2876 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. For this

action, the Office of Management and

Budget has waived its review process

required by Executive Order 12866.

The number of requests for overtime

services of a VS employee at the

location affected by our rule represents

an insignificant portion of the total

number of requests for these services in

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 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12778

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is intended to

have preemptive effect with respect to

any State or local laws, regulations, or

policies that conflict with its provisions

or that would otherwise impede its full

implementation. This rule is not

intended to have retroactive effect.

There are no administrative procedures

that must be exhausted prior to any

judicial challenge to the provisions of

this rule or the application of its

provisions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no new

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 97

Exports, Government employees,

Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry

products, Travel and transportation

expenses.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 97 is

amended as follows:

PART 97—OVERTIME SERVICES

RELATING TO IMPORTS AND

EXPORTS

1. The authority citation for part 97

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2260; 49 U.S.C. 1741;

7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

2. Section 97.2 is amended by adding

in the table, in alphabetical order, under

Montana, the following entry to read as

follows:

§ 97.2 Administrative instruction

prescribing commuted traveltime.

* * * * *

COMMUTED TRAVELTIME ALLOWANCES

[In hours]

Location

covered

Served

from

Metropolitan area

Within Outside

* * * * *

Montana:

* * * * *

Helena . .............. 1

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of

January 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–808 Filed 1–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

9 CFR Part 112

[Docket No. 92–098–3]

Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and

Analogous Products; Packaging and

Labeling

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; postponement of

effective date.

SUMMARY: This document postpones the

effective date, upon which the final rule

on the packaging and labeling of

veterinary biological products takes

effect, from February 21, 1995, to

August 19, 1995. Upon the effective

date, the final rule prohibits the

repackaging and relabeling, for further

sale or distribution, of final containers

of product that are imported or that are

packaged at licensed establishments in

cartons or other containers. The

extension of the effective date is

necessary in order to allow a sufficient

transition period and to ensure the

continued availability of single-dose

veterinary biologics.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the

final rule is postponed from February

21, 1995, to August 19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. David A. Espeseth, Deputy Director,

Veterinary Biologics, BBEP, APHIS,

USDA, PO Drawer 810, Riverdale, MD

20738. The telephone number for the

agency contact will change when agency

offices in Hyattsville, MD, move to

Riverdale, MD, during January 1995.

Telephone: (301) 436–8245

(Hyattsville); (301) 734–8245

(Riverdale).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

authority of the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act

(21 U.S.C. 151–159), as amended by the

Food Security Act of 1985, the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), U.S. Department of

Agriculture, published a proposed rule

on April 28, 1993 (58 FR 25786–25788,

Docket No. 92–098–1) on the packaging

and labeling of veterinary biologics.

During the 60-day comment period,

thirty-nine comments were received.

Thirty-six comments were in support of

the rule; three were not. The final rule

was published on August 24, 1994 (59

FR 43441–43445, Docket No. 92–098–2).

Unless otherwise exempted, the final

rule prohibits the repackaging and

relabeling, for further sale or

distribution, of final containers of

veterinary biologics that are imported or

that are prepared in licensed

establishments. The effective date of the

final rule that was published on August

24, 1994, was to have been 180 days

after the date of publication or February

21, 1995.

Since the publication of the final rule,

APHIS has received a large number of

(in excess of 400) letters and numerous

inquiries from congresspersons, a State

governor, distributors, consumers, and

representatives of kennel clubs and

humane societies expressing concern

that implementation of the final rule

would result in a shortage of single-dose

animal vaccines which could be sold

without restriction. This shortage, it was

claimed, would result in the failure to

vaccinate a large number of animals that

are currently vaccinated by owners.

Based on these letters and inquiries and

its own monitoring efforts, APHIS has

determined that additional time is

necessary to allow for coordination

between producers and distributors of

veterinary biologics in order to provide

distributors and consumers with fully

packaged and labeled single-dose

biological products.

Therefore, the effective date of the

final rule that was published at 59 FR

43441–43445, August 24, 1994, Docket

No. 92–098–2, is postponed until

August 19, 1995.

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151–159; 7 CFR 2.17,

2.51, and 371.2(d).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2877

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of

January 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–806 Filed 1–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–ANE–59; Amendment 39–

9113; AD 95–01–02]

