Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 30249 

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. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH: Docket No. FAA– 

2009–0574; Directorate Identifier 2009– 

CE–028–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by July 27, 

2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Models Dornier 228– 

100, Dornier 228–101, Dornier 228–200, 

Dornier 228–201, and Dornier 228–202 

airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in 

any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

A stub axle failure of the main landing gear 

on a Dornier 228–200 aeroplane was reported 

to RUAG Aerospace. Investigations revealed 

that the fracture of the axle—manufacturer 

Part Number (P/N) A–511000B28B was due 

to fatigue. Already in the year 1993 two 

failures of P/N A–511000B28B axles 

occurred. Those events led in 1994 the 

Luftfahrt-Bundesamt—Germany’s National 

Aviation Authority—to publish 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) D–1994–042 to 

mandate the replacement of A–511000B28B 

axles by improved-design axle with P/N 

A–511000C28B (Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH 

Service bulletin 228–214). 

It is believed that a misinterpretation of the 

Dornier 228 repair/maintenance 

documentation caused inadvertent 

installation of A–511000B28B axle on the 

accident aeroplane’s main landing gear with 

P/N A–511000C00F. This configuration was 

not approved for installation and was 

therefore not addressed by LBA AD D–1994– 

042 or Dornier SB–228–214. 

The actions specified in this Airworthiness 

Directive are intended to prevent main 

landing gear failure, which could result in 

loss of control of the aeroplane during 

landing operations. 

The MCAI requires inspection of the main 

landing gear (MLG) and, if applicable, 

replacement of the MLG stub axle. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions following RUAG Aerospace Defence 

Technology Dornier 228 Service Bulletin SB– 

228–276, dated October 16, 2008: 

(1) Within the next 14 days after the 

effective date of this AD, inspect the main 

landing gear (MLG) stub axle. 

(2) If any P/N A–511000B28B stub axle is 

found, upon accumulation of 9,500 total 

landings on the axle or before further flight 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later, replace the axle or the housing 

assembly with a new axle 

P/N A–511000C28B. If the total number of 

landings accumulated by the stub axle cannot 

be positively determined, the stub axle must 

be considered to have accumulated more 

than 9,500 total landings. 

Note 1: Operators that do not have landing 

(or cycle) records may determine the number 

of landings (or cycles) by dividing the 

number of hours time-in-service of each 

airplane by the time of the average flight for 

the aircraft of that type in the operator’s fleet. 

Note 2: P/N A–511000C28B axle together 

with the housings P/N A–511000C27B and 

P/N A–521000C27B form the Axle 

Assemblies P/N AD511010A00C and 

P/N AD521010A00C, which are life limited 

to 48,000 landings per the Dornier 228 Time 

Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual 

(TLMCM) Chapter 05–10–10. 

(3) As of the effective date of this AD, do 

not install MLG assemblies P/N 

A–511000C00F and P/N 

A–521000C00F fitted with a P/N 

A–511000B28B stub axle on any airplane. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4130; fax: (816) 329– 

4090. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer or other source, 

use these actions if they are FAA-approved. 

Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State 

of Design Authority (or their delegated 

agent). You are required to assure the product 

is airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to EASA AD No.: 2009–0062, 

dated March 13, 2009; and RUAG Aerospace 

Defence Technology Dornier 228 Service 

Bulletin SB–228–276, dated October 16, 

2008, for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 

19, 2009. 

James E. Jackson, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–14994 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Parts 1 and 31 

[REG–146893–02, REG–115037–00, REG– 

138603–03] 

RIN 1545–BI78, 1545–BI80, 1545–BI79 

Treatment of Services Under Section 

482; Allocation of Income and 

Deductions From Intangibles; 

Stewardship Expense; Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

correction to a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–146893–02, REG– 

115037–00, and REG–138603–03) that 

was published in the Federal Register, 

on Friday, August 4, 2006 (71 FR 44247) 

providing guidance regarding the 

treatment of controlled services 

transactions under section 482 and the 

allocation of income from intangibles, in 

particular with respect to contributions 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
30250 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

by a controlled party to the value of an 

intangible owned by another controlled 

party, and modifying the regulations 

under section 861 concerning 

stewardship expenses to be consistent 

with the changes made to the guidance 

under section 482. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning REG–146893–02 and REG– 

115037–03, Carol B. Tan or Gregory A. 

Spring, (202) 435–5265; Concerning 

REG–138603–03, Richard L. Chewning, 

(202) 622–3850 (not toll-free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(REG–146893–02, REG–115037–00 and 

REG–138603–03) that is the subject of 

this document is under sections 482, 

861, 6038, 6662, and 3121 of the 

Internal Revenue Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–146893–02, REG– 

115037–00, and REG–138603–03) 

contains regulation identification 

numbers (RINs) that must be corrected. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (REG– 

146893–02, REG–115037–00, and REG– 

138603–03), which was the subject of 

FR Doc. 06–6674, is corrected as 

follows: 

On page 44247, in the document 

heading, the language ‘‘RIN 1545–BB31, 

1545–AY38, 1545–BC52’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘RIN 1545–BI78, 1545–BI80, 1545– 

BI79’’. 

