[Federal Register: May 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 86)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24143-24145]
[DOCID:fr02my08-3]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0267; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-030-AD;
Amendment 39-15505; AD 2008-09-24]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401,
and DHC-8-402 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. * * *

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 6, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Fiesel, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2008 (73
FR 12907). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have been made to Part 2
``Airworthiness Limitations Items'' of the Maintenance Requirements
Manual of the affected models to introduce the required CDCCL.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section
of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL
data. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the
AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 45 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $3,600, or $80 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more

detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-09-24 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Amendment
39-15505. Docket No. FAA-2008-0267; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
030-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 6,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-
401, and DHC-8-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, all
serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have been made to Part 2
``Airworthiness Limitations Items'' of the Maintenance Requirements
Manual of the affected models to introduce the required CDCCL.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
include the CDCCL data.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) For all airplanes: Within 60 days after the effective date
of this AD, or before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first,
revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate the CDCCLs specified in Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier)
Temporary Revisions (TRs) ALI-55, dated April 19, 2006; and ALI-56,
dated April 19, 2006; to Part 2, ``Airworthiness Limitations
Items,'' of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Maintenance Requirements
Manual (MRM) PSM 1-84-7.

    Note 1: The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may
be done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the
maintenance requirements manual. When the TR has been included in
the general revision of the maintenance program, the general
revision may be inserted into the maintenance requirements manual,
provided the relevant information in the general revision is
identical to that in the applicable TR, and the temporary revision
may be removed.

    (2) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the
CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Part 2, Revision 4, dated
October 30, 2003, of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 MRM PSM 1-84-7,
Revision 4, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: 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, New
York Aircraft Certification 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: Richard Fiesel, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531. 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
FAA-approved 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, 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 MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-06,
dated January 15,

2008; and Bombardier TRs ALI-55 and ALI-56, both dated April 19,
2006; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision
ALI-55, dated April 19, 2006, to Part 2, ``Airworthiness Limitations
Items,'' of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Maintenance Requirements
Manual PSM 1-84-7; and Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision
ALI-56, dated April 19, 2006, to Part 2, ``Airworthiness Limitations
Items,'' of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Maintenance Requirements
Manual PSM 1-84-7; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the
AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-9571 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76951-76953]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26435]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0484; Product Identifier 2020-NM-051-AD; Amendment
39-21341; AD 2020-24-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-200,
A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by a report that an airplane failed to extend its nose landing gear
(NLG) using the free fall method, due to loss of the green hydraulic
system. This AD requires repetitive tests of affected free fall
actuators (FFA), and replacement of any affected FFA with a serviceable
FFA, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD,
which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 5, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 5,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0484.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0484; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0076, dated March 30, 2020
(``EASA AD 2020-0076'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-
300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; Model A340-541 and -542
airplanes; and Model A340-642 and -643 airplanes. Airbus SAS Model
A340-542 and A340-643 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are
not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore
does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500,
and A340-600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on June 30, 2020 (85 FR 39110). The NPRM was prompted by a
report that an airplane failed to extend its NLG using the free fall
method, due to loss of the green hydraulic system. The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive tests of affected FFAs, and replacement of any
affected FFA with a serviceable FFA, as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address detached magnets on both
electrical motors of the FFAs, which could prevent landing gear
extension by the free fall method, possibly resulting in loss of
control of the airplane after landing. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and American
Airlines expressed support for the proposed AD.

