issue-1996-02-23•Federal Register final rules — 1996-02-23
Federal Register final rules — 1996-02-23
issue-1996-02-23Federal Register final rules — 1996-02-23Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-844 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and Model DC-9-80 Series Airplanes; Model MD-88 Airplanes; and C-9 (Military) Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6922-6924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-844]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-20-AD; Amendment 39-9493; AD 96-02-05]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and Model
DC-9-80 Series Airplanes; Model MD-88 Airplanes; and C-9 (Military)
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and Model DC-
9-80 series airplanes; Model MD-88 airplanes; and C-9 (military) series
[[Page 6923]]
airplanes, that currently requires visual and eddy current inspections
to detect cracking of the rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, and
replacement of the assembly, if necessary. That amendment was prompted
by several occurrences of failure of the rudder pedals adjuster hub
assembly due to broken detent lugs. This amendment provides an optional
terminating action for the required inspections, and expands the
applicability of the existing AD to include additional airplanes. The
actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent loss of rudder
pedals control and reduction of braking capability.
DATES: Effective March 25, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications, as listed
in the regulations, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register
as of March 25, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert
Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 1, dated February 3, 1992, as listed
in the regulations, was approved previously by the Director of the
Federal Register as of January 22, 1993 (57 FR 60116, December 18,
1992).
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Augusto Coo, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (310) 627-5225; fax (310) 627-
5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 92-27-07,
amendment 39-8441 (57 FR 60116, December 18, 1992), which is applicable
to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and Model DC-9-80 series
airplanes; Model MD-88 airplanes; and C-9 (military) series airplanes,
was published in the Federal Register on April 6, 1995 (60 FR 17489).
The action proposed to continue to require visual and eddy current
inspections to detect cracking of the rudder pedals adjuster hub
assembly, and replacement of the assembly, if necessary. The action
also proposed to expand the applicability of the existing AD to include
additional airplanes.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Two commenters support the proposed rule.
Two other commenters also support the proposed rule, but request
that the FAA allow the replacement of the magnesium casting rudder
pedal adjuster hub assembly with an aluminum assembly, as described in
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 27-325, as terminating action
for the requirements of this AD.
The FAA concurs. The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell
Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 27-325, Revision 1, dated November 30,
1994, which describes procedures for replacement of the rudder pedal
adjustment hub assembly in the rudder pedal mechanism. The FAA has
determined that replacement of the existing magnesium casting with a
new aluminum part, as specified in the service bulletin, provides
optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
this AD. Accordingly, the FAA has revised the final rule to add a new
paragraph (c) to specify this optional terminating action.
McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin number ``A27-325,''
Revision 1, was inadvertently omitted in paragraph (a) of the proposed
rule and a typographical error in the date of that alert service
bulletin also appeared in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule.
Additionally, McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin number
``A27-325,'' Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995, was inadvertently
omitted in paragraph (b) of the proposed rule. The FAA has revised the
final rule to correct these typographical errors.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
There are approximately 909 Model DC-9 and Model DC-9-80 series
airplanes; Model MD-88 airplanes; and C-9 (military) series airplanes
of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that
561 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it
would take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the
required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $180 per airplane.
The actions specified in this AD previously were required by AD 92-
27-07, which was applicable to approximately 373 airplanes. Based on
the figures discussed above, the cost impact of the current
requirements of that AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $67,140.
In consideration of the compliance time and effective date of AD 92-27-
07, the FAA assumes that operators of the 373 airplanes subject to that
AD have already initiated the required actions. This AD action adds no
new costs associated with those airplanes.
This AD action is applicable to approximately 188 additional
airplanes. Based on the figures discussed above, the new costs to U.S.
operators that are imposed by this AD are estimated to be $33,840. This
figure is based on assumptions that no operator of these additional
airplanes has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
[[Page 6924]]
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8441 (57 FR
60116, December 18, 1992), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), amendment 39-9493, to read as follows:
96-02-05 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9493. Docket 95-NM-20-AD.
Supersedes AD 92-27-07, Amendment 39-8441.
Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series
airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), -82 (MD-82) -83 (MD-83), and -87
(MD-87) series airplanes; Model MD-88 airplanes; and Model C-9
(military) series airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-9
Alert Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995;
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (d) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. To prevent loss of rudder pedals control and reduction
of braking capability, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service
Bulletin A27-325, Revision 1, dated February 3, 1992: Prior to the
accumulation of 15,000 landings or within 270 days after January 22,
1993 (the effective date of AD 92-27-07, amendment 39-8441),
whichever occurs later, conduct a visual and eddy current inspection
to detect cracks of the rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, part
number 4616066, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert
Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 1, dated February 3, 1992, or
Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995.
(1) If no cracks are detected as a result of the inspections
required by this paragraph, repeat the inspections at intervals not
to exceed 3,500 landings.
(2) If cracks are detected as a result of the inspections
required by this paragraph, prior to further flight, replace the
rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, part number 4616066, with a new
assembly having the same part number, in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 2, dated
January 27, 1995. Thereafter, conduct visual and eddy current
inspections of the replacement rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly
in accordance with this paragraph.
(b) For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service
Bulletin A27-325, Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995, and not
subject to paragraph (a) of this AD: Prior to the accumulation of
15,000 landings or within 270 days after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later, conduct a visual and eddy current
inspection to detect cracks of the rudder pedals adjuster hub
assembly, part number 4616066, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 1, dated February 3,
1992, or Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995.
(1) If no cracks are detected as a result of the inspections
required by this paragraph, repeat the inspections at intervals not
to exceed 3,500 landings.
(2) If cracks are detected as a result of the inspections
required by this paragraph, prior to further flight, replace the
rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, part number 4616066, with a new
assembly having the same part number, in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 2, dated
January 27, 1995. Thereafter, conduct visual and eddy current
inspections of the replacement rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly
in accordance with this paragraph.
(c) Installation of the aluminum rudder pedal adjustment hub
assembly in the rudder pedal mechanism between stations X=69 and
X=120.000 in the flight compartment, in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 27-325, Revision 1, dated November 30,
1994, constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this
AD.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO. Alternative methods of compliance
previously granted for AD 92-27-07, Amendment 39-8441, continue to
be considered as acceptable alternative methods of compliance with
this amendment.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) The actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 2, dated
January 27, 1995; McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 27-325,
Revision 1, dated November 30, 1994; and McDonnell Douglas DC-9
Alert Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 1, dated February 3, 1992.
Revision 2 of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-325
contains the following list of effective pages:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
level
Page No. shown on Date shown on page
page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-22.............................. 2 Jan. 27, 1995.
23-30............................. 1 Feb. 3, 1992.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision 1 of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 27-325
contains the following list of effective pages:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision level
Page No. shown on page Date shown on page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-22.......................... 1................ Nov. 30, 1994.
23-28......................... Original......... Sept. 13, 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert
Service Bulletin A27-325, Revision 1, dated February 3, 1992, was
approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of January 22,
1993 (57 FR 60116, December 18, 1992). The incorporation by
reference of the remainder of service documents is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from McDonnell Douglas
Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846,
Attention: Technical Publications Business Administration,
Department C1-L51 (2-60). Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on March 25, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 17, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-844 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4162 Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6943-6944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4162]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 13
RIN 1024-AC31
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is publishing final
regulations for Denali National Park, Alaska, that will require
mountain climbers to register a minimum of 60 days before any climb on
Mount McKinley and Mount Foraker. Mountaineering in the park has
increased dramatically over the last ten years and climbing-related
injuries and deaths have correspondingly increased. By requiring
advance registration, the Denali park staff will be able to provide
information to prospective mountaineers in advance of their climb. This
may include information on the specific dangers they may face, how to
prepare and equip, other safety related issues, and requirements
concerning resource protection issues such as litter removal and human
waste disposal. Currently, climbers are required to register, but may
do so as late as the day they depart for the mountain.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on March 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Superintendent, Denali
National Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 9, Denali National Park, AK 99755.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Martin, Superintendent, Denali
National Park and Preserve. Telephone 907-683-2294.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Denali National Park was first established as Mt. McKinley National
Park on February 26, 1917. A separate Denali National Monument was
proclaimed on December 1, 1978. These two park areas were combined,
reconfigured and established as Denali National Park and Preserve on
December 2, 1980, encompassing approximately 6.5 million acres. Prior
to achieving its current configuration, the land the park now
encompasses was recognized for its unique ecological value and
designated an International Biosphere Reserve in 1976. That designation
has since been expanded to encompass the entire 6.5 million acre park
and preserve. The park contains North America's highest mountain,
20,320 foot Mount McKinley. Mount Foraker, at 17,400 feet, and numerous
large glaciers of the Alaska Range are also a part of this park's
subarctic ecosystem. Wildlife includes caribou, Dall sheep, moose,
grizzly bears and wolves.
The first ascent of Mount McKinley occurred in 1913. Climbing
continued to be a popular activity, although on a small scale, after
the park was established. However, during the last ten years,
mountaineering in the park has increased dramatically. The number of
Mount McKinley climbers has risen from 695 in 1984 to 1277 in 1994 and
1,220 in 1995. With the numbers of climbers increasing, the number of
accidents, rescues and resource-related problems have also increased.
Since 1932, a total of 85 mountaineers have perished on the slopes of
Mount McKinley; 28 percent of these deaths (24) have occurred since
1990. Recent years have also seen an increase in climbing-related
deaths on Mount Foraker and the other Alaska Range peaks located in the
park. In 1990, eight mountaineers were rescued on Mount McKinley. In
sharp contrast, the number of mountaineers rescued increased to 28 in
1992, 27 in 1994 and 21 in 1995. Studies by the NPS showed that the
major reason climbers got into trouble on the mountain and required
rescue was their unfamiliarity with the hazards unique to Mount
McKinley. Specifically, extreme weather conditions, weather
changeability and the other hazards associated with climbing in such
northerly latitudes caught the climbers unprepared. The NPS determined
that climbers need better education and information prior to their
climbs and that an appropriate time frame was necessary to convey this
information to the climbing community. Climbers from 38 countries
registered to climb Mount McKinley in 1995. With so many climbers
seeking permits, adequate lead time required to fulfill the requests
lengthens. The 60 day pre- registration period will provide sufficient
opportunity for the Denali park staff to provide the necessary
information to prospective
[[Page 6944]]
mountaineers on the dangers they may face climbing in the park, how to
prepare and equip themselves for the climb, other safety related issues
and requirements concerning resource protection issues such as litter
removal and human waste disposal.
On September 13, 1995, the NPS published the proposed regulation
that will require mountain climbers to register a minimum of 60 days
before any climb on Mount McKinley and Mount Foraker (60 FR 47513). The
comment period closed on November 13, 1995. No comments were received
during the comment period. When this rule becomes final, it will
replace the interim rule that was published on March 31, 1995, in the
Federal Register. (60 FR 16579).
Drafting Information
The primary authors of this final rule are Dennis Burnett,
Washington Office of Ranger Activities, National Park Service and
Brenda Bussard of Denali National Park and Preserve, National Park
Service.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not contain collections of information
requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Compliance With Other Laws
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866. The Department of the Interior determined
that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) The economic effects of this rulemaking are
local in nature and negligible in scope.
The NPS has determined that this final rule will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the human environment, health and
safety because it is not expected to:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(b) Introduce incompatible uses which compromise the nature and
character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
Based on this determination, the regulation is categorically
excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in 516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438).
As such, neither an Environmental Assessment (EA) nor an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13
Alaska, National Parks, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 36 CFR Chapter I, Part 13 is
amended as follows:
PART 13--NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA
1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 462(k), 3101 et seq.; Sec. 13.65(b)
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h), 1361, 1531.
Subpart C--Special Regulations--Specific Park Areas in Alaska
2. Section 13.63 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 13.63 Denali National Park and Reserve.
* * * * *
(f) Mountain climbing. Climbing on Mount McKinley or Mount Foraker
without registering, on a form provided by the Superintendent, at least
60 days in advance of any climb is prohibited.
Dated: February 6, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-4162 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4155 Modifications to Role of National Labor Relations Board's Administrative Law Judges Including: Assignment of Administrative Law Judges as Settlement Judges; Discretion of Administrative Law Judges to Dispense With Briefs, to Hear Oral Argument in Lieu of Briefs, and to Issue Bench Decisions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6940-6942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4155]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
29 CFR Part 102
Modifications to Role of National Labor Relations Board's
Administrative Law Judges Including: Assignment of Administrative Law
Judges as Settlement Judges; Discretion of Administrative Law Judges to
Dispense With Briefs, to Hear Oral Argument in Lieu of Briefs, and to
Issue Bench Decisions
AGENCY: National Labor Relations Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issues a final rule
permanently implementing its recent experimental modification to its
rules authorizing the use of settlement judges and providing
administrative law judges (ALJs) with the discretion to dispense with
briefs, to hear oral argument in lieu of briefs, and to issue bench
decisions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Toner, Executive Secretary,
National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, NW., Room 11600,
Washington, D.C. 20570. Telephone: (202) 273-1940.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 8, 1994, the Board issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) which proposed certain
modifications to the Board's rules to permit the assignment of ALJs to
serve as settlement judges, and to provide ALJs with the discretion to
dispense with briefs, to hear oral argument in lieu of briefs, and to
issue bench decisions (59 FR 46375). The NPR provided for a comment
period ending October 7, 1994.
On December 22, 1994, following consideration of the comments
received to the NPR, the Board 1 issued a notice implementing, on
a one-year experimental basis, the proposed modifications (59 FR
65942). The notice provided that the modifications would become
effective on February 1, 1995, and would expire at the end of the one-
year experimental period on January 31, 1996, absent renewal by the
Board.
\1\ Chairman Gould and Members Devaney and Browning; Members
Stephens and Cohen dissenting in part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 1, 1995, following a review of the experience to date
with the modifications and the views of the NLRB's Advisory Committee
on Agency Procedure, the Board issued a notice proposing to make the
modifications permanent upon expiration of the one-year experimental
period on January 31, 1996 (60 FR 61679). The notice provided for a
period of public comment on this proposal, until December 29, 1995.
Thereafter, in light of the shutdown of Agency operations due to
the lack of appropriated funds, on January 19, 1996, the Board extended
from December 29, 1995, until January 25, 1996, the deadline for filing
comments (61 FR 1314). The same day, the Board also extended the
experimental period from January 31, 1996, until March 1, 1996, to
provide the Board time to consider any comments that were filed (61 FR
1281).
The Board received only one comment in response to its December 1,
1995 notice, from William K. Harvey of Jackson, Shields, Yeiser &
Cantrell, Cordova, Tennessee. The comment recommended that the Board
make the modification regarding settlement judges permanent and that
settlement judges be used in more cases. The comment recommended,
however, that the Board modify the requirement that all parties consent
to the procedure by requiring any party who objects to the appointment
of a settlement judge to show good cause for such objection and
allowing the chief or associate chief
[[Page 6941]]
judge to consider the reasons stated and grant or deny the motion
notwithstanding the stated opposition. The comment also recommended
that the settlement judge be given the authority and discretion to
postpone the scheduled hearing where the settlement judge determines
that a brief postponement would serve the purposes of settlement.
With respect to the modification permitting bench decisions, the
comment urged that this modification be abolished, citing in support
two ALJ bench decisions which the comment asserts were terse and
confusing.\2\ Alternatively, the comment recommended that the Board
adopt a rule that such decisions will never be published in Board
reports.