Airworthiness Directives; Hartzell

Model HC–B4 Series Propellers

Installed on Mitsubishi MU–2 Series

Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

three existing airworthiness directives

(AD), applicable to Hartzell Model HC–

B4TN–5(D,G,J)L/LT10282(B,K)–5.3R

and HC–B4TN–5(D,G,J)L/

LT10282N(B,K)–5.3R propellers

installed on Mitsubishi MU–2 series

aircraft. These AD’s currently require

replacement of existing LT10282(B,K)–

5.3R propeller blades with

LT10282N(B,K)–5.3R improved ‘‘N’’

configuration propeller blades, and

repetitive inspection and rework when

required of the inner hub arm bore. This

amendment requires new repair limits,

shot peening procedures, and retirement

at 10,000 hours time in service for the

‘‘N’’ configuration blades. Additionally,

this action requires replacement of

existing propeller hubs with new

improved fatigue strength steel hubs

and requires inspection, and specified

rework as necessary, of the new steel

hubs at a repetitive interval of 3,000

hours time in service. This amendment

is prompted by a determination that the

current hub design and blade repair

limits do not adequately protect against

initiation of fatigue cracks in the

propeller hub arm bore and do not

prevent the resonant speed of the

propeller from shifting into the

permitted ground idle operating range.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent initiation of fatigue

cracks in propeller assemblies and

subsequent progression to propeller

failure, with departure of the blade, or

hub arm and blade, that may result in

loss of aircraft control.

DATES: Effective January 27, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of January 27,

1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

March 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

94–ANE–59, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Hartzell

Propeller Inc., One Propeller Place,

Piqua, OH 45356–2634; telephone (513)

778–4200, fax (513) 778–4391. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, New England Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Burlington,

MA; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tomaso DiPaolo, Aerospace Engineer,

Chicago Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 2300

East Devon Avenue, Room 232, Des

Plaines, IL 60018; telephone (708) 294–

7031, fax (708) 294–7834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Airworthiness directive (AD) 93–01–09,

Amendment 39–8463, effective April

20, 1993, applicable to Hartzell Model

HC–B4TN–5(D,G,J)L/LT10282(B,K)–

5.3R propellers installed on Mitsubishi

MU–2 series aircraft was published in

the Federal Register on March 26, 1993

(58 FR 16347). That action was

prompted by three reports of propeller

blades separating during flight. The

manufacturer’s investigation of the

failed blades revealed that fatigue cracks

could initiate at the radius end of the

blade bearing bore. That condition, if

not corrected, can result in fatigue

cracks initiating and progressing to

failure resulting in departure of the

blade and possible loss of aircraft

control.

That AD requires initial and repetitive

inspections for fatigue cracks at the

blade bearing bore. All affected

propeller blades showing evidence of

cracks or propeller blades not meeting

acceptable rework criteria are required

to be replaced with serviceable blades

prior to further flight. Additionally, as a

terminating action to the repetitive

inspections, AD 93–01–09 requires

replacement of existing LT10282(B,K)–

5.3R propeller blades with

LT10282N(B,K)–5.3R improved ‘‘N’’

configuration propeller blades at the

next overhaul, or within 15 months of

the effective date of that AD (July 31,

1994), whichever occurs first. Propeller

blades modified to the ‘‘N’’

configuration have design

improvements in the blade bearing bore

that reduce the susceptibility to

corrosion and localized stresses. The

modified blades also have additional

thickness added to the blade inboard

stations to reduce operating stresses.

The FAA determined that long term

continued operational safety would be

better assured by actual modification of

the propeller to remove the source of the

problem rather than continuing with

repetitive inspections.

On April 28, 1993, the FAA issued

priority letter AD 93–09–04, applicable

to both Hartzell Model HC–B4TN–

5(D,G,J)L/LT10282(B,K)–5.3R and

Model HC–B4TN–5(D,G,J)L/

LT10282N(B,K)–5.3R propellers

installed on Mitsubishi Model MU–2B–

60 aircraft. That AD was published in

the Federal Register on July 22, 1993

(58 FR 39139). That AD action was

prompted by two reports of propeller

hub arm assembly fatigue failures and

subsequent hub arm and blade

separation from aircraft in flight.

Preliminary data indicated that fatigue

cracks can originate in the propeller hub

arm assembly.

That AD requires initial and repetitive

removals from service of affected

propeller hub assemblies for inspection

and specified rework procedures before

returning to service. That AD was an

interim action until more data became

available on the cause of propeller hub

arm assembly failures.

On June 10, 1993, the FAA issued

priority letter AD 93–12–01, also

applicable to both Hartzell Model HC–

B4TN–5(D,G,J)L/LT10282(B,K)–5.3R

and Model HC–B4TN–5(D,G,J)L/

LT10282N(B,K)–5.3R propellers

installed on MU–2B–26A, –36A, and,

–40 aircraft. That AD was published in

the Federal Register on September 29,

1993 (58 FR 50840). That action was

prompted by a report of a hub assembly

with a crack indication in the hub arm

that was found during the inspection

and rework required by AD 93–09–04.

In addition, although not stated in AD

93–12–01, the FAA based AD 93–12–01

on flight strain survey investigations.

Airworthiness Directive 93–12–01 cites

the same safety concerns and

requirements as AD 93–09–04 and was

also an interim action until more data

became available on the cause of

propeller hub arm assembly failures.

Since the issuance of AD 93–09–04

and AD 93–12–01, the FAA determined

that fretting can cause a fatigue crack to

initiate in the propeller hub arms of the

affected propellers. The fatigue crack