Request To Supersede AD 98-03-03

    American Airlines recommended that the proposed AD supersede AD 98-
03-03, Amendment 39-10295 (63 FR 4374, January 29, 1998) (AD 98-03-03).
The commenter asserted that Appendix 4 of Airbus All Operators
Transmission (AOT) 32L012-18, Revision 01, dated May 16, 2019; Revision
02, dated July 3, 2019; and Revision 03, dated January 21, 2020;
includes FFA serial numbers that were the subject of AD 98-03-03. The
commenter also pointed out that the specific serial numbers impacted by
AD 98-03-03 are shown in Lucas Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin AR024-
A32-001, dated July 28, 1995, which was referenced as an additional
source of service information in AD 98-03-03.
    The FAA does not agree to supersede AD 98-03-03, which affects, in
part, Model A330 series airplanes, as listed in Airbus Service Bulletin
A330-32-3042, Revision 1, dated September 19, 1995. That service
bulletin lists Model A330-301, -321, -322, and -342 series airplanes
with specific manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs). None of those
airplanes are registered in the U.S. This AD affects all Model A330-200
and A330-300 series airplanes, including all MSNs. In addition, AD 98-
03-03 affects FFAs with part numbers (P/Ns) AR02403, AR02404, and
AR02405, while this AD affects FFAs with P/N AR02404 only. AD 98-03-03
also addresses a different unsafe condition than is addressed in this
AD. For these reasons, the FAA has determined that it is inappropriate
for this AD to supersede AD 98-03-03. The FAA has not changed this AD
with regard to this request.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0076 describes procedures for repetitive tests of
affected FFAs and replacement of any affected FFA that fails a test
with a serviceable FFA. EASA AD 2020-0076 also describes procedures for
replacement of all affected FFAs, which terminates the repetitive
tests. This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 113 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340...........................            * $0             $340          $38,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide parts cost estimates for the
  replacements specified in this AD.

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170....            * $0             $170
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency
  to provide parts cost estimates for the on-condition replacements
  specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-24-11 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21341; Docket No. FAA-2019-0484;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-051-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 5, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (2) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes.
    (4) Model A340-211, -212, -213 airplanes.
    (5) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
    (6) Model A340-541 airplanes.
    (7) Model A340-642 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that an airplane failed to
extend its nose landing gear (NLG) using the free fall method, due
to loss of the green hydraulic system. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address detached magnets on both electrical motors of the free fall
actuators (FFAs), which could prevent landing gear extension by the
free fall method, possibly resulting in loss of control of the
airplane after landing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0076, dated March 30, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0076'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0076

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0076 refers to its effective date or
``the effective date of EASA AD 2019-0063'' or ``the effective date
of EASA AD 2019-0164,'' this AD requires using the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0076 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0076 specifies credit
for certain tasks ``provided the continuity test specified in A330
AMM [Aircraft Maintenance Manual] task 32-33-00-710-809, or A340 AMM
task 32-33-00-710-806, as applicable, is accomplished
concurrently,'' this AD provides credit ``provided the continuity
test is accomplished concurrently in accordance with the
instructions of an FAA-approved maintenance or inspection program.''

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0076
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0076 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraphs (h)(3) and (j)(2) of this
AD, RC procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0076,
dated March 30, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0076, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0484.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 18, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-26435 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35153-35155]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15978]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0019; FRL-9965-37-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
North Dakota; Revisions to Air Pollution Control Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions received from the
State of North Dakota on January 28, 2013, and April 22, 2014. The
revisions are to Article 33-15 ``Air Pollution Control'' rules of the
North Dakota Administrative Code. The revisions include amendments to
add EPA Reference Method 22 to determine compliance with a visible
emissions limit, add significance levels for PM2.5, modify
existing significance levels for NO2 and SO2 and
remove the significance level for PM10. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0019 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA,
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that

includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does
not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register, date, and
page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    On January 28, 2013, the State of North Dakota submitted a SIP
revision containing amendments to Article 33-15 Air Pollution Control
rules. We approved some of these revisions on October 21, 2016 (81 FR
72716). The remaining amendments include the following: A new rule that
would give the State authority to issue general permits, revisions to
significance levels and a revision to the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) rules. This action addresses the revisions to
significance levels. We will address the new general permit rule and
the revision to the PSD rules in a separate action. The North Dakota
State Health Council adopted the amendments on August 14, 2012
(effective January 1, 2013).
    On April 22, 2014, the State of North Dakota submitted a SIP
revision containing amendments to Article 33-15 Air Pollution Control
rules. We approved some of these revisions on October 21, 2016 (81 FR
72716). The remaining amendment adds EPA Reference Method 22 for
determining opacity for limits expressed as zero percent opacity. The
North Dakota State Health Council adopted the amendments on February
11, 2014 (effective April 1, 2014).

III. EPA's Review of the State of North Dakota's January 28, 2013 and
April 22, 2014 Submittals

    We evaluated North Dakota's January 28, 2013, and April 22, 2014
submittals regarding revisions to the State's Air Pollution Control
rules as described in section II. We propose to approve all of the
revisions under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.

