5 IOC’s and

17 SOC’s in public drinking water (57

FR 31776; July 17, 1992).

However, in the March 1996 final

rule, FDA stayed the effective date for

the allowable levels for the five IOC’s

(antimony, beryllium, cyanide, nickel,

and thallium) and four of the SOC’s

(diquat, endothall, glyphosate, and

dioxin). This action was in response to

bottled water industry comments

(responding to the August 4, 1993

proposal (58 FR 41612)) which asserted

that additional monitoring for these

nine chemicals required under the

bottled water CGMP regulations would

pose an undue economic burden on

bottlers. If the agency had not stayed the

effective date for the allowable levels,

the bottled water CGMP regulations

under 21 CFR part 129 (part 129) would

have been in effect for these nine

chemical contaminants. The bottle

water CGMP regulations require a

minimum yearly monitoring of source

water and finished bottled water

products for chemical contaminants for

which allowable levels have been

established in the bottled water quality

standard. The comments requested that

FDA adopt reduced frequency

monitoring requirements for chemical

contaminants that are not likely to be

present in the source water for bottling

or in the finished bottled water

products. The comments submitted data

that supported the request that FDA

reconsider the current monitoring

frequency requirements for chemical

contaminants in the bottled water

CGMP regulations.

Based on the information submitted

by the comments, FDA stated in the

March 1996 final rule (61 FR 13258 at

13261) that the matter of reduced

frequency of monitoring (less frequently

than once per year) requirements for

chemical contaminants that are not

likely to be found in bottled water

merited consideration by the agency.

FDA also stated, however, that any

revision of the monitoring requirements

for chemical contaminants in bottled

water would require an amendment of

the bottled water CGMP regulations in

part 129. FDA stated that it intended to

initiate, considering its resources and

competing priorities, a separate

rulemaking to address the issue of