\2\The Riverboat Hotel, 319 NLRB No. 30 (Sept. 29, 1995); and
Kinco, Ltd., 319 NLRB No. 56 (Oct. 23, 1995) (Member Cohen
dissenting in relevant part).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having carefully considered the foregoing comment, we have decided,
consistent with and for the reasons stated in the December 1, 1995
notice, to implement, on a permanent basis and without change, the
experimental modification to the Board's rules with respect to both
settlement judges and bench decisions. As indicated in the December 1,
1995 notice, many of the issues raised by the comment were considered
by the NLRB Advisory Committee on Agency Procedure, and either the
Management or the Union-side Panel of the Advisory Committee indicated
strong opposition to the modifications to the settlement judge
procedure proposed in the comment. Thus, as indicated in that notice,
the Management-side Panel indicated strong opposition to modifying the
current consensual aspect of the settlement judge procedure, and the
Union-side Panel indicated strong opposition to providing the
settlement judge with the authority to postpone the trial date. In
light of the views of the Advisory Committee, we do not believe the
procedure should be modified as recommended by the comment at this
time.
With respect to the bench decision procedure, as indicated in the
December 1, 1995 notice, in the vast majority of cases during the
experimental period involving a bench decision either no exceptions
were filed to the ALJ's bench decision or the Board short-form adopted
the decision. In those cases where no exceptions were filed to the
ALJ's bench decision, the decision was not published in Board reports
consistent with the Board's historical practice where no exceptions are
filed. The other decisions were published pursuant to the Board's usual
procedure, and we believe that publishing such decisions, on balance,
is generally beneficial to the public and should be continued where
appropriate.
Accordingly, we conclude that the experimental modifications should
be permanently implemented without change.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the NLRB certifies that these rules will not have a significant
impact on small business entities.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 102
Administrative practice and procedure, Labor management relations.
29 CFR Part 102 is amended as follows:
PART 102--RULES AND REGULATIONS, SERIES 8
1. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 102 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 6, National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(29 U.S.C. 151, 156). Section 102.117(c) also issued under Section
552(a)(4)(A) of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(A)). Sections 102.143 through 102.155 also issued under
Section 504(c)(1) of the Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended (5
U.S.C. 504(c)(1)).
2. Section 102.35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 102.35 Duties and powers of administrative law judges; assignment
and powers of settlement judges.
(a) It shall be the duty of the administrative law judge to inquire
fully into the facts as to whether the respondent has engaged in or is
engaging in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce as set forth in
the complaint or amended complaint. The administrative law judge shall
have authority, with respect to cases assigned to him, between the time
he is designated and transfer of the case to the Board, subject to the
Rules and Regulations of the Board and within its powers:
(1) To administer oaths and affirmations;
(2) To grant applications for subpoenas;
(3) To rule upon petitions to revoke subpoenas;
(4) To rule upon offers of proof and receive relevant evidence;
(5) To take or cause depositions to be taken whenever the ends of
justice would be served thereby;
(6) To regulate the course of the hearing and, if appropriate or
necessary, to exclude persons or counsel from the hearing for
contemptuous conduct and to strike all related testimony of witnesses
refusing to answer any proper question;
(7) To hold conferences for the settlement or simplification of the
issues by consent of the parties, but not to adjust cases;
(8) To dispose of procedural requests, motions, or similar matters,
including motions referred to the administrative law judge by the
Regional Director and motions for summary judgment or to amend
pleadings; also to dismiss complaints or portions thereof; to order
hearings reopened; and upon motion order proceedings consolidated or
severed prior to issuance of administrative law judge decisions;
(9) To approve a stipulation voluntarily entered into by all
parties to the case which will dispense with a verbatim written
transcript of record of the oral testimony adduced at the hearing, and
which will also provide for the waiver by the respective parties of
their right to file with the Board exceptions to the findings of fact
(but not to conclusions of law or recommended orders) which the
administrative law judge shall make in his decisions;
(10) To make and file decisions, including bench decisions
delivered within 72 hours after conclusion of oral argument, in
conformity with Public Law 89-554, 5 U.S.C. 557;
(11) To call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce
into the record documentary or other evidence;
(12) To request the parties at any time during the hearing to state
their respective positions concerning any issue in the case or theory
in support thereof;
(13) To take any other action necessary under the foregoing and
authorized by the published Rules and Regulations of the Board.
(b) Upon the request of any party or the judge assigned to hear a
case, or on his or her own motion, the chief administrative law judge
in Washington, D.C., the deputy chief judge in San Francisco, the
associate chief judge in Atlanta, or the associate chief judge in New
York may assign a judge who shall be other than the trial judge to
conduct settlement negotiations. In exercising his or her discretion,
the chief, deputy chief, or associate chief judge making the assignment
will consider, among other factors, whether there is reason to believe
that resolution of the dispute is likely, the request for assignment of
a settlement judge is made in good faith, and the assignment is
otherwise feasible. Provided, however, that no such assignment shall be
made absent
[[Page 6942]]
the agreement of all parties to the use of this procedure.
(1) The settlement judge shall convene and preside over conferences
and settlement negotiations between the parties, assess the
practicalities of a potential settlement, and report to the chief,
deputy, or associate the status of settlement negotiations,
recommending continuation or termination of the settlement
negotiations. Where feasible settlement conferences shall be held in
person.
(2) The settlement judge may require that the attorney or other
representative for each party be present at settlement conferences and
that the parties or agents with full settlement authority also be
present or available by telephone.
(3) Participation of the settlement judge shall terminate upon the
order of the chief, deputy, or associates issued after consultation
with the settlement judge. The conduct of settlement negotiations shall
not unduly delay the hearing.
(4) All discussions between the parties and the settlement judge
shall be confidential. The settlement judge shall not discuss any
aspect of the case with the trial judge, and no evidence regarding
statements, conduct, offers of settlement, and concessions of the
parties made in proceedings before the settlement judge shall be
admissible in any proceeding before the Board, except by stipulation of
the parties. Documents disclosed in the settlement process may not be
used in litigation unless voluntarily produced or obtained pursuant to
subpoena.
(5) No decision of a chief, deputy, or associate concerning the
assignment of a settlement judge or the termination of a settlement
judge's assignment shall be appealable to the Board.
(6) Any settlement reached under the auspices of a settlement judge
shall be subject to approval in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 101.9 of the Board's Statements of Procedure.
3. Section 102.42 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 102.42 Filings of briefs and proposed findings with the
administrative law judge and oral argument at the hearing.
Any party shall be entitled, upon request, to a reasonable period
at the close of the hearing for oral argument, which may include
presentation of proposed findings and conclusions, and shall be
included in the stenographic report of the hearing. In the discretion
of the administrative law judge, any party may, upon request made
before the close of the hearing, file a brief or proposed findings and
conclusions, or both, with the administrative law judge, who may fix a
reasonable time for such filing, but not in excess of 35 days from the
close of the hearing. Requests for further extensions of time shall be
made to the chief administrative law judge in Washington, D.C., to the
deputy chief judge in San Francisco, California, to the associate chief
judge in New York, New York, or to the associate chief judge in
Atlanta, Georgia, as the case may be. Notice of the request for any
extension shall be immediately served on all other parties, and proof
of service shall be furnished. Three copies of the brief or proposed
findings and conclusions shall be filed with the administrative law
judge, and copies shall be served on the other parties, and a statement
of such service shall be furnished. In any case in which the
administrative law judge believes that written briefs or proposed
findings of fact and conclusions may not be necessary, he or she shall
notify the parties at the opening of the hearing or as soon thereafter
as practicable that he or she may wish to hear oral argument in lieu of
briefs.
4. In Sec. 102.45, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 102.45 Administrative law judge's decision; contents; service;
transfer of case to the Board; contents of record in case.
(a) After hearing for the purpose of taking evidence upon a
complaint, the administrative law judge shall prepare a decision. Such
decision shall contain findings of fact, conclusions, and the reasons
or basis therefor, upon all material issues of fact, law, or discretion
presented on the record, and shall contain recommendations as to what
disposition of the case should be made, which may include, if it be
found that the respondent has engaged in or is engaging in the alleged
unfair labor practices, a recommendation for such affirmative action by
the respondent as will effectuate the policies of the Act. The
administrative law judge shall file the original of his decision with
the Board and cause a copy thereof to be served on each of the parties.
If the administrative law judge delivers a bench decision, promptly
upon receiving the transcript the judge shall certify the accuracy of
the pages of the transcript containing the decision; file with the
Board a certified copy of those pages, together with any supplementary
matter the judge may deem necessary to complete the decision; and cause
a copy thereof to be served on each of the parties. Upon the filing of
the decision, the Board shall enter an order transferring the case to
the Board and shall serve copies of the order, setting forth the date
of such transfer, on all the parties. Service of the administrative law
judge's decision and of the order transferring the case to the Board
shall be complete upon mailing.
* * * * *
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 16, 1996.
By direction of the Board: \3\
\3\ Chairman Gould and Members Browning and Fox; Member Cohen
dissenting in part. Member Cohen's partial dissent is attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John J. Toner,
Executive Secretary.
Dissenting Opinion of Member Cohen
I agree with the rule concerning settlement judges. However, I
do not agree with the rule which gives judges the power to issue
bench decisions and the related power to preclude written briefs.
In my dissent from the promulgation of the experimental rule (a
dissent joined by former Member Stephens), I set forth Board law
which holds that bench decisions are contrary to the provisions of
Section 10(c) of the Act.\4\ My colleagues, in apparent recognition
of this fact, chose to summarily overrule that Board law. However,
as I noted in my dissent, if Section 10(c) forbids bench decisions,
the Board is without statutory power to establish a rule which
permits such decisions.\5\
\4\ Plastic Film Products Corp., 232 NLRB 722 (1977); Local
Union No. 195, 237 NLRB 931 (1978).
\5\ See Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467
U.S. 837, 842, 843 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My colleagues have not answered this threshold problem. Further,
even if they were to do so (to their satisfaction), that does not
end the matter. The issue will undoubtedly be the subject of
litigation in the federal courts, delaying the prompt enforcement of
Board orders. Thus, the rule is at cross-purposes with its stated
goal--the prompt resolution of unfair labor practice cases. Further,
in my prior dissent, I set forth other concerns about the rule. At
this juncture, I cannot say with certainty whether these concerns
have been borne out by experience. During the experimental time
frame, there have been only 10 bench decisions out of the 400
decisions issued (2.5%). However, that very paucity of decisions
bespeaks an important point. Our judges, to their credit, have
exercised prudent restraint in exercising the power to issue bench
decisions. Accordingly, for the most part, problems have not
surfaced.\6\ As long as such restraint is exercised, my concerns may
well be allayed. I am hopeful, and cautiously optimistic, that this
will be the case.
\6\ However, there was a substantial problem, in my view, in
Kinco, 319 NLRB No. 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-4155 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4148 Cattle Exportations; Tuberculosis and Brucellosis Test Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6917-6918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4148]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 6917]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. 96-005-1]
Cattle Exportations; Tuberculosis and Brucellosis Test
Requirements
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations concerning exportation of
livestock by eliminating requirements for pre-export diagnostic tests
for tuberculosis and brucellosis in certain cattle being exported from
the United States directly to slaughter. Slaughter cattle affected will
be those exported from States free of brucellosis or tuberculosis and
those exported to countries that have a disease surveillance system
equivalent to that of the United States and that agree to share with
the United States any findings of brucellosis or tuberculosis in U.S.
origin cattle. We believe that these test requirements can be
eliminated without compromising the integrity of our brucellosis and
tuberculosis surveillance systems. This rule will facilitate the
movement of U.S. slaughter cattle to foreign countries.
DATES: Interim rule effective February 15, 1996. Consideration will be
given only to comments received on or before April 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 96-005-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 96-005-1. Comments
received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th
Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Gary Colgrove, Chief Staff
Veterinarian, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-3294.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 91, ``Inspection and Handling of
Livestock for Exportation'' (referred to below as the regulations),
prescribe conditions for exporting animals from the United States.
Section 91.5 requires, among other things, that cattle intended for
exportation be tested for tuberculosis and brucellosis. We are amending
the regulations to remove these testing requirements for cattle
exported directly to slaughter in a foreign country, if the receiving
country has a disease surveillance system equivalent to that of the
United States, as determined by the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and if the receiving country
agrees to share any findings of brucellosis or tuberculosis in U.S.
origin cattle with APHIS. Also, we are amending the regulations to
remove these testing requirements for any cattle moving directly to
slaughter from a State designated as free of tuberculosis or
brucellosis in 9 CFR 77.1 or 78.41, respectively.
Currently, all cattle exported from the United States, including
cattle shipped directly to slaughter, must be tested for brucellosis
and tuberculosis. Testing ensures that any diseased cattle will be
detected and prevented from leaving the United States. Additionally,
detection of disease in any cattle intended for export would alert
APHIS to the possible presence of disease in the herd of origin, and
allow us to take action to contain and eradicate the disease.
Cattle moving directly to slaughter present a negligible risk of
transmitting either brucellosis or tuberculosis to other cattle.
Although we would still want the cattle tested to ensure that we have
information about any possible source of these diseases in the United
States, the tests could be conducted in the receiving country, if that
country has a disease surveillance system equivalent to that of the
United States, as determined by the Administrator, APHIS, and the
country agrees to share any findings of tuberculosis and brucellosis
with APHIS. Further, cattle intended for export directly to slaughter
from a Class Free State for brucellosis or an Accredited-Free State for
tuberculosis would present a negligible risk of carrying brucellosis or
tuberculosis, respectively. Therefore, we believe it is unnecessary to
require testing, prior to export, for brucellosis if the cattle are
moved directly from a Class Free State for brucellosis, or for
tuberculosis if the cattle are moved directly from an Accredited-Free
State for tuberculosis.
The primary effect of this rule would be on cattle moved directly
to slaughter in Mexico and Canada. Nearly all cattle exported for
slaughter are exported to Mexico and Canada. The Administrator has
determined that Canada has a surveillance system for both tuberculosis
and brucellosis that is equivalent to that of the United States, and
Canada will share any findings of tuberculosis and brucellosis in U.S.
origin cattle with APHIS. The Administrator also has determined that
Mexico has a surveillance system for tuberculosis that is equivalent to
that of the United States, and Mexico will share any findings of
tuberculosis in U.S. origin cattle with APHIS. Mexico is still
developing a brucellosis surveillance system, so cattle moving directly
to slaughter in Mexico will continue to require brucellosis tests,
unless they are moving from a Class Free State, as designated in 9 CFR
78.41.
Miscellaneous
We are making minor editorial changes for clarity and consistency.
Immediate Action
The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
has determined that there is good cause for publishing this interim
rule without prior opportunity for public comment. This rule will
relieve restrictions on the exportation of slaughter cattle by removing
certain pre-export testing requirements. U.S. cattle exporters will
benefit economically if the restrictions are removed in time for them
to take
[[Page 6918]]
advantage of current favorable marketing conditions. In addition, State
veterinary officials from all four States bordering Mexico--Arizona,
California, New Mexico, and Texas--have requested that we make these
changes to facilitate the export of slaughter cattle, as we have other
means to obtain the test results.
Because prior notice and other public procedures with respect to
this action are impracticable and contrary to the public interest under
these conditions, we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 to make it
effective upon signature. We will consider comments that are received
within 60 days of publication of this rule in the Federal Register.