A. January 28, 2013 SIP Submittal

    We propose to approve PM2.5 concentration levels (0.3
[mu]g/m\3\ annual and 1.2 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour averaging time) the State
added to 33-15-14-02.5.a in their January 2013 submittal. These
PM2.5 values are the same as those in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)
and are used in the same manner, i.e., a source ``will be considered to
cause or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard''
when such source ``would, at a minimum, exceed the [listed]
significance levels at any locality that does not or would not meet the
applicable ambient standard.'' We also propose to approve revised
significance levels for SO2 and NO2 (one-hour
averaging time) contained in the State's January 2013 revisions to 33-
15-14-02.5.a (SO2 one-hour significance level revised from
25 to 7.8 [mu]g/m\3\ and NO2 one-hour significance level
revised from 25 to 7.5 [mu]g/m\3\). These revised SO2 and
NO2 one-hour significance levels, although not listed in 40
CFR 51.165(b)(2), are consistent with our recommendations in guidance
documents 1 2 and strengthen the SIP. We note that the state
regulation does not provide that a source with an impact below any of
these significance levels is deemed to have demonstrated that it does
not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. Thus, the rules
that the EPA proposes to approve do not have an effect like those in 40
CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) that were vacated and remanded by the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 466
(D.C. Cir. 2013)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. EPA Memo, General Guidance for Implementing the 1-hour
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard in Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Permits, Including an Interim 1-hour SO2
Significant Impact Level, August 23, 2010.
    \2\ U.S. EPA Memo, General Guidance for Implementing the 1-hour
NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard in Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Permits, Including an Interim 1-hour NO2
Significant Impact Level, June 28, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed approval of the revisions to the State's significance
levels at 33-15-14-02.5.a extends only to the use of these significance
levels for the purpose stated in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). That is to
determine that a major source or major modification will be considered
to cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS when such source or
modification would, at a minimum, exceed a significance level at any
locality that does not or would not meet the applicable national
standard.
    In this same section, the State also removed the annual
PM10 significance level in 33-15-14-02.5.a. The annual
PM10 NAAQS was revoked in 2006 (71 FR 61144). North Dakota
does not currently have any nonattainment areas for the annual
PM10 NAAQS. Thus, we propose to approve this revision.

B. April 22, 2014 SIP Submittal

    The State's April 22, 2014 SIP submittal explains that the State
added the EPA Reference Method 22 to the SIP,\3\ which the State will
use to determine compliance with a visible emissions limit specified in
a permit issued as zero percent opacity except for a certain frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ State of North Dakota SIP Submittal Package (April 22,
2014), at PDF page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 33-15-03-05, Method of Measurement, the State added EPA
Reference Method 22 of Appendix A (``Visual Determination of Fugitive
Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares'')
adopted by reference in chapter 33-15-12, Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources. This test method is used to determine the
frequency of fugitive emissions from stationary sources and the
frequency of visible smoke emissions from flares. Chapter 33-15-12 of
the State's rules incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
Test Methods as of July 1, 2015. The State's new rule specifies that
Method 22 is applicable when ``a visible emission limit is specified in
a permit issued in accordance with this article as zero percent opacity
except for certain frequency''. 33-15-03-05.2. The ``frequency'' of
fugitive emissions refers to the length of time that fugitive emissions
will be visible over a specified time interval (i.e., one minute every
30 minutes, five minutes in two hours, etc.). Thus, a permit may
specify zero percent opacity except for a certain frequency or length
of time fugitive emissions may be observed over a specified time
interval. The State's SIP rule does not make any substantive changes to
Method 22, it merely incorporates the method into the SIP and allows it
to be used to demonstrate compliance for sources that are subject to
Article 15, ``Air Pollution Control Rules.'' We propose to approve of
the State's incorporation of Method 22 from

40 CFR part 60, appendix A into the SIP because this allows for use of
an EPA test method when specified in a permit issued in Article 15.
Method 22 can be used for a variety of purposes, including
determination of fugitive (non-stack) emissions and visible emissions
from stationary sources (stacks) depending on the applicable emission
standards \4\ and State permit requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. EPA Question and Answer Document. EPA Method 22--Visual
Determination of Fugitive Emissions. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/area/method22qa.doc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    For the reasons expressed in III.A and III.B, the EPA is proposing
to approve the following revisions, shown in Table 1, to the State's
Air Pollution Control rules.

