Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21429

hog cholera, live cattle and breeding

material are excluded due to BSE, and

there is no sheep, lamb, or goat

production in Switzerland (USDA,

National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS), ‘‘Agricultural Statistics,’’ 1993).

Commencement of such production is

not expected due to the regulation

change. The impact of increased beef

imports resulting from the regulation

changes will likely be minimal because

the cattle industry in Switzerland is

relatively small and high cost compared

to the United States domestic market.

Cattle inventories in Switzerland were

estimated to be about 1.78 million head

in 1993, while U.S. inventories were

over 101 million head in 1993 (USDA,

Foreign Agricultural Service,

Switzerland’s Annual Livestock Report,

August 8, 1994, and USDA, NASS,

‘‘Agricultural Statistics,’’ 1993).

Due to current restrictions, the United

States does not import any uncooked

meat or meat products from

Switzerland. Total meat production in

the United States in 1992 was just under

18.587 million metric tons, while Swiss

meat production in 1992 reached

approximately 429,000 metric tons,

about 2.3 percent of the United States

total (USDA, National Agricultural

Statistics Service, ‘‘Agricultural

Statistics,’’ 1993). Therefore, even if

Switzerland exported a significant

portion of its meat production

exclusively to the United States, which

is unlikely, the effect of those exports on

United States domestic prices or

supplies would be negligible.

As with the ruminants and meat

products discussed above, the

Department does not anticipate a major

increase in exports of milk and milk

products from Switzerland into the

United States as a result of this final

rule. The importation into the United

States of all dairy products, except for

casein and other caseinates, is restricted

by quotas. Although the importation of

casein into the United States is not

regulated by quotas, world prices of

casein are competitively set. The United

States does not produce casein, but does

import more than half of the casein

produced in the world. The regulations

currently allow casein and other

caseinates to be imported into the

United States from countries where

rinderpest or FMD exists if the importer

has applied for and obtained written

permission from the Administrator of

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service. The United States did not

import any casein from Switzerland in

1993 (USDA, Economic Research

Service (ERS), ‘‘Foreign Agricultural

Trade of the United States: Calendar

Year 1993 Supplement,’’ 1993).

Declaring Switzerland free of rinderpest

and FMD, thus removing the

requirement for written permission from

the Administrator, is not expected to

have any effect on the amount of casein

imported into the United States from

Switzerland because the current

restrictions do not substantially impede

imports.

Imports of poultry and poultry

products into the United States from

Switzerland in 1992 and 1993 fell into

two categories: live poultry, and feathers

and down. Total live poultry imports

into the United States were valued at

$14.4 million and $14.5 million in 1992

and 1993, respectively. United States

live poultry imports from Switzerland

were valued at $67 thousand and $74

thousand in 1992 and 1993,

respectively, about 0.5 percent of the

total imports. Total United States

imports of feathers and down were

valued at $84 million and $60.1 million

in 1992 and 1993, respectively. United

States imports of feathers and down

from Switzerland were valued at $1.2

million and $0.41 million in 1992 and

1993, respectively, less than 1.5 percent

of the total imports (USDA, ERS,

‘‘Foreign Agricultural Trade of the

United States: Calendar Year 1993

Supplement,’’ 1993). Also, Switzerland

is dependent on imports for over 50

percent of domestic poultry

consumption. Consequently, the

changes in current regulations

concerning VVND are not expected to

result in increased exports to the United

States.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry

and poultry products, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 94 is

amended as follows:

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL

PLAGUE), VELOGENIC

VISCEROTROPIC NEWCASTLE

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER,

HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE

SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:

PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED

IMPORTATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 94

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162,

and 450; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a,

134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331, and 4332; 7 CFR

2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

§ 94.1 [Amended]

2. In § 94.1, paragraph (a)(2) is

amended by adding ‘‘Switzerland,’’

immediately after ‘‘Sweden,’’.

§ 94.6 [Amended]

3. In § 94.6, paragraph (a)(2) is

amended by removing ‘‘and Sweden’’

and adding ‘‘Sweden, and Switzerland’’

in its place.

§ 94.11 [Amended]

4. In § 94.11, paragraph (a), the first

sentence is amended by removing ‘‘and

Sweden,’’ and adding ‘‘Sweden, and

Switzerland,’’ in its place.