After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in
the Federal Register. It will include a discussion of any comments we
receive and any amendments we are making to the rule as a result of the
comments.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
This rule relieves restrictions and is, therefore, expected to have
a favorable economic impact on small entities. The need to make this
rule effective in time for U.S. exporters of slaughter cattle to take
advantage of a favorable marketing situation makes timely compliance
with sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) impracticable. The final rule for this action will include
an analysis of the economic impact of this rule on small entities and
will address any comments we receive on the economic impact of the rule
on small entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12778
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 91
Animal diseases, Animal welfare, Exports, Livestock, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Accordingly, 9 CFR part 77 is amended as follows:
PART 91--INSPECTION AND HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK FOR EXPORTATION
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 105, 112, 113, 114a, 120, 121, 134b, 134f,
136. 136a, 612, 613, 614, and 618; 46 U.S.C. 466a and 466b; 49
U.S.C. 1509(d); 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
2. Section 91.5 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a) to read as set forth below.
b. By revising paragraph (b) to read as set forth below.
c. In paragraph (c), the first sentence, by adding a comma after
the words ``foreign country''.
Sec. 91.5 Cattle.
* * * * *
(a) Tuberculosis. All cattle over 1 month of age shall be negative
to a caudal intradermal tuberculin test using 0.1 ml. of tuberculin
with a reading obtained 72 hours (plus or minus six hours) after
injection as prescribed in Veterinary Services Memorandum 552.15
``Instructions and Procedures for Conducting Tuberculin Tests in
Cattle,'' section VIII A.2
\2\ Copies of this publication may be obtained from the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, National
Center for Import-Export, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, Maryland
20737-1231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Provided that, such tests are not required for any of the
following:
(i) Cattle exported directly to slaughter in a country that has a
tuberculosis surveillance system equivalent to that of the United
States, as determined by the Administrator, and that agrees to share
any findings of tuberculosis in U.S. origin cattle with APHIS; and
(ii) Cattle exported directly to slaughter from a State designated
as an Accredited-Free State in 9 CFR 77.1.
(2) The Administrator has determined that the following countries
have a tuberculosis surveillance system that is equivalent to that of
the United States: Canada and Mexico.
(b) Brucellosis. All cattle over 6 months of age shall be negative
to a test for brucellosis conducted as prescribed in ``Standard
Agglutination Test Procedures for the Diagnosis of Brucellosis'' \2\ or
``Supplemental Test Procedures for the Diagnosis of Brucellosis.'' \2\
(1) Provided that, such tests are not required for any of the
following:
(i) Official vaccinates of dairy breeds under 20 months of age;
(ii) Official vaccinates of beef breeds under 24 months of age;
(iii) Steers and spayed heifers;
(iv) Cattle exported directly to slaughter in a country that has a
brucellosis surveillance system equivalent to that of the United
States, as determined by the Administrator, and that agrees to share
any findings of brucellosis in U.S. origin cattle with APHIS; and
(v) Cattle exported directly to slaughter from a State designated
as a Class Free State in 9 CFR 78.41.
(2) The Administrator has determined that the following country has
a brucellosis surveillance system that is equivalent to that of the
United States: Canada.
* * * * *
Sec. 91.8 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 91.8, footnote 4 and its reference are redesignated as
footnote 3.
Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of February 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-4148 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4068 Indirect Food Additives; Adhesives and Components of Coatings
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6939-6940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4068]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 175
[Docket No. 88F-0316]
Indirect Food Additives; Adhesives and Components of Coatings
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of 3-iodo-2-propynyl-
N-butylcarbamate as an antifungal preservative in adhesives for food
contact applications. This action responds to a petition filed by the
Troy Chemical Corp.
DATES: Effective February 23, 1996; written objections and requests for
a hearing by March 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel N. Harrison, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-216) Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3080.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of October 25, 1988 (53 FR 43043), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 8B4088) had been filed by the Troy Chemical
Corp., 72 Eagle Rock Ave., P.O. Box 366, East Hanover, NJ, 07936-0366
(formerly One Avenue L, Newark, NJ 07105-3895), proposing that the food
additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of 3-iodo-
2-propynyl butyl carbamate as an antifungal preservative in adhesives
for food contact applications.
-FDA has evaluated data in the petition and other relevant
material. The agency concludes that the more accurate name for the
additive is 3-iodo-2-propynyl-N-butylcarbamate (CAS Reg. No. 55406-53-
6), that the proposed food additive use is safe, that the additive will
achieve its intended technical effect, and that Sec. 175.105 Adhesives
(21 CFR 175.105) of the food additive regulations should be amended as
set forth below.
In accordance with Sec. 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the
information contact person listed above. As provided in 21 CFR
171.1(h), the agency will delete from the documents any materials that
are not available for public disclosure before making the documents
available for inspection.
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding,
contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before March 25, 1996, file with the Dockets Management
Branch
[[Page 6940]]
(address above) written objections thereto. Each objection shall be
separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with
particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is
made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on
which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to
request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a
waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered
objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed
description and analysis of the specific factual information intended
to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing
is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a
hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents shall be
submitted and shall be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in
response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
-List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 175
-Adhesives, Food additives, Food packaging. -
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, 21 CFR part 175 is amended as follows:
PART 175--INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: ADHESIVES AND COMPONENTS OF
COATINGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 175 continues to read as
follows:
-Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e). -
-2. Section 175.105 is amended in paragraph (c)(5) by
alphabetically adding the following new entry to the table to read as
follows.
Sec. 175.105 Adhesives.
*-- *-- *-- *-- *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substances Limitations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * * --
3-Iodo-2-propynyl-N-butyl carbamate (CAS Reg. No. 55406-53-6).............. For use only as an antifungal preservative- -------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: February 8, 1996.
Fred R. Shank,
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 96-4068 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4040 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Nonconformance Penalties for 1996 Model Year Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6944-6949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4040]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 86
[A-94-13; FRL-5425-8]
RIN 2060-AE07
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines; Nonconformance Penalties for 1996 Model Year Emission
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule announces the availability of nonconformance
penalties (NCPs) for the Light-Duty Truck 3 (LDT3) particulate matter
(PM) standard taking effect in the 1996 model year. The availability of
these NCPs will allow manufacturers of LDT3 whose vehicles or engines
fail to conform with the 1996 PM standard, but do not exceed a
designated upper limit, to be issued a certificate of conformity upon
payment of a monetary penalty. The associated upper limit for the LDT3
PM standard will be the previous standard of 0.13 grams per mile (g/
mi).
A concurrent, but separate rulemaking addresses the availability of
NCPs for the 1998 and later model year oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
standard for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines (HDDEs), the 1996 and later
model year NOX standard for LDT3 and the 1996 urban bus PM
standard.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective March 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Copies of materials relevant to this
rulemaking proceeding are contained in Public Docket A-94-13 at the Air
Docket of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Room M1500, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, and are available for review in Room
M1500 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. As
provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying
services.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Orehowsky, Manufacturers
Operations Division (6405-J), US Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 233-9292.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Authority
Section 206(g) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7525(g),
requires EPA to issue a certificate of conformity for HDEs or Heavy-
Duty Vehicles (HDVs) which exceed an applicable section 202(a)
emissions standard, but do not exceed an upper limit associated with
that standard, if the manufacturer pays an NCP established by
rulemaking. Congress adopted section 206(g) in the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 as a response to perceived problems with technology-
forcing heavy-duty emissions standards. (It should be noted, however,
that the existence of NCPs does not change the criteria under which the
standards have been and will be set under section 202.) Following
International Harvester v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973),
Congress realized the dilemma that technology-forcing standards were
likely to cause. If strict standards were maintained, then some
manufacturers, ``technological laggards,'' might be unable to comply
initially and would be forced out of the marketplace. NCPs were
intended to remedy this potential problem. The laggards would have a
temporary alternative that would permit them to sell their engines or
vehicles by payment of a penalty. This penalty is based in part, on the
money saved from
[[Page 6945]]
the production of noncomplying engines, would protect conforming
manufacturers from the competitive disadvantage of making more costly
engines which comply with technology forcing standards.
Under section 206(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act, NCPs may be offered
for HDVs or HDEs. The penalty may vary by pollutant and by class or
category of vehicle or engine.
HDVs are defined by section 202(b)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act as
vehicles in excess of 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).
The light-duty truck (LDT) classification includes trucks that have a
GVWR of 8,500 lbs or less. Therefore, certain LDTs may be classified as
HDVs. Historically, LDTs between 6,001 and 8,500 pounds GVWR have been
considered Heavy Light Duty Trucks (HLDTs). Based on various new
requirements established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, HLDTs
have been further subdivided into groups by weight.
The HLDTs are divided at 5750 lbs Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight
(ALVW) which is the average of the curb weight and the GVWR. The HLDTs
that are up through 5750 lbs ALVW are called Light Duty Trucks 3
(LDT3). Those above 5750 lbs ALVW but less than or equal to 8500 lbs
GVWR are Light Duty Trucks 4, or LDT4. The LDT3 and LDT4 subclasses
make up the HLDT vehicle class. Since NCPs are only offered for heavy
duty vehicles or engines, this notice addresses only emission standards
for light duty trucks of the LDT3 and LDT4 categories.
Section 206(g)(3) of the Clean Air Act requires that NCPs:
(1) Account for the degree of emission nonconformity;
(2) Increase periodically to provide incentive for nonconforming
manufacturers to achieve the emission standards; and
(3) Remove the competitive disadvantage to conforming
manufacturers.
Section 206(g) authorizes EPA to require testing of production
vehicles or engines in order to determine the emission level on which
the penalty is based. If the emission level of a vehicle or engine
exceeds an upper limit of nonconformity established by EPA through
regulation, the vehicle or engine would not qualify for an NCP under
section 206(g) and no certificate of conformity could be issued to the
manufacturer. If the emission level is below the upper limit but above
the standard, that emission level becomes the ``compliance level,''
which is also the benchmark for warranty and recall liability; the
manufacturer who elects to pay the NCP is liable for vehicles or
engines that exceed the compliance level in-use, unless, for the case
of HLDTs, the compliance level is below the in-use standard. The
manufacturer does not have in-use warranty or recall liability for
emissions levels above the standard but below the compliance level.
II. Background
A. The Generic Nonconformance Penalty Rule
The generic NCP rule (Phase I) established three basic criteria for
determining the eligibility of emission standards for nonconformance
penalties in any given model year. See 40 CFR 86.1103-87. First, the
emission standard in question must become more difficult to meet. This
can occur in two ways, either by the emission standard itself becoming
more stringent, or due to its interaction with another emission
standard that has become more stringent.
Second, substantial work must be required to meet the emission
standard. EPA considers ``substantial work'' to mean the application of
technology not previously used in that vehicle or engine class/
subclass, or a significant modification of existing technology, to
bring that vehicle/engine into compliance. EPA does not consider minor
modifications or calibration changes to be classified as substantial
work.
Third, a technological laggard must be likely to develop. A
technological laggard is defined as a manufacturer who cannot meet a
particular emission standard due to technological (not economic)
difficulties and who, in the absence of NCPs, might be forced from the
marketplace. EPA will make the determination that a technological
laggard is likely to develop, based in large part on the above two
criteria. However, these criteria are not always sufficient to
determine the likelihood of the development of a technological laggard.
An emission standard may become more difficult to meet and substantial
work may be required for compliance, but if that work merely involves
transfer of well-developed technology from another vehicle class, it is
unlikely that a technological laggard would develop.
The above three criteria were used to determine eligibility for
NCPs in Phase II of the NCP rulemaking (50 FR 53454, December 31,
1985), in Phase III of the NCP rulemaking (55 FR 46622, November 5,
1990) concerning the 1991 model year HDE standards, and in Phase IV of
the NCP rulemaking (58 FR 68532, December 28, 1993) concerning HDVs and
HDEs subject to the 1994 and later model year emission standards for
particulate matter (PM).
As in the previous NCP rules, EPA is specifying values for the
following parameters in the NCP formula for each standard: COC50,
COC90, MC50, and F. The NCP formula is the same as that
promulgated in the Phase I rule.
COC50 is an estimate of the industry wide average incremental
cost per engine (references to engines are intended to include vehicles
as well) associated with meeting the standard for which an NCP is
offered, compared with meeting the upper limit. COC50 is based on
typical engine technology, as nearly as EPA can identify it. As in the
previous NCP rules, costs include additional manufacturer costs and
additional owner costs. The other NCP rules did not include
certification costs in the calculation of COC50, and none will be
allowed in this document because both complying and noncomplying
manufacturers must incur certification costs.
COC90 is EPA's best estimate of the 90th percentile
incremental cost per engine associated with meeting the standard for
which an NCP is offered, compared with meeting the associated upper
limit. COC90 is based on a near worst case technology, as nearly
as EPA can identify it. COC90, like COC50, includes both
manufacturer and owner costs, but not certification costs.
MC50 is an estimate of the industry wide average marginal cost
of compliance per unit of reduced pollutant associated with the least
cost effective emission control technology installed to meet the new
standard. MC50 is measured in dollars per g/BHP-hr for HDEs and in
dollars per gram per mile (g/mi) for LDTs.
F is a factor used to derive MC90, the 90th percentile
marginal cost of compliance with the NCP standard for engines in the
NCP category. MC90 is defined as being the slope of the penalty
rate curve near the standard and is equal to MC50 multiplied by F.
For this rulemaking, as was the case in the previous NCP rules, EPA has
determined that no reasonable estimate of MC90 can be made based
on existing marginal cost data and has thus set F at a presumptive
value of 1.2. This approach was generally supported by commentaries on
the past NCP rulemakings.
B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (59 FR 43074, August
22, 1994), EPA identified the Tier I Heavy Light
[[Page 6946]]
Duty Trucks (HLDT) standards becoming effective in 1996, the 1996 Urban
Bus PM standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr, and the 1998 Heavy Duty Engine (HDE)
NOX standard of 4.0 g/bhp-hr as new standards for which it has
statutory authority for considering NCPs. EPA then applied the three
generic NCP criteria to each of those emission standards.
The Agency identified the 1996 LDT3 PM standard of 0.10 g/mi as
satisfying the required NCP criteria and, therefore, proposed to make
NCPs available for that standard. The Agency also proposed upper limits
for that standard and numerical values to be used in the calculation of
the NCP for the associated vehicles.
EPA did not propose NCPs for the other new standards because they
did not meet all three of the generic NCP criteria.
NCPs were not considered for the Tier 1 ``in-use'' standards since
NCPs are a mechanism to allow manufacturers to certify engine families,
not to assist manufacturers in complying with ``in-use'' standards.
C. Final Rule--Availability of NCPs
1. Standard for Which NCPs Will Be Offered
a. 1996 Tier 1 PM Standard for Diesel LDT3
EPA recognizes that the new PM standard of 0.10 g/mi at full useful
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of
0.13 g/mi at full useful life for diesel-fueled LDT3, satisfying the
first eligibility criterion. Based on discussions with General Motors,
the only current manufacturer of diesel-fueled vehicles in this class,
EPA believes that the addition of catalytic converter technology to
these engines will probably not bring them into compliance with the new
standard. Significant work will be required for another technology,
such as a Variable Geometry Turbocharger, to be adapted for use on
these vehicles. This is especially true when considering the
interrelationship of the NOX and PM emissions of diesel-fueled
engines, as stated above. For these reasons, EPA believes that a
technological laggard may develop and is offering NCPs for diesel-
fueled LDT3 at the full useful life for the new PM standard. The
proposed penalty rates are discussed below.