  Table 1--List of North Dakota Revisions that the EPA is Proposing to
                                 Approve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Revised sections in January 28, 2013 and April 22, 2014 submissions
                          proposed for approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 28, 2013 submittal: 33-15-14-02.5.a
April 22, 2014 submittal: 33-15-03-05.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference North Dakota Administrative Code as described in section IV.
of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For
Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal
requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 13, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2017-15978 Filed 7-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


  HYPERLINK "http://www.fda.gov/default.htm"  FDA Home Page  |
HYPERLINK "http://www.fda.gov/cvm/default.html"  CVM Home Page  |
HYPERLINK "http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index.html"  CVM A-Z Index  |
HYPERLINK "http://www.fda.gov/cvm/contactCVM.html"  Contact CVM  |
HYPERLINK "http://www.fda.gov/cvm/sitemap.html"  Site Map  |   HYPERLINK
"http://www.fda.gov/centennial"  FDA Centennial

INFORMATION FOR CONSUMERS

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

CENTER FOR VETERINARY MEDICINE

INTERPRETING PET FOOD LABELS

The following consumer information is provided by David A. Dzanis, DVM,
Ph.D., DACVN.

Pet food labeling is regulated at two levels. The Federal regulations,
enforced by the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), establish
standards applicable for all animal feeds: proper identification of
product, net quantity statement, manufacturer's address, and proper
listing of ingredients. Some States also enforce their own labeling
regulations. Many of these have adopted the model pet food regulations
established by the Association of American Feed Control Officials
(AAFCO). These regulations are more specific in nature, covering aspects
of labeling such as the product name, the guaranteed analysis, the
nutritional adequacy statement, feeding directions, and calorie
statements.

Product Name

The product name is the first part of the label noticed by the consumer,
and can be a key factor in the consumer's decision to buy the product.
For that reason, manufacturers often use fanciful names or other
techniques to emphasize a particular aspect. Since many consumers
purchase a product based on the presence of a specific ingredient, many
product names incorporate the name of an ingredient to highlight its
inclusion in the product. The percentages of named ingredients in the
total product are dictated by four AAFCO rules.

The "95%" rule applies to products consisting primarily of meat, poultry
or fish, such as some of the canned products. They have simple names,
such as "Beef for Dogs" or "Tuna Cat Food." In these examples, at least
95% of the product must be the named ingredient (beef or tuna,
respectively), not counting the water added for processing and
"condiments." Counting the added water, the named ingredient still must
comprise 70% of the product. Since ingredient lists must be declared in
the proper order of predominance by weight, "beef" or "tuna" should be
the first ingredient listed, followed often by water, and then other
components such as vitamins and minerals. If the name includes a
combination of ingredients, such as "Chicken 'n Liver Dog Food," the two
together must comprise 95% of the total weight. The first ingredient
named in the product name must be the one of higher predominance in the
product. For example, the product could not be named "Lobster and Salmon
for Cats" if there is more salmon than lobster in the product. Because
this rule only applies to ingredients of animal origin, ingredients that
are not from a meat, poultry or fish source, such as grains and
vegetables, cannot be used as a component of the 95% total. For example,
a "Lamb and Rice Dog Food" would be misnamed unless the product was
comprised of at least 95% lamb.

The "25%" or "dinner" rule applies to many canned and dry products. If
the named ingredients comprise at least 25% of the product (not counting
the water for processing), but less than 95%, the name must include a
qualifying descriptive term, such as "Beef Dinner for Dogs." Many
descriptors other than "dinner" are used, however. "Platter," "entree,"
"nuggets" and "formula" are just a few examples. Because, in this
example, only one-quarter of the product must be beef, it would most
likely be found third or fourth on the ingredient list. Since the
primary ingredient is not always the named ingredient, and may in fact
be an ingredient that is not desired, the ingredient list should always
be checked before purchase. For example, a cat owner may have learned
from his or her finicky feline to avoid buying products with fish in it,
since the cat doesn't like fish. However, a "Chicken Formula Cat Food"
may not always be the best choice, since some "chicken formulas" may
indeed contain fish, and sometimes may contain even more fish than
chicken. A quick check of the ingredient list would avert this mistake.

