32318 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

equipped with footrest assembly

installed on aircraft of U.S. registry

would be affected by this AD, that it

would take approximately 3⁄4 work

hours per seat to accomplish the

required actions, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$30 per seat. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $225,000.

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 the 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 is

contained at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive: 4

96–12–09 PTC Seating Products Division, B/

E Aerospace:Amendment 39–9651.

Docket No. 95–ANE–25.

Applicability: PTC Seating Products

Division, B/E Aerospace (PTC) Model 950

series passenger seat equipped with footrest

assembly.

Note: This AD applies to each seat

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

seats equipped with footrest assembly 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 (b)

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 seat from the applicability

of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously. To prevent injury

to hands during operation of the PTC Model

950 series passenger seats equipped with

footrest assembly, accomplish the following:

(a) Within nine calendar months after the

effective date of this AD,

(1) Remove seat footrest assembly arms, P/

N 98440–1 or –2, in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of PTC

Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 25–1192,

Revision A, dated March 16, 1992.

(2) Install conversion kit, P/N 122966–1, in

accordance with Section 2, Accomplishment

Instructions of PTC Seating Products

Division, B/E Aerospace SB 25–1330, dated

July 27, 1994.

(b) 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, Boston

Aircraft 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, Boston Aircraft Certification Office.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Boston

Aircraft Certification Office.

(c) The removal of seat footrest assembly

arms and replacement of the conversion kit

shall be done in accordance with PTC

Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 25–1192,

Revision A, dated March 16, 1992, pages 1–

5, and PTC Seating Products Division, B/E

Aerospace SB 25–1330, dated July 27, 1994,

pages 1–12. This incorporation by reference

was approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from B/E Aerospace, PTC Seating Products

Division, 607 Bantam Road, Litchfield, CT

06759. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

New England Region, Office of the Assistant

Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capital Street,

NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

(d) This amendment becomes effective July

29, 1996.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on

June 4, 1996.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–15555 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–233–AD; Amendment

39–9680; AD 74–08–09 R2]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Transport

Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment revises an

existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all transport category

airplanes, that currently requires

installation of placards prohibiting

smoking in the lavatory and disposal of

cigarettes in the 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 AD 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 that AD are

intended to prevent such fires. This

amendment revises the existing AD to

allow dispatch relief in the event a

lavatory door ashtray is missing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Information pertaining to

this rulemaking may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman Martenson, Manager,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2113; fax (206) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by revising AD 74–08–09 R1,

amendment 39–9214 (60 FR 21429, May

2, 1995), which is applicable to all

transport category airplanes, was

published in the Federal Register on
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32319

January 19, 1996 (61 FR 1306). AD 74–

08–09 R1 currently requires:

1. installation of placards prohibiting

smoking in the lavatory and disposal of

cigarettes in the lavatory waste

receptacles;

2. establishment of a procedure to

announce to airplane occupants that

smoking is prohibited in the lavatories;

3. installation of ashtrays at certain

locations; and

4. repetitive inspections to ensure that

lavatory waste receptacle doors operate

correctly.

That AD also provides for an

alternative action regarding the

requirement to install specific placards

at certain locations.

The proposal specified the FAA’s

intent to revise AD 74–08–09 R1 by

adding a provision that would allow for

dispatch relief in the event a lavatory

door ashtray is missing from the

airplane.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

Five commenters support the

proposal.

Request To Revise Terminology of

Dispatch Relief Provision

One commenter requests that

proposed paragraph (d) be revised to

change the terminology used in the

provision for dispatch relief. The

commenter requests that the provision

specify the time for continued dispatch

in terms of ‘‘flight days,’’ rather than

merely ‘‘days.’’ The commenter states

that the definition of ‘‘flight day’’ is

recognized by the FAA in documents

such as the Master Minimum

Equipment List (MMEL), and using this

terminology in the proposed rule would

further clarify the requirements.

The FAA does not concur. Use of the

term ‘‘flight day’’ rather than ‘‘(calendar)

day’’ for compliance terms in this AD

could delay the re-installation of the

ashtray on the airplane for an unduly

long period of time. Moreover, the

MMEL for most affected transport

airplanes specifies ‘‘calendar days’’ in

its description of the ‘‘Maximum Times

Between Deferral and Repair;’’ therefore,

this term used as a compliance time is

appropriate and should be familiar to

affected operators.

The FAA’s intent is that, if the

ashtray(s) is removed, the airplane

should be allowed to continue to

operate for the minimum amount of

time that it would take, under normally

scheduled operations, to reach a main

base where the ashtray can be replaced.

The FAA has determined that the terms

of the dispatch relief provisions, as

proposed, will allow such normal

operation to occur (without schedule

interruptions) and the ashtray to be

replaced in a timely manner.

Request To Revise Number of Days of

Dispatch Relief

Several commenters request that the

dispatch relief provision of proposed

paragraph (d) be revised to account for

the various types and configurations of

transport aircraft that are affected, and

to ensure that no airplane is grounded

because of the absence of ‘‘a component

that does not affect the airworthiness of

the airplane.’’

The commenters point out that, as

proposed, the rule would allow

operation of a single-lavatory airplane

for three days with its only lavatory

door ashtray missing. This group of

airplanes could include certain Boeing

Model 737 airplanes, McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 airplanes, Fokker

Model 100 airplanes, and regional

airplanes that seat 100 or fewer

passengers. However, other similarlyconfigured models (i.e., certain Model

737’s and Model DC–9’s) that have 100

or fewer seats, but are equipped with

two lavatories, could not be dispatched

if both of the airplane’s two lavatory

door ashtrays were missing.

The commenters request that the

proposal be revised to allow single- or

dual-lavatory airplanes to continue to

operate for three days if one or both

ashtrays are missing. The commenters

assert that operating a dual-lavatory,

100-seat airplane without ashtrays for

three days is no less safe than operating

a single-lavatory 100-seat airplane that

has its only ashtray missing for three

days. The commenters maintain that the

proposed rule should not discriminate

between these two configurations.

Further, the commenters note that

airplanes equipped with multiple

lavatories (and, thus, multiple lavatory

door ashtrays) could not be dispatched

if more than one lavatory door ashtray

is missing; the commenters contend that

this feature of the proposed rule

potentially could ground wide-body

airplanes such as McDonnell Douglas

Model DC–10’s, Lockheed Model L–

1011’s, and Boeing Model 747’s, and

thereby interrupt flight schedules. These

commenters also request that the

proposal be revised to provide airplanes

with three or more lavatories additional

dispatch relief in the event that more

than one lavatory door ashtray is

missing. For these airplanes, they

suggest the following revised wording:

‘‘1. At multiple or cluster lavatories

co-located (two or more adjacent

lavatories), the airplane may be operated

for a period of 10 days if the lavatory

door ashtrays are missing, provided that

the remaining ashtray(s) can be seen

readily from the cabin side of the

lavatory door(s) with the missing door

ashtray.

2. At single lavatory locations, the

airplane may be operated for a period of

3 days if one lavatory door ashtray is

missing, provided other lavatory door

ashtrays are installed [and can be seen

readily from the cabin side of the

lavatory door(s) with the missing door

ashtray].’’

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ requests, and does not

consider that additional dispatch relief

is appropriate.

First, contrary to the commenters’

description of the lavatory door ashtray

as a component that does not affect the

airworthiness of the airplane, the FAA

has determined that the ashtrays serve

an important safety function and,

therefore, must be considered required

equipment. This AD was issued as a

result of numerous fires that occurred in

the lavatory paper and linen receptacles

on transport category airplanes, which

were caused by smoking materials

deposited by passengers or crew. Such

fires can be a significant threat to the

safety of all persons on the airplane

because of the emission of toxic smoke

and the possibility of the fire

progressing to critical components. The

FAA has determined that the

requirements of this AD are necessary in

order to ensure adequate,

comprehensive fire protection aboard

transport category airplanes. The

requirement for an ashtray on or near

the lavatory door ensures that there is a

safe, convenient, and obvious place to

dispose of smoking material (especially,

in cases where the current regulations

imposing a ‘‘no smoking policy’’ aboard

the airplane are not adhered to either by

passengers, crew, or maintenance

personnel).

Second, in developing the time

intervals for allowing continued

operation of an airplane with fewer than

the required number of lavatory door

ashtrays, the FAA considered not only

the safety implications (associated with

operating an airplane without a

component that affects the

airworthiness of the airplane), but

experiences obtained from working both

with operators and with the MMEL

system. The FAA’s reasoning behind the

dispatch relief specified in this rule is

based on several factors:

1. With respect to airplanes equipped

with a single lavatory, which are
32320 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

normally smaller transports that operate

on shorter routes, the FAA considers

that those airplanes can operate safely

in today’s environment, without a

lavatory door ashtray, for the time that

it takes to get the airplane back to a

maintenance base for reinstallation of

the ashtray. For those airplanes, the

FAA generally defines that amount of

time as three days.

2. With respect to airplanes equipped

with two or more lavatories, which are

normally larger transports that operate

on longer routes, the FAA considered

worst-case situations, for example,

where an airplane may be scheduled to

do a double or triple turn-around from

two international points. In such a

situation, it could take as long as 10

days to get the airplane back to its main

base where a missing ashtray could be

re-installed.

3. Additionally, the 10-day period of

dispatch relief for multiple-lavatory

airplanes with one ashtray missing is

the same interval as the standard

definition ‘‘Category C’’ item in the

MMEL for repair intervals (relative to

inoperative systems or components) for

almost all transport category airplanes;

Category C is the ‘‘category of choice’’

for approximately 85% to 90% of all

items in the MMEL. Therefore, the FAA

considers that this time period could be

easily managed by air carrier

maintenance programs and should not

pose a problem for operators.

Third, regarding airplanes equipped

with multiple lavatories, the FAA

considers that affected operators should

examine why more than one lavatory

door ashtray could be missing from

these airplanes. It is understandable that

occasionally, through carelessness,

damage, or deliberate pilfering, an

ashtray could be removed from an

airplane; however, this should be a

highly unusual event. Having two (or

more) lavatory door ashtrays missing

from a single airplane should be

extremely remote. If this is occurring

regularly, operators should examine

their current policy and practices

regarding ashtray maintenance.

The FAA finds no reasonable

justification for allowing dispatch relief

for periods of time longer than those as

proposed, or for allowing more than one

lavatory door ashtray to be missing on

an airplane that is equipped with more

than one lavatory. The FAA finds that

the dispatch relief provided by this final

rule not only will ensure safety, but will

impose no undue economic burden on

any operator.

Request To Allow Ashtrays To Be

Relocated

These same commenters request that

the proposal be revised to give operators

of larger airplanes the flexibility to

move remaining ashtrays to different

parts of the cabin if one ashtray is

missing.

In response to this request, the FAA

points out that paragraph (c) of the AD,

as well as part 25 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (FAR) (25 CFR 25),

already permit a configuration where

one ashtray may serve more than one

lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen

readily from the cabin side of the

lavatory door served. Further, nothing

prohibits an operator from moving or

relocating ashtrays within the cabin to

meet this requirement. Therefore, no

revision to the AD is necessary with

regard to this request.

Request To Include a Provision for

Alternative Methods of Compliance

One commenter requests that the

proposal be revised to include a

provision that would allow operators to

request the use of alternative methods of

compliance (AMOC) with the AD. The

commenter notes that most other AD’s

include such a provision, and that the

FAA’s own policy guidance stipulates

that AD’s should include an AMOC

provision. The commenter requests that

the proposal be revised to meet that

policy.

The FAA does not concur that an

AMOC provision is appropriate for this

particular AD. As the commenter

correctly points out, the FAA’s normal

policy (reference FAA Document FAAAIR-M–8040.1, ‘‘Airworthiness

Directives’’) is that an AMOC provision

‘‘should be provided for in each AD,’’

and the majority of AD’s issued do

contain such a provision. For typical

AD’s, the FAA is not aware, at the time

of AD issuance, of the range of

alternative methods that may exist for

complying with the AD; it is for this

reason that including an AMOC

provision in those AD’s is appropriate.

However, this AD is an exception: It

has existed more or less in its current

form for over 20 years and, during that

time, the FAA has not been presented

with a single acceptable alternative

method of compliance with it. All

suggestions and requests that have been

submitted to the FAA (mainly in the

form of requests for exemption from the

AD requirements) have been found to be

unacceptable in that they would provide

neither an equivalent nor an acceptable

level of safety to that provided by the

requirements of the AD itself.

In light of this, the FAA has

determined that including an AMOC

provision in this AD at this time would

not be productive.

The FAA points out that paragraph (f)

of the AD does provide operators a

means for some alternative actions. It

permits an adjustment of the time

interval for the required repetitive

inspections of the waste receptacle

enclosure doors and disposal doors, if

data are presented to the FAA to justify

such an adjustment. [However, the FAA

points out that the majority of U.S.

operators of transport category airplanes

are conducting these inspections at the

specified 1,000-hour interval (some are

conducting the inspections more

frequently), and many have found

discrepancies during the 1,000-hour

inspections. In light of this, the FAA

continues to conclude that the currently

required inspection interval is

appropriate, since it ensures that any

discrepancy will be identified and

corrected in a timely manner.]

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.

Cost 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. In fact, the dispatch relief

provided by this AD will allow

operators to continue to operate

airplanes without the required number

of ashtrays for a longer period of time

than was previously permitted. This

will result in a reduction in costs to

affected operators, since it will

eliminate potential interruptions in

service or special scheduling at

maintenance bases that otherwise would

be necessary in order to reinstall

missing ashtrays.

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 this 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32321

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, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–9214 (60 FR

21429, May 2, 1995), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

amendment 39–9680, to read as follows:

74–08–09 R2 Transport Category Aircraft:

Amendment 39–9680. Docket 95–NM–

233–AD. Revises AD 74–08–09 R1,

Amendment 39–9214.

Applicability: All transport category

airplanes, certificated in any category, that

have one or more lavatories equipped with

paper or linen waste receptacles.

Note 1: 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 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 AD 74–08–09, amendment

39–1917), 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 sections 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.

(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. And

(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 be provide that the

announcement be made prior to each takeoff.

(c) Except as provided by paragraph (d) of

this AD: 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 sections 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) The airplane may be operated for a

period of 10 days with a lavatory door

ashtray missing, provided that no more than

one such ashtray is missing. For airplanes on

which only one lavatory door ashtray is

installed, the airplane may be operated for a

period of 3 days if the lavatory door ashtray

is missing.

Note 2: This AD permits a lavatory door

ashtray to be missing, although the FAAapproved Master Minimum Equipment List

(MMEL) may not allow such provision. In

any case, the provisions of this AD prevail.

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

and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000

hours time-in-service from the last

inspections, 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 (e)(1) of

this AD.

(f) Upon the request of an operator, the

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector may

adjust the 1,000-hour repetitive inspection

interval specified in paragraph (e) 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.

(g) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

July 29, 1996.
32322 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 17,

1996.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–15957 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–ASO–3]

Establishment of Class E Airspace;

Chiefland, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment establishes

Class E airspace at Chiefland, FL. A

White Farms Airport at Chiefland, FL,

has a VOR/DME–A Standard Instrument

Approach Procedure (SIAP). Controlled

airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface (AGL) is needed

to accommodate this SIAP and for

instrument flight rules (IFR) operations

at the airport. The operating status of

the airport will change from VFR to

include IFR operations concurrent with

publication of this SIAP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15,

1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Benny L. McGlamery, Operations

Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal

Aviation Administration, P.O. Box

20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;

telephone (404) 305–5570.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On April 16, 1996, the FAA proposed

to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by

establishing Class E airspace at

Chiefland, FL, (61 FR 16621). This

action will provide adequate Class E

airspace for IFR operations at White

Farms Airport.

Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal to the FAA.

No comments objecting to the proposal

were received. Designations for Class E

airspace extending upward from 700

feet or more above the surface are

published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA

Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995,

and effective September 16, 1995. The

Class E airspace designation listed in

this document will be published

subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

This amendment to Part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 71) establishes Class E airspace at

Chiefland, FL, to accommodate a VOR/

DME–A SIAP and for IFR operations at

White Farms Airport. The operating

status of the airport will be changed

from VFR to include IFR operations

concurrent with publication of this

SIAP.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation only involves an established

body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally

current. It, therefore, (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)

does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

Part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,

40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated August 17, 1995, and effective

September 16, 1995, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet above the

surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Chiefland, FL [New]

Chiefland White Farms Airport, FL

(Lat. 29°30′45′′N, long. 82°52′30′′W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile

radius of White Farms Airport, excluding

that airspace within the Cross City, FL, Class

E airspace area.

* * * * *

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 5,

1996.

Benny L. McGlamery,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 96–15984 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–ASO–9]

Establishment of Class E Airspace;

Dawson, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment establishes

Class E airspace at Dawson, GA. A VOR/

DME RWY 31 Standard Instrument

Approach Procedure (SIAP) has been

developed for Dawson Municipal

Airport. Controlled airspace extending

upward from 700 feet above the surface

(AGL) is needed to accommodate this

SIAP and for instrument flight rules

(IFR) operations at the airport. The

operating status of the airport will

change from VFR to include IFR

operations concurrent with publication

of this SIAP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15,

1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Benny L. McGlamery, Operations

Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal

Aviation Administration, P.O. Box

20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;

telephone (404) 305–5570.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On April 8, 1996, the FAA proposed

to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by

establishing Class E airspace at Dawson,

GA, (61 FR 15434). This action will

provide adequate Class E airspace for

IFR operations at Dawson Municipal

Airport.

Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal to the FAA.

No comments objecting to the proposal

were received. Designations for Class E

airspace extending upward from 700

feet or more above the surface are

published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA

Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995,

and effective September 16, 1995. The

Class E airspace designation listed in

this document will be published

subsequently in the Order.