LaNita Van Dyke, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. E9–14927 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1910 

[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0006] 

RIN 1218–AC29 

Abbreviated Bitrex® Qualitative FitTesting Protocol 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA); Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: After thoroughly reviewing 

the comments and other information 

available in the record for the proposed 

rulemaking, OSHA decided that the 

abbreviated Bitrex® qualitative fit test is 

not sufficiently accurate to include 

among the qualitative fits tests listed in 

Part II of Appendix A of its Respiratory 

Protection Standard. Therefore, OSHA 

is withdrawing the proposed rule 

without prejudice, and is inviting 

resubmission of the proposed fit test 

after conducting further research to 

improve the accuracy of the protocol. 

DATES: Effective June 25, 2009, the 

proposed rule published December 26, 

2007 (72 FR 72971) is withdrawn. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General information and press inquiries: 

Contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Office of 

Communications, Room N–3647, OSHA, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999. 

Technical inquiries: Contact Mr. John 

E. Steelnack, Directorate of Standards 

and Guidance, Room N–3718, OSHA, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–2289; 

facsimile: (202) 693–1678. Electronic 

copies of this Federal Register notice, as 

well as news releases and other relevant 

documents, are available at OSHA’s 

Web page at http://www.osha.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Part I to Appendix A of OSHA’s 

Respiratory Protection Standard at 29 

CFR 1910.134 currently includes four 

qualitative fit-testing protocols using the 

following challenge agents: Isoamyl 

acetate; saccharin-solution aerosol; 

Bitrex® (denatonium benzoate) aerosol 

in solution; and irritant smoke (stannic 

chloride). Part II to Appendix A 

specifies the procedure by which OSHA 

determines whether to propose adding a 

new fit-testing protocol to the 

Respiratory Protection Standard. The 

criteria used in making this 

determination include: (1) A test report 

prepared by an independent 

government research laboratory (e.g., 

Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, the National Institute for 

Standards and Technology) stating that 

the laboratory tested the protocol and 

found it to be accurate and reliable; or 

(2) an article published in a peerreviewed industrial-hygiene journal 

describing the protocol and explaining 

how the test data support the protocol’s 

accuracy and reliability. If a fit-testing 

protocol meets one of these criteria, 

OSHA must initiate notice-andcomment rulemaking on the proposed 

fit-testing protocol under Section 6(b)(7) 

of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655). 

II. Summary and Explanation of the 

Withdrawal Notice 

A. Introduction 

In the letter submitting the 

abbreviated Bitrex® qualitative fittesting (ABQLFT) protocol for review 

under the provisions of Appendix A of 

OSHA’s Respiratory Protection Standard 

(Ex. OSHA–2007–0006–0002), Dr. 

Michael L. Runge of the 3M Company 

included a copy of a peer-reviewed 

article from an industrial-hygiene 

journal describing the accuracy and 

reliability of the ABQLFT protocol (Ex. 

OSHA–2007–0006–0003). This article 

also described in detail the equipment 

and procedures required to administer 

the ABQLFT protocol. According to this 

description, the protocol is a variation 

of the existing Bitrex® qualitative fittesting protocol developed by the 3M 

Company in the early 1990s, which 

OSHA approved for inclusion in the 

final Respiratory Protection Standard. 

The ABQLFT protocol uses the same fittesting requirements and 

instrumentation specified for the 

existing Bitrex® qualitative fit-testing 

protocol in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Part 

I.B.4 of Appendix A of the Respiratory 

Protection Standard, with the following 

two exceptions: 

• Exercise times are reduced from 60 

seconds to 15 seconds; and 

• The ABQLFT protocol is used only 

with test subjects who can taste the 

Bitrex® screening solution within the 

first 10 squeezes of the nebulizer bulb 

(referred to as ‘‘Level 1 sensitivity’’). 

The peer-reviewed article submitted 

by the 3M Company describing the 

study conducted on the ABQLFT, 

entitled ‘‘Development of an 

Abbreviated Qualitative Fit Test Using 

Bitter Aerosol,’’ appeared in the Fall/ 

Winter 2003 issue of the Journal of the 

International Society for Respiratory 

Protection (hereafter, ‘‘the ABQLFT 

study’’ or ‘‘the study’’; Ex. OSHA–2007– 

0006–0003). The authors of the study 

were T.J. Nelson of NIHS, Inc., and L.L. 

Janssen, M.D. Luinenburg, and H.E. 

Mullins of the 3M Company; the 3M 

Company supported the study. The 

study described by the article 

determined whether performing a fit test 

involving seven exercises lasting 15 

seconds each while exposed to Bitrex®

solution aerosol yielded fit-testing 

results similar to results obtained with 

a generated-aerosol (i.e., corn oil) 

quantitative fit test (GAQNFT) using 

one-minute exercises (i.e., the GAQNFT 

was the criterion measure or ‘‘gold 

standard’’). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS