Document 0JZ50bZb1KZ20n308LOKJ6e0m

Fedeitil Register / Vol, 58, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 1993 / Notices 33477 WOW Dated: June 11, 1993.. . Wayne S. Form, Associate Administratorfor Inveitinent. (FR Doc. 93-14338 Filed 6-16-93; 8:45 am] BLUM coos $025-014A Kansas City DistriCt Advisory Council; Public Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration Kansas City District Advisory Council and its Springfield Branch Office will hold a public meeting from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Thursday, July 8, 1993 in the Kansas City District Office Training Room, 323 West 8th, suite 501, Kansas City, Missouri, to discuss such matters as may be presented by members, staff of the U.S. Smell Business Administration, or others present. For further information, write or call Mr. Kurt Mueller, Acting Advisory Council Chairperson al (816) 474--5200, or Mr. Richard L. Osbourn, District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 323 West 8th, suite 501, Kansas City, Missouri 64105, (816) 3746760. Dated: June 11, 1993. Dorothy A. mat, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Advisory Councils. [FR Doc. 93-14236 Filed 6-16-93; 8:45 ern] BILUND CODE MS -014A Oklahoma City District Advisory Council; Public Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration Oklahoma City District Advisory Council will hold a public meeting from 9 a.m. to 12 noon on Tuesday, July 13, 1993, at the Granny Had One Restaurant, 113 W., Harrison, Guthrie, Oklahoma, to discuss such matters may be presented by members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others present. For further information, write or call Mr. W. Bruce Robinson, District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 200 NW. 5th Street, suite 670, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, (405) 231-5237. Dated: June 11, 1993. Dorothy A. Overal, Acting Assistant Administrator Office of Advisory Councils. [FR Doc. 93-14334 Filed 6-16-93; 8:45 am] BILUNG CODE 5025-01-N DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Notice No. 93-1] Halon Replacement Performance Testing AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SVIAMARY: This notice announces a proposed research program-to develop performance test methodologies which would lead to recommended airworthiness criteria for the evaluation ,,of non halon fire suppression agents/ systems to be used aboard airplanes and rotorcraft, and solicits alternate approaches, test methodologies and criteria. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 18, 1993. ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice should be mailed to: Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Technical Analysis Branch, AIR-120, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Comments may be examined in room 806 weekdays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Petrakis, Aircraft Engineering Division (AIR-120), Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue S ' DC 20591; Telephone SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to comment on this research and development program by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the test procedures in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments can include cost estimates. Comments should identify the notice number and should be submitted to the address above. All comments received on or before the closing date will be considered by the Administrator before proceeding. The research program _ outlined in this notice may he changed in light of comments received. All comments will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments in the Technical Analysis Branch, for examination by interested persons. A"- report summarizing each substantive public comment concerning this notice will be filed in the Technical Analysis Branch. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a preaddressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made "Comments to Notice No. 93-1". The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter. Availability of Notice Any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affaira, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-430, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. communications must identify the notice number. Background The FAA participated in the "International Symposium on Halon Replacement in Aviation" on February 9 and 10, 1993. The symposium held in Reston, Virginia was sponsored by the Aerospace Industry Association (MA) and the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation (HARC), and was well attended by industry, particularly airframe and powerplant manufacturers. The symposium focused on the aviation industries concerns over the eventual discontinuance of the production-of halon, The terms of the recent Copenhagen amendment to the United Nations 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, agreed to by the United States and other developed countries, were to cease the global production of Halons in January 1994. The affect the termination of baton production would have on the aviation industry was discussed by fi ve working groups: certification requirements, research and development of alternate systems, implementation of alternate systems, collecting halon data, and recycling systems. The symposium's preliminary conclusions regarding alternate agents/ systems were as follows: The Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs)/Joint Airworthiness Regulations (JARs) do not specify the use of halon for fire suppression. except for