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of

May 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10745 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–44–AD; Amendment

39–9214; AD 74–08–09 R1]

Airworthiness Directives; Transport

Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment revises an

existing airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to all transport

category airplanes. The existing AD

currently requires installation of

placards prohibiting smoking in the

lavatory and disposal of cigarettes in the
21430 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

lavatory waste receptacles;

establishment of a procedure to

announce to airplane occupants that

smoking is prohibited in the lavatories;

installation of ashtrays at certain

locations; and repetitive inspections to

ensure that lavatory waste receptacle

doors operate correctly. That action was

prompted by fires occurring in

lavatories, which were caused by,

among other things, the improper

disposal of smoking materials in

lavatory waste receptacles. The actions

specified by the AD are intended to

prevent such fires. This amendment

provides for an alternative action

regarding the current requirement to

install specific placards at certain

locations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1995.

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:

Monica Nemecek, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2773;

fax (206) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by revising AD 74–08–09, amendment

39–1917, which is applicable to all

transport category airplanes having one

or more lavatories equipped with paper

or linen waste receptacles, was

published in the Federal Register on

November 1, 1994 (59 FR 54535). The

action proposed to provide for an

alternative action regarding the current

requirement to install specific placards

at certain locations.

Disposition of 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.

One commenter supports the

proposal.

The FAA responds to additional

comments and requests for revision of

the proposal as follows:

Request To Add Inspections of Smoke

Detectors

One commenter requests that the

proposal be revised to include an

additional requirement for a periodic

inspection and test of the lavatory

smoke detector. The commenter

suggests that such inspections be

required either every six months or at

the same time as the inspections of the

trash receptacle doors are required. This

commenter considers that such

inspections are necessary because

smoke and fire, as a result of smoking

materials deposited in lavatories,

continue to be a hazard. The commenter

points out that, in the span of time since

the AD was originally issued in 1974,

there have been numerous lavatory fires

reported on transport category airplanes;

many of these fires were not detected by

the smoke detectors, but by passengers

and crew. The commenter

acknowledges that it is not clear

whether the fire detector failed to

function in these cases of fire; however,

it is clear that the detector failed to

perform as intended. Since the National

Fire Protection Association recommends

inspection and testing of residential

smoke detectors because they are

subject to failure, the commenter

believes that a comparable test and

inspection of detectors on airplanes is

also warranted.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s suggestion to revise the

proposal. The FAA has issued

numerous AD’s, applicable to specific

aircraft models, whenever an unsafe

condition has been identified relative to

potential fires in the lavatories. In fact,

many AD’s as well as many individual

operator’s maintenance programs

already call for repetitive inspections of

the smoke detectors located in the

lavatories. Notwithstanding these

current AD’s and practices, the FAA

will continue to monitor the situation

within the transport fleet and may

consider the commenter’s comments for

possible separate rulemaking action.

Request To Revise Applicability of AD

One commenter requests that the

applicability of the proposal be revised

to include only those aircraft types

known to be affected by the existing

AD’s provisions, and to exclude all

aircraft that were type certificated after

August 6, 1974 (the effective date of AD

74–08–09), when the FAA has

confirmed that the approved type design

incorporates the provisions intended by

AD 74–08–09. As justification for this

request, the commenter points out the

following:

1. The current applicability of the AD

makes it applicable to all transport

category airplanes ever built, including

those that were type certificated after

the effective date of AD 74–08–09. It

also encompasses all aircraft certificated

under Federal Aviation Regulations

(FAR) part 25 (14 CFR part 25) whose

type design has originated during the

past 20 years. The applicability of the

AD appears to be a burdensome action

placed on the aviation industry for only

a minor FAA administrative

convenience.

2. The current ‘‘open-ended’’

applicability of the AD places the

manufacturer of airplanes type

certificated after August 6, 1974, in a

peculiar position: The FAA makes a

finding during type certification that, in

compliance with FAR 21.21(b)(2),

‘‘* * * no feature or characteristic

makes it unsafe for the category in

which certification is requested;’’ yet, at

the same time, the FAA states that a

newly type certificated/manufactured

airplane is ‘‘unsafe’’ by the terms of AD

74–08–09.

The FAA does not consider that

revising the applicability of this AD, as

requested by the commenter, is

necessary for the following reasons:

As for Item 1, above, the FAA

acknowledges that almost all of the

requirements of this AD are similar to

other requirements of newly-certified

airplanes. However, the FAA does not

consider that accomplishment of the

requirements of this AD constitutes any

additional undue burden on operators.