2. Standards for Which NCPs Were Not Proposed
a. 1996 Tier 1 PM Standard for Non-Diesel Fueled LDT3
There is no previous PM standard for non-diesel fueled LDT3. Thus
the new PM standard of 0.10 g/mi at full useful life represents an
increase in stringency. However, non-diesel fueled vehicles emit very
low levels of particulate matter and will not require any additional
emission control technology to meet this standard. Thus, substantial
work is not required and there is not a likelihood that a technological
laggard will develop. Therefore, EPA did not propose NCPs for these
vehicles.
b. 1996 Tier 1 Non-Methane Hydrocarbon (NMHC) Standard for LDT3
Since there is no NMHC standard for earlier model year LDT3, the
new NMHC standard represents an increase in stringency over the THC
standard for previous model years, satisfying the first eligibility
criterion. EPA acknowledges that one manufacturer has indicated that it
may have difficulty complying with this standard. Based on the
manufacturer's planned strategy, however, EPA does not believe that
substantial work, as described above, will be necessary to meet the new
standard for either the intermediate useful-life level of 0.32 g/mi or
the full useful-life level of 0.46 g/mi, since it does not represent a
major modification of existing technology. EPA also does not believe
that a technological laggard is likely to develop, based on discussions
with vehicle manufacturers. For these reasons, EPA did not propose NCPs
for this standard.
c. 1996 Tier 1 CO Standard for LDT3
EPA recognizes that the new CO standard of 6.4 g/mi at full useful
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of 10
g/mi at full useful life for LDT3, satisfying the first eligibility
criterion. Based on 1993 model year certification levels, only one
manufacturer is currently producing LDT3 vehicles which would not meet
the new standard at full useful life. Since this manufacturer does not
anticipate difficulty in meeting the new CO standards, EPA does not
believe that a technological laggard is likely to develop. The half
useful-life standard of 4.4 g/mi is considered by EPA and manufacturers
to be less difficult to meet than the full useful life standard. For
these reasons, EPA did not propose NCPs for these standards.
d. 1996 Tier 1 Non-Methane Hydrocarbon (NMHC) Standard for LDT4
There is no NMHC standard for earlier model year LDT4. Both EPA and
vehicle manufacturers believe that the NMHC standard represents an
increase in stringency over the THC standard for previous model year
LDT4, satisfying the first eligibility criterion. The same manufacturer
that expressed concern in meeting the NMHC standard for LDT3 has
similar concerns in meeting this standard and will use a similar
strategy to lower the emissions. For the same reasons stated in the
above discussion of the NMHC standard for LDT3, EPA did not propose
NCPs for the NMHC standard at either the intermediate or the full
useful life.
e. 1996 Tier 1 CO Standard for LDT4
EPA recognizes that the new CO standard of 7.3 g/mi at full useful
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of 10
g/mi at full useful life for LDT4, satisfying the first eligibility
criterion. Based on discussions with current manufacturers of affected
vehicles, EPA believes that manufacturers will not have difficulty in
meeting the new standard. Since there are no 1993 model year LDT4 with
CO certification levels higher than the new standard at full useful
life, EPA does not believe that a technological laggard is likely to
develop. The half useful-life standard of 5.0 g/mi is generally
considered by EPA and manufacturers to be less difficult to meet than
the full useful life standard of 7.3 g/mi. For these reasons, EPA did
not propose NCPs for these standards.
f. 1996 Tier 1 NOX Standard for LDT4
EPA recognizes that the new NOX standard of 1.53 g/mi at full
useful life represents an increase in stringency over the prior
standard of 1.7 g/mi at full useful life for LDT4, satisfying the first
eligibility criterion. Based on discussions with current manufacturers
of affected vehicles, and based on the fact that there were no model
year 1993 LDT4 certified which would exceed the new standard at full
useful life, EPA believes that substantial work, as described above,
will not be required of manufacturers and that a technological laggard
is not likely to develop. The half useful-life standard for non-diesel
vehicles of 1.10 g/mi is generally considered by EPA and manufacturers
to be less difficult to meet than the full useful life standard. For
these reasons, EPA did not propose NCPs for the new LDT4 NOX
standards.
g. 1996 Tier 1 PM Standard for LDT4
EPA recognizes that the new PM standard of 0.12 g/mi at full useful
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of
0.13 g/mi at full useful life for LDT4, satisfying the first
eligibility criterion. As in the case of non-diesel LDT3, no work
should be required to meet the new PM standard
[[Page 6947]]
for non-diesel LDT4. And based on discussions with the single, current
manufacturer of diesel-fueled LDT4 vehicles and on 1993 model year
certification levels, EPA does not believe that a technological laggard
is likely to develop or that substantial work, as described above, will
be required to meet the new PM standard. For these reasons, EPA did not
propose NCPs for the new LDT4 PM standard.
3. Standards Addressed in a Concurrent NCP Rulemaking
a. 1996 Tier 1 NOX Standard for LDT3
b. 1996 Urban Bus PM Standard
c. 1998 HDDE NOX Standard
EPA's analysis of the issues concerning NCPs for these standards
and EPA's response to comments received in this rulemaking on these
standards are contained in a Direct Final Rule published elsewhere in
this Federal Register notice. The Direct Final Rule approves NCPs for
the above, three standards.
III. Summary and Analysis of Comments
Written comments were received from five entities during the
comment period: General Motors Corporation, Detroit Diesel Corporation,
Engine Manufacturers' Association, Navistar, and Mack Truck.
A. Availability of Nonconformance Penalties and Penalty Rates
Heavy Light Duty Trucks 3 PM Standard
General Motors agrees with EPA's conclusion that NCPs are justified
for the new LDT3 PM standard. GM stated that the proposed penalty rates
were not reasonable for two reasons. First, GM stated ``the basic
technology determined to be necessary to achieve the emission
improvement required by the standard includes technology (oxidizing
catalyst) that is already being used to achieve the current PM
standard. Thus, the oxidizing catalyst costs included in the penalty
rate determinations needs to be removed and the penalty rates modified
to include only the other technology believed needed to achieve the
1996 PM standard.'' EPA agreed with this suggestion since GM is the
only manufacturer in this market segment. Since GM was not able to
specify what technology would be needed to meet the standard, the
penalty rates in this Final Rule reflect EPA's best determination of
the technology believed necessary for a manufacturer already using
catalyst technology, but still unable to attain the standard.
EPA believes that vehicles unable to achieve the standard with
catalyst technology will need to rely on variable geometry turbocharger
technology, improved oil control, and additional work in optimizing
engine calibrations.
Second, GM argues that since the new Tier 1 standard effectively
increases the test weight used in testing vehicles of this class, this
fact should be accounted for in determining the penalty rates and the
upper limit for the LDT3 PM NCP. While EPA believes the said effect to
be plausible, it is likely a relatively small effect. And, in the
absence of any manufacturer-supplied data in support of that claim,
this component was not considered in determining the NCPs for this
Final Rule.
IV. Penalty Rates
This rule is the most recent in a series of NCP rulemakings. The
discussion of penalty rates in the Phase IV rulemaking (58 FR 68532,
December 28, 1993), Phase III rulemaking (55 FR 46622, November 5,
1990), the Phase II rulemaking (50 FR 53454, December 31, 1985) as well
as the Phase I rulemaking (50 FR 35374, August 30, 1985) are
incorporated by reference.
The derivation of the 1996 Tier 1 LDT3 PM standard cost parameters
are described in a support document entitled ``Calculation of
Nonconformance Penalty Rates for 1996 and Later Model Year LDT3
Particulate Matter (PM), LDT3 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), 1996 and
Later Model Year Urban Bus Particulate Matter (PM), and 1998 and Later
Model Year HDDE Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Standards,'' which is
available in the public docket for this rulemaking. The associated
upper limit of 0.13 g/mi PM, the previous PM standard, was determined
as per section 86.1104-91 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
V. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or
tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency
or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising
out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action.''
This regulation will not have an annual effect on the economy in excess
of $100 million and will not cause a major increase in the price of
HDEs above those that would otherwise occur from compliance with the
emission standards themselves. This regulation is intended to assist
manufacturers that are having difficulty developing and marketing
vehicles which comply with the 1996 Tier 1 PM standard for LDT3.
Without this rule, a manufacturer experiencing difficulty in complying
with this new emission standard (after the use of credits) has only two
alternatives: fix the nonconforming engines for the associated model
years or not sell them at all. NCPs provide manufacturers with
additional time to bring their engines into conformity.
In addition, NCPs are calculated to deprive nonconforming
manufacturers of any cost savings and competitive advantages stemming
from marketing a nonconforming engine. Thus, NCPs will not have
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets.
VI. Economic Impact
Because the use of NCPs is optional, manufacturers have the
flexibility and will likely choose whether or not to use NCPs based on
their ability to comply with emissions standards. If a HDE manufacturer
elects not to use NCPs, the manufacturer and its customers will not
incur any additional costs related to NCPs.
NCPs remedy the potential problem of having a manufacturer forced
out of the marketplace due to that manufacturer's inability to conform
to new, strict emission standards in a timely manner. Without NCPs, a
manufacturer which has difficulty certifying HDEs in conformance with
emission standards or whose engines fail a SEA has only two
alternatives: fix the nonconforming engines, perhaps at a prohibitive
cost, or prevent their introduction into commerce. The availability of
NCPs provides manufacturers with a third alternative: continue
production and introduce into commerce upon payment
[[Page 6948]]
of a penalty for an engine that exceeds the standard until an emission
conformance technique is developed.
Therefore, NCPs represent a regulatory mechanism that allows
affected manufacturers to have increased flexibility. A decision to use
NCPs may be a manufacturer's only way to continue to introduce HDEs
into commerce. Hence, NCPs may be considered to have no adverse
economic impact.
VII. Environmental Impact
When evaluating the environmental impact of this rule, one must
keep in mind that, under the Clean Air Act, NCPs are a consequence of
enacting new, more stringent emissions requirements for heavy duty
engines. Emission standards are set at a level that most, but not
necessarily all, manufacturers can achieve by the model year in which
the standard becomes effective. Following International Harvester v.
Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973), Congress realized the
dilemma that technology-forcing standards were likely to cause, and
allowed manufacturers of heavy-duty engines to certify nonconforming
vehicles/engines upon the payment of an NCP, under certain conditions.
This mechanism would allow a manufacturer(s) who cannot meet
technology-forcing standards immediately to continue to manufacture
these nonconforming engines while they tackle the technological
problems associated with meeting new emission standard(s). Thus, as
part of the statutory structure to force technological improvements
without driving manufacturers out of the market, NCPs provide
flexibility that fosters long-term emissions improvement through the
setting of lower emission standards at an earlier date than could
otherwise be possible. By design, NCPs encourage the technological
laggard that is using NCPs to reduce emission levels to the more
stringent standard as quickly as possible.
VIII. Compliance With Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
et seq., the Administrator is required to either perform a regulatory
flexibility analysis or certify that this regulation will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small business entities.
None of the affected manufacturers could be classified as small.
Moreover, as already discussed, the NCP program can be expected to
benefit manufacturers.
Some small entities do exist as manufacturers' contractors for the
testing of engines for Production Compliance Audits (PCAs). It is EPA's
practice to conduct PCA scheduling (namely, tests per day limitations)
in such a way as to consider the staff and manpower capabilities of
such contractors and avoid any problems. The result is that these
entities are not adversely affected. Thus, I certify that this rule
will not have any adverse economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
IX. Information Collection Requirements
This rule requires that manufacturers perform certain record
keeping and submit certain reports to EPA. The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., provides that reporting and
recordkeeping requirements be approved by OMB before they can be
enforced by EPA. The information collection requirements in this
proposed rule have been addressed in previous rulemaking and approved
by OMB (OMB control no. 2060-0132). However, any person wishing to
comment on these requirements is invited to do so. Comments on these
requirements should be submitted to Chief, Information Policy Branch,
Mail Code 2136, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460 and to Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 726 Jackson Place, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternative and adopt
the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
official of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable
duties on any of these governmental entities or the private sector. In
addition, the UMRA excludes from the definition of ``Federal private
sector mandate'' duties that arise from participation in a voluntary
Federal program. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Gasoline, Motor vehicles, Labeling, Motor
vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 12, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 86, is
amended as follows:
PART 86--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR
VEHICLES AND NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES: CERTIFICATION
AND TEST PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 202, 203, 206, 207, 208, 215, 216, 217, 301(a),
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541,
7542, 7549, 7550, 7552, and 7601(a)).
2. Section 86.1105-87 of subpart L is amended by revising paragraph
(e),
[[Page 6949]]
adding paragraph (g) and adding and reserving paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1105-87 Emission standards for which nonconformance penalties
are available.
* * * * *
(e) The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are expressed in December 1984
dollars. The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section are expressed in December 1989
dollars. The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in
paragraph (f) of this section are expressed in December 1991 dollars.
The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this section are expressed in December 1994 dollars. These
values shall be adjusted for inflation to dollars as of January of the
calendar year preceding the model year in which the NCP is first
available by using the change in the overall Consumer Price Index, and
rounded to the nearest whole dollar in accordance with ASTM E29-67
(reapproved 1980), Standard Recommended Practice for Indicating Which
Places of Figures are to be Considered Significant in Specified
Limiting Values. The method was approved by the director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This
document is available from ASTM, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, and is also available for inspection as part of Docket A-91-06,
located at the Central Docket Section, EPA, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC or at the office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on
January 13, 1992. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the
date of the approval and a notice of any change in these materials will
be published in the Federal Register.
* * * * * *
(g) Effective in the 1996 model year, NCPs will be available for
the following emission standard:
(1) Light-duty truck 3 diesel-fueled vehicle at full useful life
(as defined in Sec. 86.094-2) particulate matter emission standard of
0.10 g/mi.
(i) The following values shall be used to calculate an NCP for the
standard set forth in Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with
Sec. 86.1113-87(a):
(A) COC50: $441.
(B) COC90: $1,471.
(C) MC50: $14,700 per gram per mile.
(D) F: 1.2.
(ii) The following factor shall be used to calculate the
engineering and development component of the NCP for the standard set
forth in Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(h):
0.093.
(2) [Reserved]
(h) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 96-4040 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4039 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Nonconformance Penalties for 1996 and 1998 Model Year Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles and EnginesPart II
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6949-6953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4039]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 86
[A-94-13; FRL-5425-9]
RIN 2060-AE07
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines; Nonconformance Penalties for 1996 and 1998 Model Year
Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Engines--Part II
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule makes nonconformance penalties (NCPs)
available for the 1998 and later model year Heavy-Duty Engine (HDE)
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) standard for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines
(HDDEs), the 1996 and later model year Light-Duty Truck 3 (LDT3)
NOX standard, and the 1996 and later model year Urban Bus
particulate matter (PM) standard. The availability of NCPs will allow
manufacturers whose vehicles or engines fail to conform with these
emission standards, but do not exceed a designated upper limit, to be
issued a certificate of conformity upon payment of a monetary penalty.
The associated upper limit will be the previous standard (5.0 grams per
brake horsepower-hour (g/BHp-hr) NOX for HDDEs, 1.7 grams per mile
(g/mi) NOX for LDT3s, and 0.07 g/BHp-hr PM for urban buses).