hand fire extinguishers in the cabin; no regulatory action will be necessary for the certification of new fire suppression systems; fire hazards and test protocols defining the performance criteria for fire suppression systems must be developed by FAA/United States Air Force (USAF) research and development (R&D) programs; and guidance material for - 33482 MIR Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 1993 / Notices (2) Written comments should be received by August 1, 1993. Late filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments shall be sent to Docket Clerk, Docket No. RSAD-91-3, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 7th Street SW., room 8201, Washington, DC, 20590. Persons wishing the FRA to acknowledge receipt of their comments should submit with those comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: "Comments to Docket No. RSAD-91-3." The postcard will be dated and time stamped and returned to the commenter. All comments submitted will be available, both before end after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, between 8:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. To schedule an appointment to examine the docket, please contact Patricia McLaughlin, Docket Clerk (RCC-30) (Telephone: (202) 366-0635). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter C. Rockey, Executive Assistant (RRS-3), Office of Safety, FRA, Washington, D.C. 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-0897) or Patricia V. Sun, Trial Attorney (R f Chief Counsel, D.C. 20590 (Telephone: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In February of 1991, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) fi led a petition in accordance with 49 CFR 211.51, requesting that FRA implement a test program that would temporarily suspend compliance with 49 CFR 219.601(b)(2)(ii). This section, fi rst published on November 21, 1988 [53 FR 471031, requires each railroad, in the second year of that railroad's random testing program, to conduct a sufficient number of random tests during the year to equal at least 50 percent of the number of its covered service employees. (Subsequent amendments to the alcohol and drug regulations, which did not affect Section 219.601(b)(2)(ii), were published on December 27, 1989 [54 FR 53238) and June 4, 1990 (55 FR 22791)). AAR proposed that FRA permit an experimental group of railroads to test at a 25 percent rate for one year, for comparison against a group of control railroads that would continue to test at a 50 percent rate. Data from the two groups of railroads would then be analyzed to determine the effect of different testing rates on deterrence, FRA agreed with the AAR that an experimental program would be useful in evaluating the testing rate. FRA granted the four test railroads a waiver from the 50 percent testing requirements effective July 1, 1991. The four test railroads and the four control railroads were required to submit quarterly test data throughout the test year for monitoring by the FRA. In the first year of the program, the test railroads conducted 10,629 random tests, with 89 positive for a rate of 0.90 percent. The control railroads conducted 17,152 tests and had 154 positive for a rate of 0.90 percent. The railroad industry, in calendar year 1991, conducted 50,436 tests and had 477 positive for a rate of 0.89 percent. On Pine 15, 1992, the AAR requested that FRA continue the experimental program for another year, and the request' was granted. In the first three quarters of the prcgram's second year, the test railroads conducted 7,007 random tests, with 68 positive For a rate of 0.94 percent. The control railroads conducted 12,687 tests and had 107 positive for a rate of 0.84 percent. The railroad industry, in calendar year 1992, conducted 42,599 tests and had 336 positive for a rate of 0.79 percent. FRA and the AAR agree that the difference in deterrent effect between those random testing programs conducted at the 50 percent level and those conducted at the 25 percent level shown by the above test results is not large enough to be significant. On May 20, 1993, the AAR submitted a request for an additional extension. Accumulation of additional data is especially desirable at this time because of a recent departmental initiative considering modification of DOT random drug testing programs. On December 15, 1992, FRA, along with the Office of the Secretary and the four other operating administrations that currently require random drug testing, published an Advance Notice of Proposod Rulemaking seeking public comment and data on whether other, less costly alternatives to the current 50 percent random testing program could maintain an adequate level of deterrence and detection of illegal drug use (57 FR 59778). DOT has studied, and will continue to study, data from FRA'a experimental program in its consideration of possible alternatives to the current DOT program. Implementation FRA will continue to require all participating railroads to comply with its previously established protocols covering test conditions and reporting requirements. FRA does not believe that further opportunity for oral presentation is necessary for this second program extension, but is providing an additional opportunity for written,. comments. By letter granting an extension of the test program, FRA will extend the current conditional waivers for an additional year. FRA intends for the third year of this experiment to begin on July 1, 1993, and continue for at least four calendar quarters. FRA continues to reserve the right to terminate or modify the test program on 10 days notice if any party fails to comply with any conditions specified in the protocols, or if quarterly reports indicate a particularly serious degrading of performance by one or more of the experirriental railroads (as reflected by the random testing positive rate and/or other information avaiiablato FRA). FRA also continues to reserve the right to terminate i FRA review of railroad. Eilcahol/drug program administration indicates material deficiencies. Authority: 45 U.S.C. 431(c), 437; 49 CFR 1.49(m), 211.43, 211.51. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Associate Administratorfor Safety. (FR Doc. 93-13949 Filed 6-16-93; 8:45 aml BILUNO CODE WO-00-P National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Docket No. 93-43; Notice 11 Report on NHTSA's Cost Estimating Methodology AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: NHTSA has prepared a detailed report explaining how the agency estimates the costs that arise from its safety standards and other regulations. This notice announces that this report is available to all interested parties. ADDRESSES: Interested persons may examine this report and/or obtain a copy of it from: NIITSA Docket Section, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Requests for this report must refer to Docket No. 93-43; Notice 1. The NHTSA Docket Section is open to the public from 9:30 am through 4 pm Monday through Friday, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kenneth W. Rutland, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Engineering Systems Staff (NRM-13), room 5320, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Rutland can be reached by telephone at (202) 366-6565. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA has prepared a report that describes in planes Mike Madden 10/1/2013 Statistical summary of reported Halon handheld fire extinguisher discharges on Boeing commercial airplanes. Copyright 2013 Boeing. All rights reserved. Introduction Data on airplane handheld fire extinguisher discharge events was collected from four different souces and is summarized in this paper. The data sources included discharges on Airbus airplanes in addition to Boeing, but the Airbus events appeared to be under-reported so they were not included in this summary. The databases may not include all Halon handheld fire extinguisher discharges, but this summary is still fairly conservative due to the assumptions made and since it is based on four different sources of data. Data was obtained from the following sources: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) FAA Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDR) Boeing Airplane Safety Event database (ASE) McDonald Douglas Safety Information System (SIS) Events included discharges while the airplane was parked on the ground during maintenance or at the terminal with no passengers on board. Many of the discharges were on actual fires, so neat agent toxicity is less of a concern since the the agent reacts with the fire and forms byproducts. The following assumptions were used when tabulating the data: If the reported event did not list the type of extinguisher (water, Halon, other), it was assumed to be Halon. If the reported event did not list the phase of flight the discharge occurred, it was assumed to be at altitude (above 10,000'). If the reported event was fire extinguishers that were low on pressure or empty (leaks), it was assumed these were completely discharged and at altitude (Halon 1211 extinguishers are pressurized with nitrogen). Copyright 2013 Boeing. All rights reserved. 1 Summary The average number of Halon fire extinguishers discharged on a Boeing airplane per year was 28, and the average number discharged per year at altitude (above 10,000') was 20. The yearly discharges are shown in the table below. Airplanes1 40 35 30 25 Total number of Halon extinguishers discharged on 20 airplane Number of Halon extinguishers 15 discharged at altitude (above 10,000') 10 5 0 1. Data for Boeing commercial airplanes (including, Douglas and McDonald Douglas airplanes). Copyright 2013 Boeing. All rights reserved. 2 The number of discharges compared to the number of flight departures or flight hours provides some perspective on how rarely a discharge occurs. The tables below show the yearly Boeing flight statistics and the resultant probabilities of discharge. Boeing Airplane Flight Statistics 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Departures Flight hours . Probabilities of Fire Extinguisher Discharges on Boeing Airplanes 4.50E-06 4.00E-06 3.50E-06 3.00E-06 2.50E-06 2.00E-06 1.50E-06 1.00E-06 5.00E-07 0.00E+00 Per departure Per flight hour Copyright 2013 Boeing. All rights reserved. 3 Airbus Airplane Flight Statistics 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Departures Flight hours Flight operations data compiled from www.ascendworldwide.com Conclusion Based on the reported events onboard Boeing airplanes: 360 Halon fire extinguishers were discharged over the 13 year period. 262 of those discharges were likely at altitudes above 10,000'. 190 of those discharges were on actual fire events (mostly galley oven), while the remaining discharges were smoke events or leaks. Probability of a discharge per airplane departure is approximately 1.5 x10-6. If the same number of discharges was assumed to occur on Airbus airplanes (which would be very conservative) and the Airbus flight statistics are included (see chart above), the probability of a discharge per flight departure is still only approximately 3 x10-6. Copyright 2013 Boeing. All rights reserved. 4