Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17489

not to exceed 350 CIS, or 750 hours TIS since

the last inspection, whichever occurs earlier.

(4) If side links are found cracked, replace

the cracked side links and pylon attachment

bolts with serviceable parts, and inspect the

fail-safe bolt and platform lug in accordance

with paragraph 2.B of GEAE CF6–50 SB No.

72–1092, dated November 18, 1994, prior to

further flight.

(b) Refurbish the left-hand and right-hand

side links identified in paragraph (a) of this

AD at the next engine shop visit after the

effective date of this AD in accordance with

paragraph 2.C of GEAE CF6–50 SB No. 72–

1092, dated November 18, 1994.

Refurbishment of side links in accordance

with this paragraph constitutes terminating

action to the on-wing inspection

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

(c) For the purpose of this AD, an engine

shop visit is defined as the induction of an

engine into a shop for maintenance involving

the separation of the fan and core modules.

(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, Engine

Certification Office. The request should be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Engine Certification Office.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternate methods of compliance

with this airworthiness directive, if any, may

be obtained from the Engine Certification

Office.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

March 22, 1995.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–8444 Filed 4–3–95; 1:31 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–20–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and Model DC–9–

80 Series Airplanes; Model MD–88

Airplanes; and C–9 (Military) Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9 and

Model DC–9–80 series airplanes; Model

MD–88 airplanes; and C–9 (military)

series airplanes; that currently requires

visual and eddy current inspections to

detect cracking of the rudder pedals

adjuster hub assembly, and replacement

of the assembly, if necessary. That AD

was prompted by several occurrences of

failure of the rudder pedals adjuster hub

assembly due to broken detent lugs.

This action would expand the

applicability of the existing AD to

include additional airplanes. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent loss of rudder

pedals control and reduction of braking

capability.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 15, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

20–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.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, P.O.

Box 1771, Long Beach, California

90801–1771, Attention: Business Unit

Manager, Technical Administrative

Support, Dept. LS1, M.C. 2–98. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Augusto Coo, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5225; fax (310) 627–5210.

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

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 95–NM–20–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

95–NM–20–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On December 9, 1992, the FAA issued

AD 92–27–07, amendment 39–8441 (57

FR 60116, December 18, 1992),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and Model DC–9–

80 series airplanes; Model MD–88

airplanes; and C–9 (military) series

airplanes. That AD requires visual and

eddy current inspections to detect

cracking of the rudder pedals adjuster

hub assembly, and replacement of the

assembly, if necessary. That action was

prompted by several occurrences of

failure of the rudder pedals adjuster hub

assembly due to broken detent lugs. The

actions required by that AD are

intended to prevent loss of rudder

pedals control and reduction of braking

capability.

Since the issuance of AD 92–27–07,

the manufacturer has advised the FAA

that several additional airplanes have

been identified that are subject to the

same type of cracking of the rudder

pedals adjust hub assembly as

addressed by that AD. These airplanes

were inadvertently omitted from the

effectivity listing of McDonnell Douglas

DC–9 Alert Service Bulletin A27–235,

Revision 1, dated February 3, 1992. AD

92–27–07 referenced that specific listing

of airplanes as those subject to the

requirements of that AD. In light of this,

the FAA has determined that those

additional airplanes are subject to the

same unsafe condition addressed by AD

92–27–07.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell DC–9 Alert Service Bulletin

A27–325, Revision 2, dated January 27,

1994. This revised service bulletin is

essentially identical to the original

version, which was cited in AD 92–27–

07 as the appropriate source of service
17490 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules

information, but revises the effectivity

listing to include additional airplanes.

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

supersede AD 92–27–07 to continue to

require visual and eddy current

inspections to detect cracking of the

rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly

and replacement of the assembly, if

necessary. This proposal also would

expand the applicability of the existing

AD to include additional airplanes. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this long-standing requirement.

There are approximately 909 Model

DC–9 and Model DC–9–80 series

airplanes; Model MD–88 airplanes; and

C–9 (military) series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 561 airplanes of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 3 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $180 per airplane.