For the most part, operators will be

required merely to enter a one-time

sign-off in the airplane log to indicate

compliance. (The only requirement of

this AD that is not similar to any other

is the requirement that calls for

repetitive inspections of the waste

receptacle doors. As is explained later

in this preamble, service history data

indicates that the 1,000-hour repetitive

inspections are necessary and

appropriate.) To the extent that the

requirements of this AD are similar to

those of other rules, their continued

presence as part of this AD emphasizes

their importance and makes it less likely

that they will be overlooked.

Additionally, since the various

requirements of this AD were adopted

in certification and operating rules at

different times and by different

amendments to the FAR, it would make

the AD unnecessarily complex to create

exceptions for those airplanes and

operators subject to other requirements.

As for Item 2, above, the FAA does

not consider that any manufacturer

would be placed in a ‘‘peculiar

situation,’’ as described by the

commenter. During the certification

process, the manufacturer will

necessarily have to consider the

requirements of this AD prior to

certification of an airplane, and will

eliminate the unsafe condition by

complying with the AD; therefore, there

will be no feature or characteristic that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21431

makes the airplane unsafe as

certificated.

Request To Include Terminating

Actions for Requirements of AD

This commenter also requests that the

proposal be revised to provide for

‘‘terminating actions’’ for operators

whenever the required ashtrays and

placards are installed on the airplane

and when the provisions for the

recurring inspections are incorporated

into the FAA-approved inspection

program [required by FAR 91.409 (14

CFR 91.409), ‘‘Inspections’’]. The

commenter contends that, in requiring

the continuing inspection, the FAA has

‘‘gone counter to the commitment of the

Administrator,’’ who stated in the

preamble to amendments 21–3 and 39–

106, ‘‘The agency * * * will not issue

AD’s as a substitute for enforcing

maintenance rules.’’ Revising the

proposal in accordance with the

commenter’s request, the commenter

states that the FAA would ‘‘correct its

error’’ with respect to enforcement of

maintenance rules.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. First, according to

§ 39.1 of the FAR (14 CFR 39.1), the

issuance of an AD is based on the

finding that an unsafe condition exists

or is likely to develop in aircraft of a

particular type design. The

responsibilities placed on the FAA by

the Federal Aviation Act do not limit it

from making any unsafe condition—

whether resulting from maintenance,

design defect, or otherwise—the proper

subject of an AD. Therefore, regardless

of the cause or the source of an unsafe

condition, the FAA has the authority to

issue an AD when it is found that an

unsafe condition is likely to exist or

develop on other products of the same

type design.

Second, it is within the FAA’s

authority to issue AD’s to require

actions to address unsafe conditions

that are not otherwise being addressed

(or addressed adequately) by normal

maintenance procedures. This AD has

not been issued as a substitute for

enforcement of maintenance rules. On

the contrary, it establishes the

maintenance rule. Currently, there is no

other rule that imposes the 1,000-hour

inspection of the waste receptacle doors.

Based on in-service history of problems

encountered, it is especially important

that the requirement for these repetitive

inspections continue in this AD in order

to ensure that the problem addressed is

not reintroduced in the fleet.

As for providing terminating action

for the requirements of AD 74–08–09,

the FAA has not approved any action or

modification that would constitute an

appropriate ‘‘terminating action.’’

Specifically:

a. With regard to the required

installation of placards and ashtrays,

those are one-time actions, requiring no

additional ‘‘repetitive’’ installations.

Once they are installed, operators

merely need to document the

appropriate maintenance records to

indicate this.

b. With regard to the required

procedure for announcements to aircraft

occupants, this, too, would be a onetime action. Once a procedure is

established, the operator would need

only document the appropriate records

to indicate this; no further

documentation would be required.

c. With regard to the required

repetitive inspections, data currently

available to the FAA indicate that the

majority of U.S. operators of transport

category airplanes are conducting these

inspections every 1,000 hours, as

specified by the AD, and some are

conducting the inspections more

frequently. Many operators have found

discrepancies at the 1,000-hour

inspection interval. There currently is

no in-service data to substantiate that

any action or modification exists that

would preclude the need for a 1,000-

hour inspection. These repetitive

inspections are appropriate, since they

ensure that any discrepancy will be

identified and corrected in a timely

manner.

