Pyrotechnic Signaling Device Requirements, 21618-21619 [05-8453]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
21618
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
flight compartment, and all applicable
corrective actions, by doing all actions in Part
1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the
service bulletin, except as provided by
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(3) of this AD. Any
applicable corrective action must be done
before further flight.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18,
2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–8272 Filed 4–26–05; 8:45 am]
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive
examination of a specific item, installation,
or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying
lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.’’
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Modification
(h) At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, modify
wiring in the flight compartment by doing all
actions in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin. Following accomplishment of the
actions in Part 2 of the service bulletin,
before further flight, do all actions associated
with the functional test, including revising
the Emergency Procedures section of the
Raytheon Hawker 800XP Airplane Flight
Manual to include the information in
Temporary Change P/N 140–590032–
0005TC7, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin.
(1) If no damage was found during the
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD: Do paragraph (h) within 300 flight hours
or 180 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever is first.
(2) If any damage is found during the
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD: Do paragraph (h) before further flight
after the damage is found.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(i) The Manager, Wichita ACO, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(j) You must use Raytheon Service Bulletin
SB 24–3555, Revision 1, dated June 2004, to
perform the actions that are required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approves the
incorporation by reference of this document
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. For copies of the service information,
contact Raytheon Aircraft Company,
Department 62, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas
67201–0085. To view the AD docket, contact
the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh
Street SW., room PL–401, Nassif Building,
Washington, DC. To review copies of the
service information, contact the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741–
6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:56 Apr 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA–2004–19947; Amendment
No. 91–285]
RIN 2120–AI42
Pyrotechnic Signaling Device
Requirements
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Disposition of comments on
direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On December 27, 2004, the
FAA published a direct final rule to
remove the requirement for a
pyrotechnic signaling device required
for aircraft operated for hire over water
and beyond power off gliding distance
from shore for air carriers operating
under part 121 unless it is a part of a
required life raft. All other operators
continue to be required to have onboard
one pyrotechnic signaling device if they
operate aircraft for hire over water and
beyond power off gliding distance from
shore. The rule was effective February 7,
2005.
ADDRESSES: The complete docket for the
final rule on pyrotechnic signaling
devices may be examined through the
Department of Transportation’s Docket
Management System at https://
www.dms.dot.gov. Use the Simple
Search selection and type in the docket
number, 19947.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe
Keenan, AFS–200, Air Transportation
Division, Flight Standards Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202)
267–9579.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final rule, request for comment,
was published in response to several
requests that the FAA eliminate the
requirement that aircraft that operate for
hire, over water, and beyond power off
gliding distance from shore, carry one
pyrotechnic signaling device in addition
to those signaling devices required as
part of each required life raft. The FAA
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
considered petitioners arguments that
the requirement of an additional
pyrotechnic device, or flare gun, was
unnecessary because other
requirements, such as air traffic control,
dispatch/flight following systems, and
advanced communications provide an
equivalent, if not greater, level of safety
as that provided by the pyrotechnic
signaling device. This requirement was
limited to those operators conducting
operations under Part 121 because all of
the additional safety redundancies, such
as dispatch/flight following, do not exist
to the same extent in other operations.
Discussion of Comments
The FAA received seven comments
on the pyrotechnic signaling device
final rule. Three were from individuals,
three were from air carriers (Southwest
Airlines, American Airlines, and Net
Jets), and one was from a trade
association (the Regional Airline
Association). Most comments favor the
change. One individual commenter did
not reflect support or opposition to the
change. None of the comments reflect an
adverse position to this final rule. The
FAA’s response to the comments
follows:
Safety
All but one commenter expressed
concerns about the safety and security
of pyrotechnic signaling devices. One
individual commenter stated that the
devices were a high-pilferage item and
pose a hazard of becoming a potential
terrorist weapon. Another individual
commenter expressed a general concern
about a security hazard to the flight
crew. Southwest Airlines and Net Jets
inferred that pyrotechnic signaling
devices are lethal weapons and
constitute hazardous materials on the
flight deck.