The actions specified in this proposed

rule previously were required by AD

92–27–07, which was applicable to

approximately 373 airplanes. Based on

the figures discussed above, the total

cost impact of the current requirements

of that AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $67,140. In

consideration of the compliance time

and effective date of AD 92–27–07, the

FAA assumes that operators of the 373

airplanes subject to that AD have

already initiated the required actions.

The proposed AD action would add no

new costs associated with those

airplanes.

This proposed action would be

applicable to approximately 188

additional airplanes. Based on the

figures discussed above, the total new

costs to U.S. operators that would be

imposed by this AD are estimated to be

$33,840. This figure is based on

assumptions that no operator of these

additional airplanes 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.

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. 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 39–8441 (57 FR

60116, December 18, 1992), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95–NM–07–AD.

Supersedes AD 92–27–07, Amendment

39–8441.

Applicability: Model DC–9–10, –20, –30,

–40, and –50 series airplanes; Model DC 9–

81 (MD–81), –82 (MD–82), –83 (MD–83), and

–87 (MD–87) series airplanes; Model MD–88

airplanes; and Model C–9 (military) series

airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas

DC–9 Alert Service Bulletin A27–325,

Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995;

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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (c) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent loss of rudder pedals control

and reduction of braking capability,

accomplish the following:

(a) For airplanes listed in McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin, Revision 1, dated

February 3, 1993: Prior to the accumulation

of 15,000 landings or within 270 days after

January 22, 1993 (the effective date of AD 92–

27–07, amendment 39–8441), whichever

occurs later, conduct a visual and eddy

current inspection to detect cracks of the

rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, part

number 4616066, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Alert Service

Bulletin A27–325, Revision 1, dated February

3, 1992, or Revision 2, dated January 27,

1995.

(1) If no cracks are detected as a result of

the inspections required by this paragraph,

repeat the inspections at intervals not to

exceed 3,500 landings.

(2) If cracks are detected as a result of the

inspections required by this paragraph, prior

to further flight, replace the rudder pedals

adjuster hub assembly, part number 4616066,

with a new assembly having the same part

number, in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Alert Service Bulletin A27–

325, Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995.

Thereafter, conduct visual and eddy current

inspections of the replacement rudder pedals

adjuster hub assembly in accordance with

this paragraph.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17491

1The two Rules both cover A-type incandescent

lamps and require on their labels disclosure of

certain performance ratings and other information.

Specifically, both rules require disclosures of light

output, wattage and laboratory life ratings. The

Appliance Labeling Rule specifies that these

disclosures must appear together, in that order and

worded in a certain way (i.e., as ‘‘Light Output:

llll Lumens; Energy Used: llll Watts;

Life: llll Hours’’) on the label’s principal

display panel. The Light Bulb Rule, however, does

not specify any order or wording for its required

rating disclosures, but simply specifies that the

three ratings be disclosed in terms of lumens, watts

and hours and appear together on at least two side

panels of the label and, additionally, on any other

panel on which a lumen, wattage or hours of life

claim is made.

The Appliance Labeling Rule requires the

lumens, watts and hours disclosures to appear with

equal conspicuousness, but does not specify any

particular type style or size. The Light Bulb Rule

specifies that the lumens and hours disclosures

must both be in a medium- or bold-face type that

is at least two-fifths the height of the watts

disclosure on the same panel or three-sixteenths of

an inch, whichever is larger.

The Appliance Labeling Rule requires that energy

saving or operating cost claims take into

consideration, and clearly and conspicuously

disclose in close proximity to the claims, all the

assumptions upon which the claims are based,

including, e.g., purchase price, unit cost of

electricity, hours of use, patterns of use. The Light

Bulb Rule, because it covers not only energy saving

and operating cost claims, but also all comparative

lamp life, light output and lamp cost claims,

specifies additional factors (e.g., labor costs for

replacement, light output, life expectancy) that,

depending on the particular claim being made,

must be taken into consideration and clearly and

conspicuously disclosed.

2 35 FR 11784 (July 23, 1970).

(b) For airplanes listed in McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin Revision 2, dated

January 27, 1995, and not subject to

paragraph (a) of this AD: Prior to the

accumulation of 15,000 landings or within

270 days after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later, conduct a visual and

eddy current inspection to detect cracks of

the rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, part

number 4616066, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Alert Service

Bulletin A27–325, Revision 1, dated February

3, 1992, or Revision 2, dated January 27,

1995.

(1) If no cracks are detected as a result of

the inspections required by this paragraph,

repeat the inspections at intervals not to

exceed 3,500 landings.

(2) If cracks are detected as a result of the

inspections required by this paragraph, prior

to further flight, replace the rudder pedals

adjuster hub assembly, part number 4616066,

with a new assembly having the same part

number, in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Alert Service Bulletin A27–

325, Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995.

Thereafter, conduct visual and eddy current

inspections of the replacement rudder pedals

adjuster hub assembly in accordance with

this paragraph.

(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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(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 airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March

31, 1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–8448 Filed 4–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 409

Request for Comments Concerning

Rule Concerning Incandescent Lamp

(Light Bulb) Industry

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’), as

part of a systematic review of all its

current regulations and guides, is

requesting public comments about the

overall costs and benefits, as well as the

overall regulatory and economic impact,

of the Rule Concerning Incandescent

Lamp (Light Bulb) Industry (‘‘the Light

Bulb Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’). All

interested persons are hereby given

notice of the opportunity to submit

written data, views and arguments

concerning this review of the Rule.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until June 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H–159, Sixth and

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20580. Comments about the Light

Bulb Rule should be identified as ‘‘16

CFR Part 409—Comment.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terrence J. Boyle or Kent C. Howerton,

Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission,

Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3016

or (202) 326–3013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission has determined, as part of

its oversight responsibilities, to review

periodically all its rules and guides. The

information obtained in such reviews

assists the Commission in identifying

rules and guides that warrant

modification or rescission. The

Commission decided to schedule its

regulatory review of the Light Bulb Rule

for 1995 when, pursuant to a directive

of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the

Commission in April 1994 amended the

Appliance Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part

305, to add incandescent and

fluorescent lamps as covered products.

Although there are no contradictions

between the two rules, the Commission

scheduled review of the Light Bulb Rule

for this year so it could consider

whether to retain, revise or delete any

of its provisions that might overlap the

amended Appliance Labeling Rule.1

A. Background

The Rule was promulgated by the

Commission in 1970.2 The Light Bulb

Rule makes it an unfair method of

competition and an unfair and

deceptive act or practice, in connection

with the sale in commerce of general

service incandescent electric lamps

(light bulbs) to:

(1) Fail to disclose clearly and

conspicuously on the containers of such

lamps (or, if there are no containers, on

the bulbs themselves) their average

initial wattage, average initial lumens

and average laboratory life;

(2) Fail to disclose clearly and

conspicuously on the bulbs themselves

their average initial wattage and design

voltage;

(3) Represent or imply energy savings

resulting from a lamp’s life expectancy

or light output unless in computing

such savings the following factors are

taken into account and disclosed clearly

and conspicuously for the lamp being

sold and also (unless the comparison is

only of initial purchase price between

lamps of identical wattage, lumens and

laboratory life) the lamp with which the

comparison is being made: lamp cost,

electrical power cost, labor cost for lamp

replacement (if any), actual light output

in average initial lumens, and average

laboratory life in hours;

(4) Represent or imply that a lamp

will give more light, maintain brightness

longer or furnish longer life without

clearly and conspicuously disclosing,

for both the lamp being sold and the

lamp with which the comparison is

being made the average initial wattage,

the laboratory life in hours, the average

initial light output in lumens, and (if

there is a claim the lamp maintains

brightness longer) the light output in

lumens at 70% of the lamp’s rated life.

Four notes at the end of the Rule

define terms used in the Rule or require

certain procedures or tests to be used in

making disclosures required by the

Rule. Specifically, these notes: (1) State

how manufacturers are to determine the