A final rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register document
addresses other emission standards for which NCPs have been considered
and establishes NCPs for the 1996 PM standard for LDT3.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will be effective April 23, 1996 unless
notice is received by March 25, 1996 that adverse or critical comments
will be submitted or that an opportunity to submit such comments at a
public hearing is requested. If such comments or a request for a public
hearing are received by the Agency, EPA will then publish a subsequent
Federal Register document withdrawing from this action only those items
which are specifically listed in those comments or in the request for a
public hearing.
ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Copies of materials relevant to this
rulemaking proceeding are contained in Public Docket A-94-13 at the Air
Docket of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Room M1500, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, and are available for review in Room
M1500 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. As
provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying
services.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Orehowsky, Manufacturers
Operations Division [6405-J], US Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 233-9292.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA believes that the use of a direct final
rule is appropriate because the changes made are expected to be non-
controversial. The direct final rule will allow the Agency to finalize
such changes in a timely manner, allowing NCPs to be available before
the start of production of affected vehicles.
I. Statutory Authority
Section 206(g) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7525(g),
requires EPA to issue a certificate of conformity for HDEs or Heavy-
Duty Vehicles (HDVs) which exceed an applicable section 202(a)
emissions standard, but do not exceed an upper limit associated with
that standard, if the manufacturer pays an NCP established by
rulemaking. Congress adopted section 206(g) in the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 as a response to perceived problems with technology-
forcing heavy-duty emissions standards. (It should be noted, however,
that the existence of NCPs does not change the criteria under which the
standards have been and will be set under section 202.) Following
International Harvester v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973),
Congress realized the dilemma that technology-forcing standards were
likely to cause. If strict standards were maintained, then some
manufacturers, ``technological laggards,'' might be unable to comply
initially and would be forced out of the marketplace. NCPs were
intended to remedy this potential problem. The laggards would have a
temporary alternative that would permit them to sell their engines or
vehicles by payment of a penalty. This penalty is based in part, on the
money saved from the production of non complying engines, would protect
conforming manufacturers from the competitive disadvantage of making
more costly
[[Page 6950]]
engines which comply with technology forcing standards.
Under section 206(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act, NCPs may be offered
for HDVs or HDEs. The penalty may vary by pollutant and by class or
category of vehicle or engine.
HDVs are defined by section 202(b)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act as
vehicles in excess of 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).
The light-duty truck (LDT) classification includes trucks that have a
GVWR of 8,500 lbs or less. Therefore, certain LDTs may be classified as
HDVs. Historically, LDTs between 6,001 and 8,500 pounds GVWR have been
considered Heavy Light Duty Trucks (HLDTs). Based on various new
requirements established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, HLDTs
have been further subdivided into groups by weight.
The HLDTs are divided at 5750 lbs Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight
(ALVW) which is the average of the curb weight and the GVWR. The HLDTs
that are up through 5750 lbs ALVW are called Light Duty Trucks 3
(LDT3). Those above 5750 lbs ALVW but less than or equal to 8500 lbs
GVWR are Light Duty Trucks 4, or LDT4. The LDT3 and LDT4 subclasses
make up the HLDT vehicle class. Since NCPs are only offered for heavy
duty vehicles or engines, this notice addresses only emission standards
for light duty trucks of the LDT3 and LDT4 categories.
Section 206(g)(3) of the Clean Air Act requires that NCPs:
(1) Account for the degree of emission nonconformity;
(2) Increase periodically to provide incentive for nonconforming
manufacturers to achieve the emission standards; and
(3) Remove the competitive disadvantage to conforming
manufacturers.
Section 206(g) authorizes EPA to require testing of production
vehicles or engines in order to determine the emission level on which
the penalty is based. If the emission level of a vehicle or engine
exceeds an upper limit of nonconformity established by EPA through
regulation, the vehicle or engine would not qualify for an NCP under
section 206(g) and no certificate of conformity could be issued to the
manufacturer. If the emission level is below the upper limit but above
the standard, that emission level becomes the ``compliance level,''
which is also the benchmark for warranty and recall liability; the
manufacturer who elects to pay the NCP is liable for vehicles or
engines that exceed the compliance level in-use, unless, for the case
of HLDTs, the compliance level is below the in-use standard. The
manufacturer does not have in-use warranty or recall liability for
emissions levels above the standard but below the compliance level.
II. Background
A. The Generic Nonconformance Penalty Rule
The generic NCP rule (Phase I) established three basic criteria for
determining the eligibility of emission standards for nonconformance
penalties in any given model year. See 40 CFR 1103-87. First, the
emission standard in question must become more difficult to meet. This
can occur in two ways, either by the emission standard itself becoming
more stringent, or due to its interaction with another emission
standard that has become more stringent.
Second, substantial work must be required to meet the emission
standard. EPA considers ``substantial work'' to mean the application of
technology not previously used in that vehicle or engine class/
subclass, or a significant modification of existing technology, to
bring that vehicle/engine into compliance. EPA does not consider minor
modifications or calibration changes to be classified as substantial
work.
Third, a technological laggard must be likely to develop. A
technological laggard is defined as a manufacturer who cannot meet a
particular emission standard due to technological (not economic)
difficulties and who, in the absence of NCPs, might be forced from the
marketplace. EPA will make the determination that a technological
laggard is likely to develop, based in large part on the above two
criteria. However, these criteria are not always sufficient to
determine the likelihood of the development of a technological laggard.
An emission standard may become more difficult to meet and substantial
work may be required for compliance, but if that work merely involves
transfer of well-developed technology from another vehicle class, it is
unlikely that a technological laggard would develop.
The above three criteria were used to determine eligibility for
NCPs in Phase II of the NCP rulemaking (50 FR 53454, December 31,
1985), in Phase III of the NCP rulemaking (55 FR 46622, November 5,
1990) concerning the 1991 model year HDE standards, and in Phase IV of
the NCP rulemaking (58 FR 68532, December 28, 1993) concerning HDVs and
HDEs subject to the 1994 and later model year emission standards for
particulate matter (PM).
As in the previous NCP rules, EPA is specifying values for the
following parameters in the NCP formula for each standard: COC50,
COC90, MC50, and F. The NCP formula is the same as that
promulgated in the Phase I rule.
COC50 is an estimate of the industry wide average incremental
cost per engine (references to engines are intended to include vehicles
as well) associated with meeting the standard for which an NCP is
offered, compared with meeting the upper limit. COC50 is based on
typical engine technology, as nearly as EPA can identify it. As in the
previous NCP rules, costs include additional manufacturer costs and
additional owner costs. The other NCP rules did not include
certification costs in the calculation of COC50, and none will be
allowed in this proposed rule because both complying and noncomplying
manufacturers must incur certification costs.
COC90 is EPA's best estimate of the 90th percentile
incremental cost per engine associated with meeting the standard for
which an NCP is offered, compared with meeting the associated upper
limit. COC90 is based on a near worst case technology, as nearly
as EPA can identify it. COC90, like COC50, includes both
manufacturer and owner costs, but not certification costs.
MC50 is an estimate of the industry wide average marginal cost
of compliance per unit of reduced pollutant associated with the least
cost effective emission control technology installed to meet the new
standard. MC50 is measured in dollars per g/BHP-hr for HDEs and in
dollars per gram per mile (g/mi) for LDTs.
F is a factor used to derive MC90, the 90th percentile
marginal cost of compliance with the NCP standard for engines in the
NCP category. MC90 is defined as being the slope of the penalty
rate curve near the standard and is equal to MC50 multiplied by F.
For this rulemaking, as was the case in the previous NCP rules, EPA has
determined that no reasonable estimate of MC90 can be made based
on existing marginal cost data and has thus set F at a presumptive
value of 1.2. This approach was generally supported by commentaries on
the past NCP rulemakings.
B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (59 FR 43074, August
22, 1994), EPA identified the Tier I Heavy Light-Duty Trucks (HLDT)
NOX standard of 0.98 g/mi becoming effective in 1996, the 1998 HDE
NOX standard of 4.0 g/
[[Page 6951]]
BHp-hr, and the 1996 Urban Bus PM standard of 0.05 g/BHp-hr as new
standards for which it has statutory authority for considering NCPs.
EPA did not propose to offer NCPs for these standards because, based on
the information available at the time of the proposed rulemaking, these
standards did not meet the criteria for offering NCPs.
C. Summary and Analysis of Comments
Based on comments to the NPRM received by EPA, EPA has decided to
offer NCPs for the 1996 Light Duty Trucks 3 (LDT3) NOX standard of
0.98 g/mi for diesel-fueled vehicles, the 1998 HDE NOX standard of
4.0 g/BHp-hr for HDDEs, and the 1996 Urban Bus PM standard of 0.05 g/
BHp-hr.
1. Heavy Light Duty Trucks 3 NOX Standard
General Motors, the only manufacturer in this market, commented
that NCPs are justified for this standard since ``* * * the NOX
standard change is large (1.7 g/mi to 0.98 g/mi) * * *'' and ``attempts
to reach significantly lower NOX levels with the current
technology results in very poor engine combustion control with
significant increased smoke * * *'' GM goes on to state that new
technology is required which ``concentrates on new EGR systems and
control interfaces between this EGR technology and the fuel control
system * * *''
EPA agrees with GM's assessment that current EGR flow rates cannot
be increased to limit NOX emissions without changes to the fuel
control system. Driveabiliity problems will occur at higher EGR flow
rates unless the fuel control system is adjusted to account for these
higher EGR flow rates. EPA believes that GM will need to recalibrate
the engine computer to better control fuel delivery rates to allow for
improved driveability at increased EGR flow rates. EPA also believes
that air-to-air aftercooling will be necessary to further reduce
NOX emissions below the standard.
EPA acknowledges that the stringency of the NOX standard for
this class of trucks has increased. Also, significant work will be
involved in developing the appropriate fuel system calibration to allow
for increased EGR flow. Further work will be necessary to develop air-
to-air aftercooling which is new to this segment of the truck market.
Since the previously mentioned technology may not be developed by the
start of the 1996 model year, a technological laggard may develop. For
these reasons, EPA is offering NCPs for 1996 LTD3 NOX standard.
2. 1996 HDDE Urban Bus PM Standard
Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) commented that they are capable of
achieving 0.05 g/BHp-hr in development engines using only a catalytic
converter, but they need new technology to ensure that production
engines would be capable of satisfying the new standard during
Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) testing. The Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA) stated that for the 1996 model year Urban Bus Engine
PM standard the three criteria for offering NCPs are met.
In the 1996 model year the PM standard applicable to Urban Bus
Engines becomes more stringent. EPA acknowledges that new technologies
need to be developed to provide for a compliance margin for SEA
testing. These technologies include improving aftertreatment devices
such as catalysts and traps and new turbocharger designs. EPA believes
that substantial work will be involved in developing this diesel fueled
technology. Particulate traps have not proven to be durable. Catalysts
have reduced PM emissions but further reductions are necessary. Low
inertia turbochargers are being developed but have yet to be offered in
the urban bus market and their effectiveness is uncertain.
EPA believes that Urban Bus Engine manufacturers will need to
employ the unproven technology mentioned in the preceding paragraph to
ensure compliance with this standard, thus; EPA believes a
technological laggard is likely to develop and will be offering NCPs.
3. 1998 HDE NOX Standard
EMA commented that ``based on the information presently available,
it is likely that certain engine manufacturers and/or certain engine
families may not be able to meet the 4.0 g/bhp-hr NOX standard in
1998''. Mack Truck suggested that NCPs should be offered for this
standard since they were offered for the 1988 and 1991 NOX
standards. DDC commented that several of their most advanced engines
are using credits to meet the 1994 standards. Because of the NOX-
PM trade off and the stringency of the 1994 PM standard, none of their
engines are capable of generating NOX credits which could be used
toward the 1998 NOX standard. This could result in DDC having to
discontinue several of its engine ratings in 1998. Navistar commented
that a commercially important engine may not be finished in time
causing an interruption in manufacturing. Navistar stated that NCPs
would allow such an engine to be put into commerce.
In the 1998 model year the NOX standard applicable to HDEs
will become more stringent. EPA believes that this increase in
stringency will require the HDE manufacturers to employ new emission
control technology (e.g., oxidation catalysts, improved turbochargers,
modifications to the fuel injection systems, or engine calibration
changes). These new technologies will require substantial work. Also
based on manufacturers' comments to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(59 FR 43074, August 22, 1994), EPA now believes that a technological
laggard may develop. Therefore, EPA has decided to offer NCPs for the
1998 model year HDE NOX standard.
III. Standards Addressed in a Concurrent NCP Rulemaking
a. 1996 Tier 1 Standards for LDT3 other than diesel NOX
b. 1996 Tier 1 Standards for LDT4
IV. Penalty Rates and Upper Limits
This rule is the most recent in a series of NCP rulemakings. The
discussion of penalty rates in the Phase IV rulemaking (58 FR 68532,
December 28, 1993), Phase III rulemaking (55 FR 46622, November 5,
1990), the Phase II rulemaking (50 FR 53454, December 31, 1985) as well
as the Phase I rulemaking (50 FR 35374, August 30, 1985) are
incorporated by reference.
The derivation of the proposed cost parameters is described in a
support document entitled ``Calculation of Nonconformance Penalty Rates
for 1996 and Later Model Year LDT3 Particulate Matter (PM), LDT3 Oxides
of Nitrogen (NOX), 1996 and Later Model Year Urban Bus Particulate
Matter (PM), and 1998 and Later Model Year HDDE Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) Standards'' which is available in the public docket for this
rulemaking. The associated upper limits of 1.7 g/mi NOX and 0.12
g/mi PM for diesel LDT3, 5.0 g/BHp-hr NOX for HDDEs, and 0.07 g/
BHp-hr PM for urban bus engines were determined from the previous
standards as per Section 86.1104-91 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR).
V. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
[[Page 6952]]
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action.''
This regulation will not have an annual effect on the economy in excess
of $100 million and will not cause a major increase in the price of
HDEs above those that would otherwise occur from compliance with the
emission standards themselves. This regulation is intended to assist
manufacturers that are having difficulty developing and marketing
vehicles which comply with the 1996 Tier 1 PM standard for LDT3s.
Without this rule, a manufacturer experiencing difficulty in complying
with this new emission standard (after the use of credits) has only two
alternatives: fix the nonconforming engines for the associated model
years or not sell them at all. NCPs provide manufacturers with
additional time to bring their engines into conformity.
In addition, NCPs are calculated to deprive nonconforming
manufacturers of any cost savings and competitive advantages stemming
from marketing a nonconforming engine. Thus, NCPs will not have
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets.
VI. Economic Impact
Because the use of NCPs is optional, manufacturers have the
flexibility and will likely choose whether or not to use NCPs based on
their ability to comply with emissions standards. If a HDE manufacturer
elects not to use NCPs, the manufacturer and its customers will not
incur any additional costs related to NCPs. NCPs remedy the potential
problem of having a manufacturer forced out of the marketplace due to
that manufacturer's inability to conform to new, strict emission
standards in a timely manner. Without NCPs, a manufacturer which has
difficulty certifying HDEs in conformance with emission standards or
whose engines fail a SEA has only two alternatives: fix the
nonconforming engines, perhaps at a prohibitive cost, or prevent their
introduction into commerce. The availability of NCPs provides
manufacturers with a third alternative: continue production and
introduce into commerce upon payment of a penalty for an engine that
exceeds the standard until an emission conformance technique is
developed.
Therefore, NCPs represent a regulatory mechanism that allows
affected manufacturers to have increased flexibility. A decision to use
NCPs may be a manufacturer's only way to continue to introduce HDEs
into commerce. Hence, NCPs may be considered to have no adverse
economic impact.
VII. Environmental Impact
When evaluating the environmental impact of this rule, one must
keep in mind that, under the Clean Air Act, NCPs are a consequence of
enacting new, more stringent emissions requirements for heavy duty
engines. Emission standards are set at a level that most, but not
necessarily all, manufacturers can achieve by the model year in which
the standard becomes effective. Following International Harvester v.
Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973), Congress realized the
dilemma that technology-forcing standards were likely to cause, and
allowed manufacturers of heavy-duty engines to certify nonconforming
vehicles/engines upon the payment of an NCP, under certain conditions.
This mechanism would allow a manufacturer(s) who cannot meet
technology-forcing standards immediately to continue to manufacture
these nonconforming engines while they tackle the technological
problems associated with meeting new emission standard(s). Thus, as
part of the statutory structure to force technological improvements
without driving manufacturers out of the market, NCPs provide
flexibility that fosters long-term emissions improvement through the
setting of lower emission standards at an earlier date than could
otherwise be possible. By design, NCPs encourage the technological
laggard that is using NCPs to reduce emission levels to the more
stringent standard as quickly as possible.
VIII. Compliance With Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
et seq., the Administrator is required to either perform a regulatory
flexibility analysis or certify that this regulation will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small business entities.
None of the affected manufacturers could be classified as small.
Moreover, as already discussed, the NCP program can be expected to
benefit manufacturers.
Some small entities do exist as manufacturers' contractors for the
testing of engines for Production Compliance Audits (PCAs). It is EPA's
practice to conduct PCA scheduling (namely, tests per day limitations)
in such a way as to consider the staff and manpower capabilities of
such contractors and avoid any problems. The result is that these
entities are not adversely affected. Thus, I certify that this rule
will not have any adverse economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
IX. Information Collection Requirements
This rule requires that manufacturers perform certain record
keeping and submit certain reports to EPA. The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., provides that reporting and record
keeping requirements be approved by OMB before they can be enforced by
EPA. The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been addressed in previous rulemaking and approved by OMB (OMB control
no. 2060-0132). However, any person wishing to comment on these
requirements is invited to do so. Comments on these requirements should
be submitted to Chief, Information Policy Branch, Mail Code 2136, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460
and to Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, 726 Jackson Place, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
[[Page 6953]]
with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an
EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the
UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternative and adopt the least costly, most cost
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Today's rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable
duties on any of these governmental entities or the private sector. In
addition, the UMRA excludes from the definition of ``Federal private
sector mandate'' duties that arise from participation in a voluntary
federal program. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Gasoline, Motor vehicles, Labeling, Motor
vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 12, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 86, is
amended as follows:
PART 86-CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLES
AND NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES: CERTIFICATION AND TEST
PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 202, 203, 206, 207, 208, 215, 216, 217, 301(a),
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541,
7542, 7549, 7550, 7552, and 7601(a)).
2. Section 86.1105-87 of subpart L is amended by adding paragraphs
(g)(2) and (3) and paragraph (h), reading as follows:
Sec. 86.1105-87 Emission standards for which nonconformance penalties
are available.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) Light-duty truck 3 diesel-fueled vehicle at full useful life
(as defined in Sec. 86.094-2) oxides of nitrogen emission standard of
0.98 g/mi.
(i) The following values shall be used to calculate an NCP for the
standard set forth in Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with
Sec. 86.1113-87(a):
(A) COC50: $654.
(B) COC90: $779.
(C) MC50: $908 per gram per mile.
(D) F: 1.2.
(ii) The following factor shall be used to calculate the
engineering and development component of the NCP for the standard set
forth in Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(h):
0.082.
(3) 1996 Urban Bus (as defined in Sec. 86.094-2) particulate matter
emission standard of 0.05 g/BHp-hr.
(i) The following values shall be used to calculate an NCP for the
standard set forth in Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with
Sec. 86.1113-87(a):
(A) COC50: $576.
(B) COC90: $6,569.
(C) MC50: $28,800 per gram per brake horsepower-hour.
(D) F: 1.2.
(ii) The following factor shall be used to calculate the
engineering and development component of the NCP for the standard set
forth in Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(h):
0.500.
(h) Effective in the 1998 model year, NCPs will be available for
the following emission standard:
(1) Petroleum-fueled diesel heavy-duty engine oxides of nitrogen
standard of 4.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour.
(i) For petroleum-fueled light heavy-duty diesel engines:
(A) The following values shall be used to calculate an NCP in
accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(a):
(1) COC50: $833.
(2) COC90: $1,513.
(3) MC50: $833 per gram per brake horsepower-hour.
(4) F: 1.2.
(B) The following factor shall be used to calculate the engineering
and development component of the NCP for the standard set forth in
Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(h): 0.039.
(ii) For petroleum-fueled medium heavy-duty diesel engines:
(A) The following values shall be used to calculate an NCP in
accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(a):
(1) COC50: $444.
(2) COC90: $1,368.
(3) MC50: $444 per gram per brake horsepower-hour.
(4) F: 1.2.
(B) The following factor shall be used to calculate the engineering
and development component of the NCP for the standard set forth in
Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(h): 0.043.
(iii) For petroleum-fueled heavy heavy-duty diesel engines:
(A) The following values shall be used to calculate an NCP in
accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(a):
(1) COC50: $1,086.
(2) COC90: $2,540.
(3) MC50: $1,086 per gram per brake horsepower-hour
(4) F: 1.2.
(B) The following factor shall be used to calculate the engineering
and development component of the NCP for the standard set forth in
Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(h): 0.039.
(2) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 96-4039 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3977 Removal of Burn Ointment From First-Aid Kits
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6938-6939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3977]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Parts 121, 125, and 135
[Docket No. 25154; Reference Amendments 121-236; 125-19; 135-47]
Removal of Burn Ointment From First-Aid Kits
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Disposition of comments to a final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 12, 1994, the FAA published a final rule with
request for comments [59 FR 1780] that revised the regulations
concerning first aid kits required on board air carrier, air taxi, and
commercial aircraft to remove the burn compound from the list of items
required for the kits. The rule was effective upon publication and the
comment period closed March 14, 1994. This action responds to those
comments received as a result of that final rule and completes that
rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Davis, Regulatory Branch, Air
Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, FAA, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone: (202) 267-
3747.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 5, 1986, the Air Transport Association (ATA) submitted
[[Page 6939]]
a petition to delete the burn compound (burn ointment) from the first
aid kits required to be carried on each aircraft operated under part
121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. In the petition ATA noted that
the application of ice or cold water is the preferred treatment for
minor burns. As part of the supporting data, the petition included a
request from Western Airlines to delete the burn ointment from their
first aid kits and instructions from other carriers' flight manuals
advising flight attendants not to use the burn ointment unless
requested to do so by passengers. ATA stated that the burn ointment
normally has an expiration date, which requires replacement,
inspection, and record-keeping. Later, ATA submitted a letter to the
docket from the American Red Cross that supported their position that
burn ointment retains heat, causing the burn to worsen in some cases.
Additional information submitted by ATA noted that the March 1987
meeting of the ATA Cabin Safety Panel each member present stated that
cold water or ice, rather that the burn ointment, was the preferred
method of treatment for burns.
A summary of ATA's petition was published in the Federal Register
on February 20, 1987, [52 FR 5309]; the comment period closed April 20,
1987. The only comments received were those cited above.
In issuing a final rule removing the burn ointment from the first
aid kits, the FAA agreed with industry practice. It stated that in the
limited situation of treating minor burns aboard aircraft, cold water
is the preferred treatment. Therefore, the requirement for burn
ointment should be eliminated to spare air carriers the unnecessary
expense of having to maintain an unneeded item. Further, because that
final rule action was a minor amendment in which there was not expected
to be any public disagreement, the FAA found that public notice and
comment were unnecessary. Because it was relieving, the rule was made
effective upon publication.
Discussion of Comments Received
Two comments were received on the final rule. Water Jel
Technologies (Water Jel) comments that the revisions to the regulations
were timely; however, the recommendation is flawed and should be
amended to reflect the current protocol for the care of minor burns.
Water Jel believes that burns occur so frequently that some burn
preparations are necessary. This commenter urges the FAA to require
instead a water-based burn product for the first aid kit.
Industrial Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) comments that the
removal of burn compound from first aid kits is not justified by the
record, which cites the burden of maintaining the kits and the protocol
of treating minor burns. ISEA believes that the majority of burn
ointments and compounds sold in FAA kits are water-soluble products
that have no expiration dates. ISEA states that the pain-relieving
benefits of water soluble burn ointments clearly outweigh the cost of
maintaining them in first aid kits used on aircraft. ISEA recommends
that 14 CFR parts 121, 125, and 135 be amended to add the words `water
soluble' to the description of the burn ointment.
FAA Response to Comments
The FAA agrees with commenters that a water-based compound may
provide additional, longer lasting treatment for a burn until medical
attention is provided. The incidence of burns aboard aircraft, however,
does not support such a requirement. With the elimination of smoking
aboard aircraft, the vast majority of burns occur when hot beverages
are spilled. These are usually minor burns, and cold water provides
sufficient relief to passengers. Therefore, the FAA finds that the
final rule should be retained, as amended.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 13, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3977 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3976 Special Condition: Eurocopter Deutschland Model EC135 Helicopter, Full Authority Digital Engine Control
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6921-6922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3976]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 21 and 27
[Docket No. 93-ASW-2; Special Condition 27-ASW-1]
Special Condition: Eurocopter Deutschland Model EC135 Helicopter,
Full Authority Digital Engine Control
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final special condition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This special condition is issued for the Eurocopter
Deutschland Model EC135 helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel
or unusual design feature associated with the Turbomeca Arrius 2B or
United Technologies Pratt & Whitney PW 206B engines with a full
authority digital engine control (FADEC) system. This special condition
contains additional safety standards that the Administrator considers
necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that provided by
the applicable airworthiness standards.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Carroll R. Wright, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111; telephone
(817) 222-5120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Eurocopter Deutschland, Munich, Germany, submitted an application
on October 31, 1990, for a Type Certificate for the Model BO-108
(EC135) helicopter to the FAA Brussels Certification Office through the
German Luftfahrt-Bundesamt Authorities (LBA). Notice of Proposed
Special Condition 27-ASW-1 was published, based on this application,
for protection of systems that perform critical functions from High
Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Due to delays and a redefinition of
the proposed helicopter, a new application was submitted for Type
Certification of the EC135 B-1 and D-1 helicopter on December 12, 1994,
through the German LBA Authorities to the FAA Brussels Aircraft
Certification Office. The Model EC135 is a 5-7 passenger, two engine,
5,511-lb
[[Page 6922]]
maximum take-off gross weight, normal category helicopter. This model
helicopter may be equipped with either the Turbomeca Arrius 2B or the
United Technologies Pratt & Whitney PW 206B engines. Both of these type
engines utilize a FADEC system.
Type Certification Basis
The certification basis established for the Model EC135 includes:
1. 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 21.29.
2. 14 CFR part 27, Amendment 30, dated October 3, 1994; and the
following additional requirements to part 27, Amendment 30:
a. Section 27.65 with the following changes: the introductory
portion of Sec. 27.65(b)(2) is changed to read ``The steady rate of
climb must be determined,'' and Sec. 27.65(b)(2)(ii) is changed to read
``Within the range from sea level up to the maximum altitude for which
certification is requested.''
b. Section 27.1141 plus a new requirement that ``Each control must
be able to maintain any set position without (1) Constant attention; or
(2) Tendency to creep due to control loads or vibration.''
c. Additional requirements for rotor brake controls state that (1)
It must be impossible to apply the rotor brake inadvertently in flight,
and (2) There must be means to warn the crew if the rotor brake has not
been completely released before takeoff.''
3. Applicable paragraphs of part 29, Amendment 36, dated January
31, 1996; as follows: 29.861(a), 29.901(c), 29.903 (b), (c), (e),
29.908(a), 29.917(b), (c)(1), 29.927(c)(1), 29.953(a), 29.1027(a),
20.1045(a)(1), (b), (c), (d), (f), 29.1047(a), 29.1181(a), 29.1189(c),
29.1191(a)(1), 29.1193(e), 29.1305(a)(6), (b), 29.1309(b)(2)(i), (d),
29.1331(b), 29.1351(d)(2).
4. Noise Requirements of part 36 Noise Standards Appendix J amended
by Amendments 36-1 through the latest amendment in effect at the time
of certification.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
the Model EC135 helicopter because of a novel or unusual design
feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of
Sec. 21.101(b)(2) establish a level of safety equivalent to that
established in the regulations.
Special conditions, as appropriate, are issued in accordance with
Sec. 11.49 after public notice, as required by Secs. 11.28 and 11.29(b)
and become a part of the type certification basis, as provided by
Sec. 21.101(b)(2). In addition to the applicable airworthiness
regulations and special conditions, the Model EC135 helicopter must
comply with the noise certification requirements of part 36 and the
engine emission requirements of Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) 27.
Discussion of Comments
Notice of Proposed Special Condition No. SC-93-SW was published in
the Federal Register on January 22, 1993 (58 FR 5666). Two comments
were received from the manufacturer. One comment corrected the name of
the manufacturer. The other comment stated that the laboratory test
option should satisfy this special condition for VFR including
operation below 500 feet AGL. The FAA agrees with both comments. The
name is corrected in this final special condition, and the other
comment does not require a change to the rule as proposed. Therefore,
except for the name change, the special condition is adopted as
proposed.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model under the provisions of Sec. 21.101(a)(1).
Novel or Unusual Design Feature
The Eurocopter Deutschland Model EC135 helicopter has been
identified as incorporating one and possibly more electrical or
electronic systems that will be performing functions critical to the
continued safe flight and landing of the helicopter. FADEC is an
electronic device that performs the critical functions of engine
control. The control of the engines is critical to the continued safe
flight and landing of the helicopter during visual flight rules (VFR)
and instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.
If it is determined that this helicopter will incorporate other
electrical or electronic systems performing critical functions, those
systems also will be required to comply with the requirements of this
special condition.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable
initially the Model EC135 helicopter. Should Eurocopter Deutschland
apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include
another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature,
the special conditions would apply to that model as well, under the
provisions of Sec. 21.101(a)(1).
Conclusion
This action affects only one unusual or novel design feature on one
series of helicopters. It is not a rule of general applicability and
affects only the manufacturer who applied to the FAA for approval of
these features on the affected helicopter.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 21 and 27
Aircraft, Air transportation, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
The authority citation for this special condition is as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C.(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, and 44704.
The Special Condition
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special condition is issued as part of the
type certification basis for the Eurocopter Deutschland Model EC-135
helicopter.
Protection for Electrical/Electronic Systems From High Intensity
Radiated Fields.
Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and
installed to ensure that the operation and operational capabilities of
these critical functions are not adversely affected when the helicopter
is exposed to high intensity radiated fields external to the
helicopter.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 9, 1996.