Three commenters, including
American Airlines, inferred that these
devices do not enhance safety.
Southwest Airlines stated that the
device would provide minimal value in
locating an aircraft following a ditching
at sea, assuming that a pilot could find
it.
The FAA does not agree that
pyrotechnic signaling devices are unsafe
if stored and maintained in accordance
with the manufacturer’s instructions
and personnel are properly trained in
their use. Pyrotechnic signaling devices
are still required whenever life rafts are
required to be onboard. The FAA does
not agree that a pyrotechnic signaling
device might be hard to locate in a
ditching emergency. FAA regulations
require a passenger briefing composed
of instructions to use in preparation for
a ditching. Part of this preparation
E:\FR\FM\27APR1.SGM
27APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
includes use of emergency equipment,
including life rafts and associated
equipment (such as pyrotechnic
signaling devices), before the actual
ditching occurs. Crewmembers are
required to be trained in the proper use
of emergency equipment. Moreover,
when pyrotechnic signaling devices are
required as part of a life raft’s survival
equipment, they are generally
inaccessible without removing the raft
itself. In cases where the life raft’s
survival kit is stored separately from the
raft, locations are typically not readily
available for passenger access until
actually needed.
Part 135 Relief
An individual commenter, Net Jets,
and the Regional Airline Association
stated they are in favor of including
relief for part 135 operations. An
individual commenter stated that all of
the justification for part 121 operations
is true for part 135 operations, as well.
Net Jets stated that similarly situated
part 135 operators should be provided
with the same relief as part 121
operators, and noted the similarities
between part 121 dispatch/flight
following systems and the flight locating
requirements of part 135. Net Jets also
stated that the Part 125/135 Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (ARC) is
addressing the issue as it applies to part
135 operations. Net Jets stated that a
complete power loss of a part 25
certificated turbojet airplane is
extremely low.
Although the requirements differ, the
FAA agrees that similarities may exist
between part 121 flight following
requirements and part 135 flight
locating requirements. Also, while some
135 operators conduct operations very
similar to part 121 operators, many do
not so it would not be appropriate to
provide the same blanket relief to all
135 operators. However, if a particular
part 135 operator’s flight locating
system meets all of the requirements of
a part 121 flight following system, relief
provided in this rule change may be
sought by that operator and evaluated
by the FAA through the exemption
process.
The FAA agrees that complete engine
failure of a part 25-certificated airplane
is extremely low. However, engine
failure is not the only precursor to a
forced ditching. Onboard fires, flight
control malfunctions, and fuel
exhaustion have also resulted in
ditching incidents.
The FAA looks forward to receiving
recommendations from the Part 125/135
ARC when they are complete.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:56 Apr 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
Pyrotechnic Signaling Devices Required
as Part of a Life Raft
An individual commenter stated that
the rule should contain a requirement
for positive proof that a pyrotechnic
device required as part of a life raft is,
in fact, onboard and goes on to question
how an operator would determine that
the device is installed in the life raft.
It is incumbent upon an operator to
demonstrate compliance with any
applicable requirements for a particular
operation. For example, an operator may
maintain an inventory of life raft-related
equipment to satisfy this requirement
when the equipment must be carried
onboard for over-water operations.
Conclusion
After consideration of the comments
submitted in response to the final rule,
the FAA has determined that no further
rulemaking action is necessary.
Amendment 91–285 remains in effect as
adopted.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21,
2005.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–8453 Filed 4–26–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 172
[Docket Nos. 1998F–0052 and 1999F–0187
(formerly Docket Nos. 98F–0052 and 99F–
0187)]
Food Additives Permitted for Direct
Addition to Food for Human
Consumption; Neotame
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
Final rule; response to
objections and denial of requests for a
hearing.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is responding to
objections and is denying requests that
it has received for a hearing on the final
rule that amended the food additive
regulations authorizing the use of
neotame as a nonnutritive sweetener in
food. After reviewing the objections to
the final rule and the requests for a
hearing, the agency has concluded that
the objections do not raise issues of
material fact that justify a hearing or
otherwise provide a basis for revoking
the amendment to the regulation.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21619
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew J. Zajac, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740–
3835, 301–436–1267.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
FDA published notices in the Federal
Register on February 10, 1998 (63 FR
6762), and February 8, 1999 (64 FR
6100), announcing the filing of food
additive petitions, FAP 8A4580 and
FAP 9A4643, respectively, by Monsanto
Co. to amend the food additive
regulations in Part 172 Food Additives
Permitted for Direct Addition to Food
for Human Consumption (21 CFR part
172) to provide for the safe use of
neotame as a nonnutritive sweetener for
tabletop use (FAP 8A4580) and for
general-purpose use in food (FAP
9A4643) where standards of identity do
not preclude such use. The rights to
these petitions were subsequently sold
to the NutraSweet Co. In the Federal
Register of July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45300),
FDA issued a final rule permitting the
safe use of neotame as a sweetening
agent and flavor enhancer in foods
generally, except in meat and poultry.
The preamble to the final rule advised
that objections to the final rule and
requests for a hearing were due within
30 days of the publication date (i.e., by
August 8, 2002).
II. Objections and Requests for a
Hearing
Section 409(f) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21
U.S.C. 348(f)) provides that, within 30
days after publication of an order
relating to a food additive regulation,
any person adversely affected by such
order may file objections, specifying
with particularity the provisions of the
order ‘‘deemed objectionable, stating
reasonable grounds therefore, and
requesting a public hearing based upon
such objections.’’ FDA may deny a
hearing request if the objections to the
regulation do not raise genuine and
substantial issues of fact that can be
resolved at a hearing.
Under 21 CFR 171.110 of the food
additive regulations, objections and
requests for a hearing are governed by
part 12 (21 CFR part 12) of FDA’s
regulations. Under § 12.22(a), each
objection must meet the following
conditions: (1) Must be submitted on or
before the 30th day after the date of
publication of the final rule; (2) must be
separately numbered; (3) must specify
with particularity the provision of the
regulation or proposed order objected
to; (4) must specifically state the
E:\FR\FM\27APR1.SGM
27APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21618-21619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8453]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA-2004-19947; Amendment No. 91-285]
RIN 2120-AI42
Pyrotechnic Signaling Device Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Disposition of comments on direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 27, 2004, the FAA published a direct final rule to
remove the requirement for a pyrotechnic signaling device required for
aircraft operated for hire over water and beyond power off gliding
distance from shore for air carriers operating under part 121 unless it
is a part of a required life raft. All other operators continue to be
required to have onboard one pyrotechnic signaling device if they
operate aircraft for hire over water and beyond power off gliding
distance from shore. The rule was effective February 7, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The complete docket for the final rule on pyrotechnic
signaling devices may be examined through the Department of
Transportation's Docket Management System at https://www.dms.dot.gov.
Use the Simple Search selection and type in the docket number, 19947.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Keenan, AFS-200, Air
Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone (202) 267-9579.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final rule, request for comment, was published in response to
several requests that the FAA eliminate the requirement that aircraft
that operate for hire, over water, and beyond power off gliding
distance from shore, carry one pyrotechnic signaling device in addition
to those signaling devices required as part of each required life raft.
The FAA considered petitioners arguments that the requirement of an
additional pyrotechnic device, or flare gun, was unnecessary because
other requirements, such as air traffic control, dispatch/flight
following systems, and advanced communications provide an equivalent,
if not greater, level of safety as that provided by the pyrotechnic
signaling device. This requirement was limited to those operators
conducting operations under Part 121 because all of the additional
safety redundancies, such as dispatch/flight following, do not exist to
the same extent in other operations.
Discussion of Comments
The FAA received seven comments on the pyrotechnic signaling device
final rule. Three were from individuals, three were from air carriers
(Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and Net Jets), and one was from
a trade association (the Regional Airline Association). Most comments
favor the change. One individual commenter did not reflect support or
opposition to the change. None of the comments reflect an adverse
position to this final rule. The FAA's response to the comments
follows:
Safety
All but one commenter expressed concerns about the safety and
security of pyrotechnic signaling devices. One individual commenter
stated that the devices were a high-pilferage item and pose a hazard of
becoming a potential terrorist weapon. Another individual commenter
expressed a general concern about a security hazard to the flight crew.
Southwest Airlines and Net Jets inferred that pyrotechnic signaling
devices are lethal weapons and constitute hazardous materials on the
flight deck.
Three commenters, including American Airlines, inferred that these
devices do not enhance safety. Southwest Airlines stated that the
device would provide minimal value in locating an aircraft following a
ditching at sea, assuming that a pilot could find it.
The FAA does not agree that pyrotechnic signaling devices are
unsafe if stored and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions and personnel are properly trained in their use.
Pyrotechnic signaling devices are still required whenever life rafts
are required to be onboard. The FAA does not agree that a pyrotechnic
signaling device might be hard to locate in a ditching emergency. FAA
regulations require a passenger briefing composed of instructions to
use in preparation for a ditching. Part of this preparation
[[Page 21619]]
includes use of emergency equipment, including life rafts and
associated equipment (such as pyrotechnic signaling devices), before
the actual ditching occurs. Crewmembers are required to be trained in
the proper use of emergency equipment. Moreover, when pyrotechnic
signaling devices are required as part of a life raft's survival
equipment, they are generally inaccessible without removing the raft
itself. In cases where the life raft's survival kit is stored
separately from the raft, locations are typically not readily available
for passenger access until actually needed.
Part 135 Relief
An individual commenter, Net Jets, and the Regional Airline
Association stated they are in favor of including relief for part 135
operations. An individual commenter stated that all of the
justification for part 121 operations is true for part 135 operations,
as well. Net Jets stated that similarly situated part 135 operators
should be provided with the same relief as part 121 operators, and
noted the similarities between part 121 dispatch/flight following
systems and the flight locating requirements of part 135. Net Jets also
stated that the Part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) is
addressing the issue as it applies to part 135 operations. Net Jets
stated that a complete power loss of a part 25 certificated turbojet
airplane is extremely low.
Although the requirements differ, the FAA agrees that similarities
may exist between part 121 flight following requirements and part 135
flight locating requirements. Also, while some 135 operators conduct
operations very similar to part 121 operators, many do not so it would
not be appropriate to provide the same blanket relief to all 135
operators. However, if a particular part 135 operator's flight locating
system meets all of the requirements of a part 121 flight following
system, relief provided in this rule change may be sought by that
operator and evaluated by the FAA through the exemption process.
The FAA agrees that complete engine failure of a part 25-
certificated airplane is extremely low. However, engine failure is not
the only precursor to a forced ditching. Onboard fires, flight control
malfunctions, and fuel exhaustion have also resulted in ditching
incidents.
The FAA looks forward to receiving recommendations from the Part
125/135 ARC when they are complete.
Pyrotechnic Signaling Devices Required as Part of a Life Raft
An individual commenter stated that the rule should contain a
requirement for positive proof that a pyrotechnic device required as
part of a life raft is, in fact, onboard and goes on to question how an
operator would determine that the device is installed in the life raft.
It is incumbent upon an operator to demonstrate compliance with any
applicable requirements for a particular operation. For example, an
operator may maintain an inventory of life raft-related equipment to
satisfy this requirement when the equipment must be carried onboard for
over-water operations.
Conclusion
After consideration of the comments submitted in response to the
final rule, the FAA has determined that no further rulemaking action is
necessary. Amendment 91-285 remains in effect as adopted.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2005.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-8453 Filed 4-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