If more than one ingredient is included in a "dinner" name, they must
total 25% and be listed in the same order as found on the ingredient
list. Each named ingredient must be at least 3% of the total, too.
Therefore, "Chicken n' Fish Dinner Cat Food" must have 25% chicken and
fish combined, and at least 3% fish. Also, unlike the "95%" rule, this
rule applies to all ingredients, whether of animal origin or not. For
example, a "Lamb and Rice Formula for Cats" would be an acceptable name
as long as the amounts of lamb and rice combined totaled 25%.

The "3%" or "with" rule was originally intended to apply only to
ingredients highlighted on the principal display panel, but outside the
product name, in order to allow manufacturers to point out the presence
of minor ingredients that were not added in sufficient quantity to merit
a "dinner" claim. For example, a "Cheese Dinner," with 25% cheese, would
not be feasible or economical to produce, but either a "Beef Dinner for
Dogs" or "Chicken Formula Cat Food" could include a side burst "with
cheese" if at least 3% cheese is added. Recent amendments to the AAFCO
model regulations now allow use of the term "with" as part of the
product name, too, such as "Dog Food With Beef" or "Cat Food With
Chicken." Now, even a minor change in the wording of the name has a
dramatic impact on the minimum amount of the named ingredient required,
e.g., a can of "Cat Food With Tuna" could be confused with a can of
"Tuna Cat Food," but, whereas the latter example must contain at least
95% tuna, the first needs only 3%. Therefore, the consumer must read
labels carefully before purchase to ensure that the desired product is
obtained.

Under the "flavor" rule, a specific percentage is not required, but a
product must contain an amount sufficient to be able to be detected.
There are specific test methods, using animals trained to prefer
specific flavors, that can be used to confirm this claim. In the example
of "Beef Flavor Dog Food," the word "flavor" must appear on the label in
the same size, style and color as the word "beef." The corresponding
ingredient may be beef, but more often it is another substance that will
give the characterizing flavor, such as beef meal or beef by-products.

With respect to flavors, pet foods often contain "digests," which are
materials treated with heat, enzymes and/or acids to form concentrated
natural flavors. Only a small amount of a "chicken digest" is needed to
produce a "Chicken Flavored Cat Food," even though no actual chicken is
added to the food. Stocks or broths are also occasionally added. Whey is
often used to add a milk flavor. Often labels will bear a claim of "no
artificial flavors." Actually, artificial flavors are rarely used in pet
foods. The major exception to that would be artificial smoke or bacon
flavors, which are added to some treats.

Net Quantity Statement

The net quantity statement tells you how much product is in the
container. There are many FDA regulations dictating the format, size and
placement of the net quantity statement. None of these do any good if
the consumer does not check the quantity statements, especially when
comparing the cost of products. For example, a 14-ounce can of food may
look identical to the one-pound can of food right next to it. Also, dry
products may differ greatly in density, especially some of the "lite"
products. Thus, a bag that may typically hold 40 pounds of food may only
hold 35 pounds of a food that is "puffed up." A cost-per-ounce or
per-pound comparison between products is always prudent. Manufacturer's
Name and Address The "manufactured by..." statement identifies the party
responsible for the quality and safety of the product and its location.
If the label says "manufactured for..." or "distributed by...," the food
was manufactured by an outside manufacturer, but the name on the label
still designates the responsible party. Not all labels include a street
address along with the city, State, and zip code, but by law, it should
be listed in either a city directory or a telephone directory. Many
manufacturers also include a toll-free number on the label for consumer
inquiries. If a consumer has a question or complaint about the product,
he or she should not hesitate to use this information to contact the
responsible party. Ingredient List All ingredients are required to be
listed in order of predominance by weight. The weights of ingredients
are determined as they are added in the formulation, including their
inherent water content. This latter fact is important when evaluating
relative quantity claims, especially when ingredients of different
moisture contents are compared.

For example, one pet food may list "meat" as its first ingredient, and
"corn" as its second. The manufacturer doesn't hesitate to point out
that its competitor lists "corn" first ("meat meal" is second),
suggesting the competitor's product has less animal-source protein than
its own. However, meat is very high in moisture (approximately 75%
water). On the other hand, water and fat are removed from meat meal, so
it is only 10% moisture (what's left is mostly protein and minerals). If
we could compare both products on a dry matter basis (mathematically
"remove" the water from both ingredients), one could see that the second
product had more animal-source protein from meat meal than the first
product had from meat, even though the ingredient list suggests
otherwise.

That is not to say that the second product has more "meat" than the
first, or in fact, any meat at all. Meat meal is not meat per se, since
most of the fat and water have been removed by rendering. Ingredients
must be listed by their "common or usual" name. Most ingredients on pet
food labels have a corresponding definition in the AAFCO Official
Publication. For example, "meat" is defined as the "clean flesh of
slaughtered mammals and is limited to...the striate muscle...with or
without the accompanying and overlying fat and the portions of the skin,
sinew, nerve and blood vessels which normally accompany the flesh." On
the other hand, "meat meal" is "the rendered product from mammal
tissues, exclusive of any added blood, hair, horn, hide trimmings,
manure, stomach and rumen contents." Thus, in addition to the
processing, it could also contain parts of animals one would not think
of as "meat." Meat meal may not be very pleasing to think about eating
yourself, even though it's probably more nutritious. Animals do not
share in people's aesthetic concerns about the source and composition of
their food. Regardless, the distinction must be made in the ingredient
list (and in the product name). For this reason, a product containing
"lamb meal" cannot be named a "Lamb Dinner."

Further down the ingredient list, the "common or usual" names become
less common or usual to most consumers. The majority of ingredients with
chemical-sounding names are, in fact, vitamins, minerals, or other
nutrients. Other possible ingredients may include artificial colors,
stabilizers, and preservatives. All should be either "Generally
Recognized As Safe (GRAS)" or approved food additives for their intended
uses.

If scientific data are presented that show a health risk to animals of
an ingredient or additive, CVM can act to prohibit or modify its use in
pet food. For example, propylene glycol was used as a humectant in
soft-moist pet foods, which helps retain water and gives these products
their unique texture and taste. It was affirmed Generally Recognized As
Safe (GRAS) for use in human and animal food before the advent of
soft-moist foods. It was known for some time that propylene glycol
caused Heinz Body formation in the red blood cells of cats (small clumps
of proteins seen in the cells when viewed under the microscope), but it
could not be shown to cause overt anemia or other clinical effects.
However, recent reports in the veterinary literature of scientifically
sound studies have shown that propylene glycol reduces the red blood
cell survival time, renders red blood cells more susceptible to
oxidative damage, and has other adverse effects in cats consuming the
substance at levels found in soft-moist food. In light of this new data,
CVM amended the regulations to expressly prohibit the use of propylene
glycol in cat foods.

Another pet food additive of some controversy is ethoxyquin, which was
approved as a food additive over thirty-five years ago for use as an
antioxidant chemical preservative in animal feeds. Approximately ten
years ago, CVM began receiving reports from dog owners attributing the
presence of ethoxyquin in the dog food with a myriad of adverse effects,
such as allergic reactions, skin problems, major organ failure, behavior
problems, and cancer. However, there was a paucity of available
scientific data to support these contentions, or to show other adverse
effects in dogs at levels approved for use in dog foods. More recent
studies by the manufacturer of ethoxyquin showed a dose-dependent
accumulation of a hemoglobin-related pigment in the liver, as well as
increases in the levels of liver-related enzymes in the blood. Although
these changes are due to ethoxyquin in the diet, the pigment is not made
from ethoxyquin itself, and the health significance of these findings is
unknown. More information on the utility of ethoxyquin is still needed
in order for CVM to amend the maximum allowable level to below that
which would cause these effects, but which still would be useful in
preserving the food. While studies are being conducted to ascertain a
more accurate minimum effective level of ethoxyquin in dog foods, CVM
has asked the pet food industry to voluntarily lower the maximum level
of use of ethoxyquin in dog foods from 150 ppm (0.015%) to 75 ppm.
Regardless, most pet foods that contained ethoxyquin never exceeded the
lower amount, even before this recommended change.

Guaranteed Analysis

At minimum, a pet food label must state guarantees for the minimum
percentages of crude protein and crude fat, and the maximum percentages
of crude fiber and moisture. The "crude" term refers to the specific
method of testing the product, not to the quality of the nutrient
itself.

Some manufacturers include guarantees for other nutrients as well. The
maximum percentage of ash (the mineral component) is often guaranteed,
especially on cat foods. Cat foods commonly bear guarantees for taurine
and magnesium as well. For dog foods, minimum percentage levels of
calcium, phosphorus, sodium, and linoleic acid are found on some
products.

Guarantees are declared on an "as fed" or "as is" basis, that is, the
amounts present in the product as it is found in the can or bag. This
doesn't have much bearing when the guarantees of two products of similar
moisture content are compared (for example, a dry dog food versus
another dry dog food). However, when comparing the guaranteed analyses
between dry and canned products, one will note that the levels of crude
protein and most other nutrients are much lower for the canned product.
This can be explained by looking at the relative moisture contents.
Canned foods typically contain 75-78% moisture, whereas dry foods
contain only 10-12% water. To make meaningful comparisons of nutrient
levels between a canned and dry product, they should be expressed on the
same moisture basis.

The most accurate means of doing this is to convert the guarantees for
both products to a dry matter basis. The percentage of dry matter of the
product is equal to 100% minus the percentage of moisture guaranteed on
the label. A dry food is approximately 88-90% dry matter, while a canned
food is only about 22-25% dry matter. To convert a nutrient guarantee to
a dry matter basis, the percent guarantee should be divided by the
percentage of the dry matter, then multiplied by 100. For example, a
canned food guarantees 8% crude protein and 75% moisture (or 25% dry
matter), while a dry food contains 27% crude protein and 10% moisture
(or 90% dry matter). Which has more protein, the dry or canned?
Calculating the dry matter protein of both, the canned contains 32%
crude protein on a dry matter basis (8/25 X 100 = 32), while the dry has
only 30% on a dry matter basis (27/90 X 100 = 30). Thus, although it
looks like the dry has a lot more protein, when the water is counted
out, the canned actually has a little more. An easier way is to remember
that the amount of dry matter in the dry food is about four times the
amount in a canned product. To compare guarantees between a dry and
canned food, multiply the guarantees for the canned food times four
first.

It is especially important to look at the moisture guarantee for canned
foods, even when comparing a canned food with another canned. Under
AAFCO regulations, the maximum percentage moisture content for a pet
food is 78%, except for products labeled as a "stew," "in sauce," "in
gravy," or similar terms. The extra water gives the product the
qualities needed to have the appropriate texture and fluidity. Some of
these exempted products have been found to contain as much as 87.5%
moisture. This doesn't sound like much difference until the dry matter
contents are compared. For example, a product with a guarantee of 87.5%
moisture contains 12.5% dry matter, only half as much as a product with
a 75% moisture guarantee (25% dry matter).

Nutritional Adequacy Statement

Any claim that a product is "complete," "balanced," "100% nutritious,"
or similarly suggests that a product is suitable for sole nourishment
that is not, in fact, nutritionally adequate is a potentially unsafe
product. For this reason, an AAFCO nutritional adequacy statement is one
of the most important aspects of a dog or cat food label. A "complete
and balanced" pet food must be substantiated for nutritional adequacy by
one of two means.

The first method is for the pet food to contain ingredients formulated
to provide levels of nutrients that meet an established profile.
Presently, the AAFCO Dog or Cat Food Nutrient Profiles are used.
Products substantiated by this method should include the words, "(Name
of product) is formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by
the AAFCO (Dog/Cat) Food Nutrient Profiles." This means the product
contains the proper amount of protein, calcium, and other recognized
essential nutrients needed to meet the needs of the healthy animal. The
recommendations of the National Research Council (NRC) were once used as
the basis for nutritional adequacy, but they are no longer considered
valid for this purpose.

The alternative means of substantiating nutritional adequacy is for the
product to be tested following the AAFCO Feeding Trial Protocols. This
means that the product, or "lead" member of a "family" of products, has
been fed to dogs or cats under strict guidelines and found to provide
proper nutrition. These products should bear the nutritional adequacy
statement "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that
(name of product) provides complete and balanced nutrition."