Further, the FAA does not concur

with the commenter’s request to allow

operators to incorporate the provisions

for these recurring inspections into the

FAA-approved inspection program as

‘‘terminating action’’ for the AD.

Incorporating the repetitive inspection

program into the operator’s maintenance

or inspection program would allow

escalation of inspection intervals, which

the FAA finds inappropriate without

adequate control.

Additionally, while the vast majority

of affected U.S.-registered airplanes are

operated under FAA-approved

maintenance/inspection programs, there

are some airplanes that are not so

operated, namely, certain airplanes that

are excepted from the requirements of

FAR part 125 by § 125.1. Because the

applicability of the rule includes all

transport airplanes, those ‘‘excepted’’

airplanes would still be subject to the

AD’s requirements; however, because

they are not operated under an FAAapproved maintenance/inspection

program, their operators would not be

able to comply with an AD that required

a revision to that program. Moreover, in

accordance with existing bilateral

airworthiness agreements with foreign

countries, the FAA recognizes that one

of the purposes of this AD action is to

advise foreign authorities of the

addressed unsafe condition, and to

provide them with guidance as to

appropriate methods for correcting it.

Again, while revising the FAA-approved

maintenance/inspection programs may

be effective for many U.S. carriers, other

countries do not regulate carriers in the

same way. Specifically, foreign

authorities may not have the same

regulatory system of ‘‘approved

maintenance programs’’ as in the U.S.

Since the AD is formulated to address

a worldwide system for preventing

potential fires, the FAA considers that it

would not be appropriate to change the

requirement for the inspections as the

commenter has requested.

Request To Permit Removal of Ashtrays

One commenter requests that the

proposal be revised to allow the removal

of lavatory door ashtrays, especially on

air carriers that prohibit smoking, or on

flights for which smoking is prohibited

under the appropriate portions FAR

section 252 (14 CFR 252, ‘‘Smoking

aboard aircraft’’). This commenter

points out that the existing AD requires

that ashtrays be installed, while other

parts of the FAR prohibit smoking in the

passenger cabin and lavatories for

certain flights. This commenter, a U.S.

operator, notes that it has, on occasion,

experienced delays due to missing

lavatory door ashtrays, even though

smoking is not permitted during the

flight. The commenter recommends that

lavatory door ashtrays be considered

‘‘passenger convenience items’’ and, as

such, be dispositioned under the

provision of the appropriate Minimum

Equipment List (MEL).

The FAA does not concur. The

requirement for the presence of an

ashtray on or near the lavatory door

provides a convenient disposal location

for cigarettes (or other smoking

material), and thereby ensures that there

is a place to dispose of such material in

the event that the ‘‘no smoking’’ policy

is not adhered to. Further, the

installation of an ashtray on or near the

lavatory door will ensure that

uninformed persons who find

themselves with lighted smoking

materials on the airplane will have an

obvious location to dispose of smoking

materials before entering the lavatory.

Previous experience and reports have

shown that there is a high probability

that these persons may deposit the

lighted smoking material in the lavatory

paper or linen receptacle when no safe

and convenient place to dispose it

exists; such actions can result in an inflight fire aboard the airplane.

Accordingly, while the ‘‘no smoking’’
21432 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

policy is a positive feature that may

contribute to safety, it is not meant to be

a substitute for required equipment.

Additionally, the FAA does not

concur with the commenter’s request to

consider ashtrays as ‘‘passenger

convenience items’’ that can be

dispositioned under the MEL. As

explained above, ashtrays do serve a

safety function and, therefore, must be

considered required equipment.

Request To Revise Estimated Cost of

Compliance

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise its economic impact estimate

relative to the cost of compliance with

the AD. This commenter states that

FAA’s analysis of the cost may be

reasonably representative of the

recurring inspections currently

required, but it does not consider the

cost of research and recordkeeping

involved when determining whether or

not an airplane is fitted with lavatories

or receptacles subject to the AD. The

commenter contends that research and

recordkeeping needed just to confirm

that an airplane is not subject to the AD

results in costs approximating the 1.5

work hours that the FAA indicates is the

time required to accomplish the

inspections.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. The applicability

statement of the AD clearly limits the

AD to those transport category airplanes

that have one or more lavatories

equipped with paper or linen waste

receptacles. If an operator is not certain

whether its airplane has lavatories so

equipped, it may simply review the type

design (drawings) of the airplane to

determine this. A one-time check of a

drawing to determine whether or not the

AD is applicable should not create an

undue burden on any operator.

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.

Economic Impact

Since this action only provides for an

alternative method of complying with

an existing rule, it does not add any new

additional economic burden on affected

operators. The current costs associated

with this AD are reiterated below for the

convenience of affected operators:

The costs associated with the

currently required placard installations

entail approximately 1 work hour per

airplane, at an average labor rate of $60

per work hour. The cost of required

parts is negligible. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

installation requirements of the AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $60 per

airplane.

The costs associated with the

currently required inspections entail

approximately 1.5 work hours per

airplane per inspection, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

the inspection requirements of this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be $90

per airplane per inspection.

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, 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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–1917, and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), amendment 39–9214, to read as

follows:

74–08–09 R1 Transport Category Aircraft:

Amendment 39–9214. Docket 94–NM–

44–AD. Revises AD 74–08–09,

Amendment 39–1917.

Applicability: All transport category

airplanes, certificated in any category, that

have one or more lavatories equipped with

paper or linen waste receptacles.

Note: The following is a partial list of

aircraft, some or all models of which are type

certificated in the transport category and

have lavatories equipped with paper or linen

waste receptacles:

Aerospatiale Models ATR42 and ATR72

series airplanes;

Airbus Models A300, A310, A300–600,

A320, A330, and A340 series airplanes;

Boeing Models 707, 720, 727, 737, 747,

757, and 767 series airplanes;

Boeing Model B–377 airplanes;

British Aircraft Models BAC 1–11 series,

BAe–146 series, and ATP airplanes;

CASA Model C–212 series airplanes;

Convair Models CV–580, 600, 640, 880 and

990 series airplanes;

Convair Models 240, 340, and 440 series

airplanes;

Curtiss-Wright Model CW 46;

de Havilland Models DHC–7 and DHC–8

series airplanes;

Fairchild Models F–27 and C–82 series

airplanes;

Fairchild-Hiller Model FH–227 series

airplanes;

Fokker Models F27 and F28 series

airplanes;

Grumman Model G–159 series airplanes;

Gulfstream Model 1159 series airplanes;

Hawker Siddeley Model HS–748;

Jetstream Model 4101 series airplanes;

Lockheed Models L–1011, L–188, L–1049,

and 382 series airplanes;

Martin Model M–404 airplanes;

McDonnell Douglas Models DC–3, –4, –6,

–7, –8, –9, and –10 series airplanes;

Model MD–88 airplanes; and Model MD–

11 series airplanes;

Nihon Model YS–11;

Saab Models SF340A and SAAB 340B

series airplanes;

Short Brothers and Harlin Model SC–7

series airplanes;

Short Brothers Models SD3–30 and SD3–60

series airplanes:

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent possible fires that could result

from smoking materials being dropped into

lavatory paper or linen waste receptacles,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 60 days after August 6, 1974 (the

effective date of amendment 39–1917, AD

74–08–09), or before the accumulation of any

time in service on a new production aircraft

after delivery, whichever occurs later, except

that new production aircraft may be flown in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to a base where compliance may

be accomplished, accomplish the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)

of this AD:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21433

(1) Install a placard either on each side of

each lavatory door over the door knob, or on

each side of each lavatory door, or adjacent

to each side of each lavatory door. The

placards must either contain the legible

words, ‘‘No Smoking in Lavatory’’ or ‘‘No

Smoking;’’ or contain ‘‘No Smoking’’

symbology in lieu of words; or contain both

wording and symbology; to indicate that

smoking is prohibited in the lavatory. The

placards must be of sufficient size and

contrast and be located so as to be

conspicuous to lavatory users.

(2) Install a placard on or near each

lavatory paper or linen waste disposal

receptacle door, containing the legible words

or symbology indicating ‘‘No Cigarette

Disposal.’’

(b) Within 30 days after August 6, 1974,

establish a procedure that requires that no

later than a time immediately after the ‘‘No

Smoking’’ sign is extinguished following

takeoff, an announcement be made by a

crewmember to inform all aircraft occupants

that smoking is prohibited in the aircraft

lavatories; except that, if the aircraft is not

equipped with a ‘‘No Smoking’’ sign, the

required procedure must provide that the

announcement be made prior to each takeoff.