Eric Bries,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3976 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3970 Airworthiness Directives; Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH DG-500M Sailplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6937-6938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3970]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-16-AD; Amendment 39-9524; AD 96-04-12]
Airworthiness Directives; Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH DG-500M
Sailplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to certain Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH (Glaser-Dirks) DG-500M
sailplanes. This action requires replacing the airbrake control hook-up
shaft with a part of improved design. Reports of cracks in the welding
of the lever to the torsion tube of the airbrake control prompted this
action. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent an
unintended extension of the airbrakes caused by failure of the lever to
the torsion tube of the airbrake control, which could result in
flutter, excessive rate of descent, and loss of control of the
sailplane.
DATES: Effective March 29, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before April 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 95-CE-16-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th
Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained from
Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH, Im Schollengarten 19-20, D-78646
Buchsal-UnterGrombach 4, Germany. This information may also be examined
at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-CE-16-AD,
Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite
700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Herman Belderok, Project Officer,
Sailplanes, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 1201 Walnut, suite 900,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 426-6932; facsimile (816)
426-2169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Luftfarht-Bundesant (LBA), which is the
airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Glaser-Dirks DG-500M sailplanes.
The LBA reports cracks in the welding of the lever to the torsion tube
of the airbrake control. In one instance, the airbrake control failed,
resulting in an unintended airbrake extension. If not detected and
corrected, a cracked lever to the torsion tube of the airbrake control
could result in an unintended extension of the airbrakes with
subsequent possible flutter, excessive rate of descent, and loss of
control of the sailplane.
Glaser-Dirks Technical Note (TN) No. 843/3-2, dated October 28,
1992, contains information about replacing the airbrake control hook-up
shaft (part number 5 St 57) on DG-500M sailplanes with an airbrake
control hook-up shaft of improved design (part number 5 St 57 change
b). The LBA classified this technical note as mandatory and issued LBA
AD 92-358, dated October 30, 1992, in order to assure the continued
airworthiness of these sailplanes in Germany.
This sailplane model is manufactured in Germany and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described. The FAA has examined the findings of the LBA,
reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is
necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other Glaser-Dirks DG-500M sailplanes of the same
type design registered in the United States, this AD requires replacing
the airbrake control hook-up shaft (part number 5 St 57) with an
airbrake control hook-up shaft of improved design (part number 5 St 57
change b). Accomplishment of the replacement is in accordance with the
applicable maintenance or service manual. Improved design airbrake
control hook-up shafts may be obtained from Glaser-Dirks on an exchange
basis.
None of the DG-500M sailplanes affected by this action are on the
U.S. Register. All sailplanes included in the applicability of this
rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign
registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action.
However, the FAA considers this rule necessary to ensure that the
unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject
sailplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register.
Should an affected sailplane be imported and placed on the U.S.
Register, accomplishment of the required replacement and inspection
would take approximately 8 workhours at an average labor charge of $60
per workhour. Parts are provided by Glaser-Dirks at no cost on an
exchange basis. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of this
AD would be $480 per sailplane that would become registered in the
United States.
Since this AD action does not affect any sailplane that is
currently on the U.S. register, it has no adverse economic impact and
imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, notice and
public procedures hereon are unnecessary and the amendment may be made
effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not
preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, comments are
invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to
[[Page 6938]]
comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or
arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules
Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified
under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before
the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be
amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that
supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 95-CE-16-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
96-04-12 Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH: Amendment 39-9524; Docket
95-CE-16-AD.
Applicability: DG-500M sailplanes (serial numbers 5E30M14
through 5E60M25), certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For sailplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required prior to further flight after the effective
date of this AD, unless already accomplished.
To prevent an unintended extension of the airbrakes caused by
failure of the lever to the torsion tube of the airbrake control,
which could result in flutter, excessive rate of descent, and loss
of control of the sailplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Replace the airbrake control hook-up shaft (part number 5 St
57) with an airbrake control hook-up shaft of improved design (part
number 5 St 57 change b). Accomplishment of the replacement is in
accordance with the applicable maintenance or service manual.
Note 2: Glaser-Dirks Technical Note No. 843/3-2, dated October
28, 1992, references an exchange program where improved design
airbrake control hook-up shafts may be obtained at no cost.
(b) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the sailplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an equivalent level of safety may be
approved by the Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1201
Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The request shall be
forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may
add comments and then send it to the Manager, Small Airplane
Directorate.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Small Airplane Directorate.
(d) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
the document referred to herein upon request to Glaser-Dirks
Flugzeugbau GmbH, Im Schollengarten 19-20, D-78646 Buchsal-
UnterGrombach 4, Germany; or may examine this document at the FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,
601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
(e) This amendment (39-9524) becomes effective on March 29,
1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 15, 1996.
Michael Gallagher,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3970 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3965 Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area, Trawl Closure to Protect Red King Crab
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6953-6954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3965]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 951128281-5281-01;I.D. 112795A]
Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area,
Trawl Closure to Protect Red King Crab
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Inseason adjustment; response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS responds to comments received on an inseason adjustment
[[Page 6954]]
closing a portion of the Bering Sea to all trawl vessels to protect red
king crab. NMFS published this inseason adjustment in the Federal
Register on December 11, 1995, for a 30-day comment period. No change
in the trawl closure was made as a result of the comments received.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The inseason adjustment is effective January 20, 1996,
through March 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaja Brix, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
NMFS published an inseason adjustment in the Federal Register on
December 11, 1995 (60 FR 63451) that implemented a closure to all trawl
vessels in part of the Bristol Bay area located in the Bering Sea. The
closure area encompasses an area between 56 deg. and 57 deg. N. lat.
and between 162 deg. and 164 deg. W. long., and is intended to protect
female red king crab, in view of the declining Bristol Bay red king
crab stocks. One letter of comments on the inseason adjustment was
received within the comment period, which ended January 10, 1996, and
is summarized in the ``Response to Comments'' section, below. After
review of the comments received, NMFS determined that no change to the
inseason adjustment is warranted.
Response to comments
Comment 1: Closure of areas that experience high red king crab
bycatch rates is supported.
Response: NMFS agrees.
Comment 2: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council),
NMFS, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) should consider
implementing regulations that provide appropriate management tools for
controlling bycatch of crab in the crab fisheries as well as other
causes of crab mortality.
Response: The current Fishery Management Plan for the Commercial
King and Tanner Crab Fisheries (FMP) defers the right to implement
bycatch limits of other species of crab in the directed crab fisheries
to the State of Alaska. Proposals to implement crab bycatch limits in
directed crab fisheries could be addressed to the State of Alaska Board
of Fisheries and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game or proposals
could be made to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council for
amendments to the current FMP.
Comment 3: Regulations that authorize inseason adjustments at
Sec. 675.20(e) specify that the selection of inseason management
measures, including time/area closures, must be based on the least
restrictive action necessary to protect the species in need of
conservation protection and allow fisheries to continue for other
species. Therefore, the trawl closure implemented under the December
11, 1995, inseason adjustment should prohibit only bottom trawling, not
pelagic trawling, in the closed area. The seasonal timing of the
closure is supported to allow other fisheries with low bycatch of red
king crab to be prosecuted later in the year.
Response: The authority for various types of inseason adjustments
is provided in regulations at 50 CFR 675.20(e). However, the specific
regulatory authority under which the December 11, 1995, inseason
closure was promulgated (Sec. 675.20(e)(1)(iv)) does not require that
the least restrictive action be implemented. Furthermore, justification
for applying the interim closure to pelagic trawl operations is
provided in the publication of the inseason adjustment.
Comment 4: NMFS and the Council should begin to collect data and
pursue analyses of conservation benefits of red king crab bycatch
reduction measures, impacts on groundfish target fisheries that may be
affected by time/area closures, and impacts on bycatch of other species
by potentially displaced groundfish fisheries.
Response: NMFS collects a variety of fisheries data that may be
used to analyze the impacts of bycatch of groundfish and non-groundfish
species. These data were used as the basis for the analysis supporting
the inseason adjustment and are provided in the environmental
assessment/regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility
analysis prepared for this action.
Dated: February 16, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3965 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3962 Streamlining of Affordable Housing Programs
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7060-7063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3962]
[[Page 7059]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Parts 510, 511, and 590
Streamlining of Affordable Housing Programs; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7060]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development
24 CFR Parts 510, 511, and 590
[Docket No. FR-3938-F-01]
RIN 2506-AB76
Streamlining of Affordable Housing Programs
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule revises the regulations for certain affordable
housing programs within the Office of Community Planning and
Development to eliminate outdated provisions and to streamline and
simplify the remaining provisions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon McKay, Director, Office of
Affordable Housing Programs, Room 7168, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone:
(202) 708-2685; TTY: 1-800-877-8339. (These are not toll-free numbers.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: President Clinton's memorandum of March 4,
1995, titled ``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative'' directed heads of
Federal departments and agencies to review all existing regulations to
eliminate those that are outdated and modify others to increase
flexibility and reduce burden. As a part of HUD's overall effort to
reduce regulatory burden and streamline the content of title 24 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, this rule revises 24 CFR parts 510, 511,
and 590 to eliminate outdated provisions and to streamline and simplify
the remaining provisions.
Part 510--Section 312 Rehabilitation Loan Program
Part 510 is eliminated except for Sec. 510.105(h). Authority to
make loans under the Section 312 Rehabilitation Loan Program was
repealed as of October 1, 1991. However, since there are still loan
collection functions associated with the program, Sec. 510.105(h) is
retained and revised to refer to loan assumption, which it still
governs. Section 510.105(h) is also revised to change ``Area Manager''
to ``Assistant Secretary for CPD,'' and to delete reference to local
loan approval officers and to the statutory authority to approve loans
because the collection functions are now administered centrally. The
waiver provision in Sec. 510.104 is being consolidated into the
Department-wide waiver regulation being promulgated separately.
Part 511--Rental Rehabilitation Grant Program
Section 511.3, ``Technical Assistance,'' is eliminated because
authority to make new grants under the program was repealed as of
October 1, 1991, and no more technical assistance will be made
available.
Section 511.5, ``Waivers,'' is being consolidated into the
Department-wide waiver regulation being promulgated separately.
In Sec. 511.10, paragraph (d) is eliminated to remove a minimum
project cost. This amendment will facilitate the use of small amounts
of leftover program funds. A conforming change is made to
Sec. 511.11(a). Paragraph (a) of Sec. 511.11 is also revised to remove
the inflexible repayment requirement for incomplete projects. The last
two sentences of Sec. 511.11(c)(2)(iii) are deleted for conforming
reasons. Also, paragraph (g) of Sec. 511.11 (which lists the programs
with which program grant amounts may not be used) is removed because
the programs listed are governed by federally-imposed rent regulatory
agreements or requirements and use of program funds in conjunction with
these programs is not statutorily prohibited.
Subpart D is eliminated, except for Sec. 511.33(c). Sections
511.30, 511.31, and 511.34 relate to formula allocations, which are no
longer being made. In Sec. 511.33, the references to reallocations in
paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) are no longer applicable, since there is
no remaining authority to ``reallocate funds.'' Section 511.33(c)
becomes a separate section regarding the deobligation of rental
rehabilitation grant amounts. In Sec. 511.33(c), the former first two
sentences and the former fifth and sixth sentences are deleted because
those provisions are now out of date and unnecessary. For similar
reasons, in the former third (now second) sentence (requiring
consultation with the grantee prior to deobligation), the reference to
a reasonable start-up time for implementing a new program is deleted.
In the former fourth (now first) sentence, the word ``will'' is changed
to ``may'' and each of the time periods referred to therein is extended
by one year, and clarifications are made. This assumes that the
discretionary one-year extensions permitted by the former regulation
were granted, and it authorizes, but no longer requires, HUD to
deobligate uncommitted or unexpended grant funds after the extended
time periods have expired. Finally, a new third sentence is added which
authorizes the applicable HUD field office to direct a grantee to
proceed to close-out its rental rehabilitation program and to
deobligate remaining funds when the field office determines, after
consultation with the grantee, that any remaining uncommitted funds
cannot be committed within a reasonable time, only small amounts of
funds remain, and any incomplete projects cannot be completed within a
reasonable time. The net effect of these changes is to empower HUD
field offices and grantees with the necessary authority and flexibility
to close out rental rehabilitation programs on an orderly, but timely,
basis.
The first three sentences of Sec. 511.50 regarding a State's
election to administer a State allocation are deleted because they are
no longer needed; all such allocations have already been made.
For similar reasons, in Sec. 511.51(a), the phrase ``that elects to
administer its allocation in accordance with Sec. 511.50'' and
paragraph (d) (regarding State administration of rental rehabilitation
grant program for cities receiving a formula allocation) are deleted.
Section 511.52, ``HUD-administered program,'' is eliminated because
the authority to make new grants was repealed as of October 1, 1991.
However, the rest of subpart F contains continuing, substantive
requirements for States using grants obligated prior to repeal and,
therefore, is retained.
Section 511.76(h)(2) is revised to allow grantees increased
flexibility by permitting the use of program income for other
affordable housing projects (which might include State or locally
assisted projects) and does not limit them to using this program income
for only RRP, HOME, HOPE, or CDBG activities.
Section 511.77(a) is revised to remove language regarding
obligating funds for any fiscal year.
Section 511.80(a) is revised to eliminate the introductory
reference to reallocations under Sec. 511.33 because reallocations are
no longer available under the program.
Section 511.81(b) is eliminated. The annual performance report is
still required for grantees which are still actively expending funds,
but the content of the report need not be specified in regulations.
Section 511.82(c)(2) is eliminated because conditioning the use of
Rental Rehabilitation grant amounts from a succeeding fiscal year's
allocation as a
[[Page 7061]]
corrective or remedial action is no longer possible.
Section 511.82(d) is revised to remove the first sentence referring
to reallocation of grant amounts that become available from a
succeeding fiscal year's allocation, because funds may not be
reallocated to other grantees after October 1, 1991.
Part 590--Urban Homesteading Program
Section 590.1 is revised to reflect that authority to reimburse
Federal agencies for transfer of additional properties to LUHAs under
this part was repealed effective October 1, 1991.
Section 590.3, ``Waiver authority,'' is being consolidated into the
Department-wide waiver regulation being promulgated separately.
Section 590.5 is revised to remove the definitions of ``Federally-
owned property,'' ``FmHA,'' ``RTC,'' and ``VA,'' since no additional
properties may be transferred from any source.
In Sec. 590.7, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are revised to remove
unnecessary provisions and to streamline and conform the remaining
provisions.
The following sections are eliminated because the authority to
transfer properties under the program was repealed as of October 1,
1991, and the sections are no longer necessary:
Sec. 590.9 ``Listing of Federally-owned properties''
Sec. 590.11 ``Applications''
Sec. 590.13 ``Standards for HUD review and approval of a local urban
homesteading program''
Sec. 590.15 ``Urban homesteading program participation agreement''
Sec. 590.17 ``Transfer of HUD-owned property''
Sec. 590.18 ``Reimbursement to FmHA, VA and RTC''
Sec. 590.21 ``Reservation of funds''
Section 590.19, ``Use of Section 810 funds,'' is revised to
eliminate the first two sentences which reference the use of Section
810 funds. With no Section 810 funds available, discussion of fund use
is unnecessary.
In Sec. 590.23, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised, and paragraph
(d) is removed, to streamline the provisions by removing unnecessary
regulatory detail regarding close-out.