Regardless of the method used, the nutritional adequacy statement will
also state for which life stage(s) the product is suitable, such as "for
maintenance," or "for growth." A product intended "for all life stages"
meets the more stringent nutritional needs for growth and reproduction.
A maintenance ration will meet the needs of an adult, non-reproducing
dog or cat of normal activity, but may not be sufficient for a growing,
reproducing, or hard-working animal. On the other hand, an all life
stages ration can be fed for maintenance. Although the higher levels of
nutrients would not be harmful to the healthy adult animal, they are not
really necessary. Occasionally a product may be labeled for a more
specific use or life stage, such as "senior" or for a specific size or
breed. However, there is little information as to the true dietary needs
of these more specific uses, and no rules governing these types of
statements have been established. Thus, a "senior" diet must meet the
requirements for adult maintenance, but no more. A product that does not
meet either of these methods must state that "this product is intended
for intermittent or supplemental feeding," except if it is conspicuously
identified as a snack or treat.

Feeding Directions

Feeding directions instruct the consumer on how much product should be
offered to the animal. At minimum, they should include verbiage such as
"feed ___ cups per ___ pounds of body weight daily." On some small cans,
this may be all the information that can fit. The feeding directions
should be taken as rough guidelines, a place to start. Breed,
temperament, environment, and many other factors can influence food
intake. Manufacturers attempt to cover almost all contingencies by
setting the directions for the most demanding. The best suggestion is to
offer the prescribed amount at first, and then to increase or cut back
as needed to maintain body weight in adults or to achieve proper rate of
gain in puppies and kittens. A nursing mother should be offered all the
food she wants to eat. Calorie Statement Pet foods can vary greatly in
calorie content, even among foods of the same type (dry, canned) and
formulated for the same life stage. Feeding directions vary among
manufacturers, too, so the number of calories delivered in a daily meal
of one food may be quite different from another. The number of calories
in a product roughly relates to the amount of fat, although varying
levels of non-calorie-containing components, such as water and fiber,
can throw this correlation off. The best way for consumers to compare
products and determine how much to be fed is to know the calorie
content. However, until recently, calorie statements were not allowed on
pet food labels. New AAFCO regulations were developed to allow
manufacturers to substantiate calorie content and include a voluntary
statement.

If a calorie statement is made on the label, it must be expressed on a
"kilocalories per kilogram" basis. Kilocalories are the same as the
"Calories" consumers are used to seeing on food labels. A "kilogram" is
a unit of metric measurement equal to 2.2 pounds. Manufacturers are also
allowed to express the calories in familiar household units along with
the required statement (for example, "per cup" or "per can"). Even
without this additional information, however, consumers can make
meaningful comparisons between products and pick the product best suited
for their animals' needs. As with the guaranteed analysis, the calorie
statement is made on an "as fed" basis, so corrections for moisture
content must be made as described above. To roughly compare the caloric
content values between a canned and a dry food, multiply the value for
the canned food by four.

Other Label Claims

Many pet foods are labeled as "premium," and some now are "super
premium" and even "ultra premium." Other products are touted as
"gourmet" items. Products labeled as premium or gourmet are not required
to contain any different or higher quality ingredients, nor are they
held up to any higher nutritional standards than are any other complete
and balanced products.

The term "natural" is often used on pet food labels, although that term
does not have an official definition either. For the most part,
"natural" can be construed as equivalent to a lack of artificial
flavors, artificial colors, or artificial preservatives in the product.
As mentioned above, artificial flavors are rarely employed anyway.
Artificial colors are not really necessary, except to please the pet
owner's eye. If used, they must be from approved sources, the same as
for human foods. Especially for high-fat dry products, some form of
preservative must be used to prevent rancidity. Natural-source
preservatives, such as mixed tocopherols (a source of vitamin E), can be
used in place of artificial preservatives. However, they may not be as
effective.

"Natural" is not the same as "organic." The latter term refers to the
conditions under which the plants were grown or animals were raised.
There are no official rules governing the labeling of organic foods (for
humans or pets) at this time, but the United States Department of
Agriculture is developing regulations dictating what types of
pesticides, fertilizers and other substances can be used in organic
farming.

Summary

Pet owners and veterinary professionals have a right to know what they
are feeding their animals. The pet food label contains a wealth of
information, if one knows how to read it. Do not be swayed by the many
marketing gimmicks or eye-catching claims. If there is a question about
the product, contact the manufacturer or ask an appropriate regulatory
agency.