(c) Within 180 days after August 6, 1974,

or before the accumulation of any time in

service on a new production aircraft,

whichever occurs later, except that new

production aircraft may be flown in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to a base where compliance may

be accomplished, install a self-contained,

removable ashtray on or near the entry side

of each lavatory door. One ashtray may serve

more than one lavatory door if the ashtray

can be seen readily from the cabin side of

each lavatory door served.

(d) Within 30 days after August 6, 1974,

and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000

hours time-in-service from the last

inspection; accomplish the following:

(1) Inspect all lavatory paper and linen

waste receptacle enclosure access doors and

disposal doors for proper operation, fit,

sealing, and latching for the containment of

possible trash fires.

(2) Correct all defects found during the

inspections required by paragraph (d)(1) of

this AD.

(e) Upon the request of an operator, the

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector may

adjust the 1,000 hour repetitive inspection

interval specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this

AD to permit compliance at an established

inspection period of the operator if the

request contains data to justify the requested

change in the inspection interval.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

June 1, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 26,

1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10709 Filed 5–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–ASO–2]

Amendment of Class D and E4

Airspace, and Establishment of Class

E2 Airspace; Louisville, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment modifies the

Louisville Bowman Field Class D and

E4 airspace areas at Louisville, KY. The

VOR RWY 19 Standard Instrument

Approach (SIAP) for Bowman Field has

been cancelled. Therefore, a portion of

the Class D and E4 airspace areas

currently designated north-northeast of

Bowman Field is no longer needed.

Additionally, this amendment

establishes Class E2 airspace for

Bowman Field during the hours the

tower is not in operation. The intended

effect of this action is to provide

adequate Class E airspace for instrument

approach procedures when the tower is

closed.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July

20, 1995.

Comments: Comments must be

received on or before May 25, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

95–ASO–2, Manager, System

Management Branch, ASO–530, P.O.

Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550,

1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,

Georgia 30337, telephone (404) 305–

5586.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve McDuffee, System Management

Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal

Aviation Administration, P.O. Box

20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;

telephone (404) 305–5570.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments on the Rule

On February 6, 1995, the FAA

proposed to amend part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 71) by modifying the Class D and

E4 airspace areas at Louisville, KY. (60

FR 6975). This action would reduce the

size of the Class D and E4 airspace areas

for Bowman Field. No comments

objecting to the proposal were received.

However, the proposed amendment

inadvertently failed to recognize the

airspace requirements for an airport

without a tower, or when the tower is

not in operation, and IFR service is

provided by another ATC facility.

Accordingly, the rule needs to provide

Class E2 airspace for instrument

approach procedures at Bowman Field

when the tower is closed and air traffic

control service is provided for IFR

operations at Bowman Field by

Standiford Tower. Comments are

invited specifically on the establishment

of Class E2 airspace for Bowman Field

during the hours the Bowman tower is

not in operation. This rule will become

effective on the date specified in the

DATES section. However, after the review

of any comments and, if the FAA finds

that further changes are appropriate, it

will initiate rulemaking proceedings to

extend the effective date or to amend

the regulation.

Comments that provide the factual

basis supporting the views and

suggestions presented are particularly

helpful in evaluating the effects of the

rule and in determining whether

additional rulemaking is needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, aeronautical,

economic, environmental, and energyrelated aspects of the rule that might

suggest the need to modify the rule.

The Rule

This amendment to part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 71) modifies the Class D and E4

airspace areas, and establishes Class E2

airspace at Louisville, KY, for Bowman

Field. The VOR RWY 19 SIAP has been

cancelled. Therefore, a portion of the

Class D and E4 airspace areas currently

designated north-northeast of Bowman

Field is no longer needed. Additionally,

this amendment establishes Class E2

airspace for Bowman Field during the

hours the tower is not in operation. The

intended effect of this action is to

provide adequate Class E Airspace for

instrument approach procedures when

the tower is closed. This action

improves air safety for participating and

non-participating traffic. Class D

airspace designations, Class E airspace

areas designated as a surface area for an

airport, and Class E airspace areas

designated as an extension to a Class D

surface area are published in Paragraphs

5000, 6002 and 6004 respectively of

FAA Order 7400.9B dated July 18, 1994,

and effective September 16, 1994. The

Class D and E airspace designations

listed in this document will be

published subsequently in the Order.

Under the circumstances presented,

the FAA concludes that there is an

immediate need to establish Class E2

airspace for Bowman Field when the

tower is not in operation to ensure that

participating and non-participating

traffic will be able to comply with