In Sec. 590.29, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised to streamline
the language regarding the review of LUHA performance.
In Sec. 590.31, paragraph (c) is deleted, since conditioning a
future participation request is no longer possible.
Other Matters:
Environmental Review. This rulemaking does not have an
environmental impact. This rulemaking simply amends existing
regulations by streamlining and simplifying the provisions and does not
alter the environmental effect of the regulations being amended.
Findings of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment were
made in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that
implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) at the time of development of the implementing
regulations. Those findings remain applicable to this rule and are
available for public inspection between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.
weekdays in the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk at the above address.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Secretary, in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this rule
before publication and by approving it certifies that this rule does
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because this rule pertains to the administrative matter of
streamlining and simplifying provisions in title 24 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism. The General Counsel, as the
Designated Official under section 6(a) of Executive Order 12612,
Federalism, has determined that this rule does not have ``federalism
implications'' because it does not have substantial direct effects on
the States (including their political subdivisions), or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
Executive Order 12606, The Family. The General Counsel, as the
Designated Official under Executive Order 12606, The Family, has
determined that this rule does not have potential significant impact on
family formation, maintenance, and general well-being.
List of Subjects
24 CFR Part 510
Lead poisoning, Loan programs--housing and community development,
Relocation assistance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social
security, Urban renewal.
24 CFR Part 511
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs--housing and
community development, Lead poisoning, Low and moderate income housing,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technical assistance.
24 CFR Part 590
Government property, Housing, Intergovernmental relations, Low and
moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Urban renewal.
Accordingly, the Department amends title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, subtitle B, chapter V, parts 510, 511, and 590, as
follows:
PART 510--SECTION 312 REHABILITATION PROGRAM
1. The authority for part 510 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1452b and 3535(d).
PART 510--[AMENDED]
2. Part 510 is amended as follows:
a. All sections of part 510 are removed, except for Sec. 510.105(h)
(1), (2), and (3) which is redesignated as Sec. 510.1 (a), (b), and
(c), ``Multi-family property loans.''
Sec. 510.1 [Amended]
b. In newly redesignated Sec. 510.1(a), the phrase ``Area Manager''
is removed and, in its place, the phrase ``Assistant Secretary for
CPD'' is added; the phrase ``, or the approving officer where a
locality has local section 312 loan approval authority,'' is removed;
and the phrase ``under section 312(a)(3) for approval'' is removed and,
in its place, the phrase ``for assumption'' is added.
PART 511--RENTAL REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAM
3. The authority for part 511 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437o and 3535(d).
Secs. 511.3 and 511.5 [Removed and Reserved]
4. Sections 511.3 and 511.5 are removed and reserved.
Sec. 511.10 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 511.10, paragraph (d) is removed and reserved.
6. Section 511.11 is amended by removing the last two sentences of
paragraph (c)(2)(iii), by removing and reserving paragraph (g), and by
revising paragraph (a), to read as follows:
Sec. 511.11 Project requirements.
(a) Rehabilitation. To receive assistance under this part, a
project must require rehabilitation, measured by whether the project
before the assisted rehabilitation does not meet the rehabilitation
standards under Sec. 511.10(e). If a project is terminated before
completion of rehabilitation (as defined in Sec. 511.2), whether
voluntarily
[[Page 7062]]
by the grantee or otherwise, amounts equal to the rental rehabilitation
grant amounts already dispersed for the project under the C/MI System
are not eligible project costs, whether or not the grantee has already
expended such grant amounts to pay for project costs. If such amount is
not repaid, the grantee may be subject to corrective and remedial
actions under Sec. 511.82.
* * * * *
Secs. 511.30, 511.31, 511.34 [Removed and Reserved]
7. Sections 511.30, 511.31 and 511.34 are removed and reserved.
8. Section 511.33 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 511.33 Deobligation of rental rehabilitation grant amounts.
(a) Before deobligating grant amounts, HUD will consult with the
affected grantee and take into account factors such as timing of the
grantee's program year; the timing of State distributions to State
recipients, if applicable; the timing of expected project approvals for
projects in the grantee's pipeline; climatic or other considerations
affecting rehabilitation work schedules; and other relevant
considerations. In addition to any remedial deobligation under
Sec. 511.82, HUD may deobligate any rental rehabilitation grant amounts
that are not:
(1) Committed to specific local projects within 3 years of the date
of obligation of the grant under Sec. 511.21(d) (4 years in the case of
a State that distributes rental rehabilitation grant amounts to State
recipients); or
(2) Expended for eligible costs within 5 years of such date of
obligation (6 years in the case of a State that distributes rental
rehabilitation grant amounts to State recipients).
(b) After such consultation, the HUD field office may direct the
grantee to proceed with program closeout and may deobligate remaining
unexpended grant amounts if the field office determines that any
uncommitted funds will not be committed within a reasonable time, only
small amounts of funds remain unexpended, or completion of uncompleted
projects appears infeasible within a reasonable time. None of the time
periods referred to in this section are extended by any suspensions of
project set-ups or other remedial action imposed by HUD under this
part.
Sec. 511.50 [Amended]
9. In Sec. 511.50, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the first
three sentences.
Sec. 511.51 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 511.51, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the phrase
``that elects to administer its allocation in accordance with
Sec. 511.50,'' and paragraph (d) is removed.
Sec. 511.52 [Removed and Reserved]
11. Section 511.52 is removed and reserved.
12. In Sec. 511.76, paragraph (h)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 511.76 Program income.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) Program income on hand at the time of program closeout or
earned after program closeout may be contributed to HOME or HOPE
program grantees as a cash matching contribution in accordance with
applicable HOME or HOPE program rules, or may be used for activities
that would be eligible under other affordable housing activities, as
determined by the recipient.
13. In Sec. 511.77, the introductory sentence is removed, and
paragraph (a) is revised, to read as follows:
Sec. 511.77 Grant closeout.
(a) Each individual fiscal year rental rehabilitation grant will be
closed out when all grant amounts for the grant to be closed out have
been drawn down and expended for completed projects and/or
administrative costs, or grant amounts not drawn down and expended have
been deobligated by HUD.
* * * * *
Sec. 511.80 [Amended]
14. In Sec. 511.80, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the phrase
``In addition to reviewing grantee performance for purposes of making
reallocations under Sec. 511.33,'' from the first sentence.
Sec. 511.81 [Amended]
15. In Sec. 511.81, paragraph (b) is removed and reserved.
Sec. 511.82 [Amended]
16. In Sec. 511.82, paragraph (c)(2) is removed and reserved, and
the first sentence of paragraph (d) is removed.
PART 590--URBAN HOMESTEADING
17. The authority citation for part 590 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1706e; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
18. Section 590.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 590.1 General.
This part applies to the completion of activities remaining under
the Urban Homesteading Program authorized under section 810(b) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 1706e).
Authority to reimburse Federal agencies for transfer of additional
properties to LUHAs under this part was repealed effective October 1,
1991.
Secs. 590.3, 590.9, 590.11, 590.13, 590.15, 590.17, 590.18, and
590.21 [Removed and Reserved]
19. Sections 590.3, 590.9, 590.11, 590.13, 590.15, 590.17, 590.18,
and 590.21 are removed and reserved, and the first and second sentences
of Sec. 590.19 are removed.
Sec. 590.5 [Amended]
20. Section 590.5 is amended by removing the definitions of
``Federally-owned property,'' ``FmHA,'' ``RTC,'' and ``VA.''
Sec. 590.7 [Amended]
21. Section 590.7 is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph (a) is removed and reserved;
b. Paragraph (b)(6) is amended by removing the last two sentences;
c. Paragraph (b)(8) is amended by removing the phrase ``consistent
with the coordinated approach to neighborhood improvement'';
d. Paragraph (c)(1) is amended by removing the second sentence, and
to remove the phrase ``as described in Secs. 590.13-.15 of this part''
from the third sentence;
e. Paragraph (c)(2)(i) is amended by removing the phrase ``VA, FmHA
and RTC as described in Sec. 590.11(a)(7)'';
f. Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) is revised; and
g. Paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) are removed, to read as follows:
Sec. 590.7 Program requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Designate, and enter into a written agreement with, a
qualified community organization (as defined in the Act) to act as LUHA
in accordance with this part.
22. Section 590.23 is amended by revising paragraph (a), and by
removing the last sentence of paragraph (c) and paragraph (d), to read
as follows:
Sec. 590.23 Program close-out.
(a) Initiation of close-out. The LUHA shall institute close-out
procedures, as prescribed by HUD.
* * * * *
23. In Sec. 590.29, paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraph
(a)(4), and paragraph (c) are revised to read as follows:
[[Page 7063]]
Sec. 590.29 HUD review of LUHA performance.
(a) HUD may review the performance of each active LUHA as
necessary, as determined by HUD, to determine whether:
* * * * *
(4) The LUHA is making reasonable progress in moving properties
through the stages of the homesteading process, including acquisition,
homesteader selection, conditional conveyance, rehabilitation, and
final conveyance.
* * * * *
(c) LUHAs shall supply data and make available records necessary
for HUD's monitoring of the LUHA's local urban homesteading program.
Sec. 590.31 [Removed and Reserved]
24. In Sec. 590.31, paragraph (c) is removed and reserved.
Dated: February 13, 1996.
Andrew M. Cuomo,
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
[FR Doc. 96-3962 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3950 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200 Series Airplanes Equipped With Rolls Royce Model RB211-535E4/E4B Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6935-6937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3950]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-30-AD; Amendment 39-9523; AD 96-04-11]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200 Series Airplanes
Equipped With Rolls Royce Model RB211-535E4/E4B Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is applicable to certain Boeing Model 757-200 series airplanes. This
action requires a revision to the Airplane Flight Manual to ensure that
the flightcrew activates the engine cowl thermal anti-ice (CTAI) system
for both engines at the top of descent to avoid engine rundown (loss of
engine power). This amendment is prompted by reports that, after the
flightcrew activated the engine CTAI during descent, engine rundown
occurred due to unknown reasons. The actions specified in this AD are
intended to ensure that the flightcrew activates the engine cowl
thermal anti-ice system for both engines prior to descent; activation
of the engine CTAI system in the middle of descent could result in a
compressor stall and subsequent engine rundown of multiple engines.
DATES: Effective March 11, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before April 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-30-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056.
Information concerning this amendment may be obtained from or
examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Hanowski, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; telephone (206) 227-
2684; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has received at least seven reports
of engine rundown (loss of engine power) on Boeing Model 757-200 series
airplanes equipped with Rolls Royce Model RB211-535E4/E4B engines.
These incidents occurred while the airplanes were in flight, at an
altitude between 24,000 and 29,000 feet.
In four of the seven incidents, dual engine events occurred in
which one of the engines stalled and ``recovered'' to produce usable
thrust; the other engine stalled, ran down to sub-idle power, and was
subsequently shutdown.
In six of the seven incidents, the flightcrew activated the engine
cowl thermal anti-ice system (CTAI) for both engines during the middle
of the descent, which resulted in either single or dual engine
compressor stalls and subsequent engine rundowns.
In the seventh incident, the flightcrew increased engine power from
a minimum flight idle to a slightly higher power when both engines
stalled; one of the engines returned to normal thrust level, and the
other engine ran down to sub-idle power.
The cause of these engine rundown incidents has not been
conclusively proven. However, ice accumulation on the engine is one
possible cause that is
[[Page 6936]]
being investigated. Rolls Royce (the manufacturer of the subject
engines) is continuing to conduct tests and evaluations to determine
the exact cause of engine rundowns.
FAA's Considerations
Data gathered from the reported incidents have led the FAA to
consider that activation of the engine CTAI system for both engines
during the middle of descent may result in a compressor stall and
subsequent loss of multiple engine power. Operation of the engine at a
higher idle thrust level, from the beginning of the descent, will
increase the compressor stall margin and, thus, reduce the risk of
compressor stall. A higher idle thrust level also will increase the
airflow through the compressor and, thus, reduce the susceptibility of
the compressor to rain and icing. Activation of the engine CTAI system
at the beginning of descent has the effect of increasing the idle
thrust level.
Based on this, the FAA finds that, prior to idle descent above
flight level (FL) 200 (20,000 feet), activation of the engine CTAI
system for both engines is necessary in order to operate the engine at
a higher idle thrust level. This action will reduce the risk of engine
stall and rundown during idle descent.
In addition, the FAA finds that, below FL 200, operation of the
engine at low idle thrust level using normal engine CTAI system
procedures will maintain the necessary icing protection for the engine
and will provide adequate stall protection.
Explanation of the Requirements of the AD
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other Boeing Model 757-200 series airplanes,
equipped with Rolls Royce Model RB211-535E4/E4B engines, of the same
type design, this AD is being issued to ensure that the flightcrew
activates the engine cowl thermal anti-ice system for both engines
prior to descents above flight level (FL) 200. This AD requires
revising the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM) to include information instructing the flightcrew to
activate the engine cowl thermal anti-ice system for both engines prior
to descent. The AFM limitation procedures will reduce the risk of a
variety of suspected causes for engine rundown.
This AD action is considered to be interim action. Rolls Royce has
advised the FAA that it currently is developing a modification that
will positively address the unsafe condition addressed by this AD for
the various suspect causes. Once this modification is developed,
approved, and available, the FAA may consider additional rulemaking.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-30-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further
that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is
determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final
regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.
A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-04-11 Boeing: Amendment 39-9523. Docket 96-NM-30-AD.
Applicability: Model 757-200 series airplanes, equipped with
Rolls Royce Model RB211-535E4/E4B engines; certificated in any
category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. To reduce the risk of engine rundown during idle
descents, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM) to include the following statement. This may be accomplished
by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
``Limitations Section 1
In order to reduce the risk of engine rundown during idle
descents, activate the engine cowl thermal anti-ice system for both
engines prior to idle descents above flight level (FL) 200. Below FL
200, use normal engine cowl thermal anti-ice system procedures (as
defined in the AFM).
[[Page 6937]]
Note: The Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) for Model 757
series airplanes currently specifies that an airplane may be
dispatched with an engine anti-ice valve locked in the closed
position. The requirement of this section to activate the engine
cowl thermal anti-ice system prior to descent will prevent the
dispatch of airplanes with an engine anti-ice valve locked in the
closed or open position. Where differences exist between the current
specification of the MMEL and the requirements of this AFM
limitation, the AFM limitation prevails.''
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Operations Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note 1: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) This amendment becomes effective on March 11, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 15, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3950 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3910 International Banking Operations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6918-6921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3910]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 211
[Regulation K; Docket No. R-0862]
International Banking Operations
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 202(e)(7) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA or Act) provides that the Board, in
consultation with the Treasury, develop and publish criteria to be used
in evaluating the operations of any foreign bank in the United States
that the Board has determined is not subject to comprehensive
supervision or
[[Page 6919]]
regulation on a consolidated basis. This final rule amends Regulation K
on international banking operations to set out such criteria pursuant
to section 202(e)(7) of FDICIA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen M. O'Day, Associate General
Counsel (202/452-3786), Sandra L. Richardson, Managing Senior Counsel
(202/452-6406), John W. Rogers, Attorney (202/452-2798); Michael G.
Martinson, Assistant Director (202/452-3640), Elizabeth H. Roberts,
Manager (202/452-3846), Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. For users of
Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), please contact Dorothea
Thompson (202/452-3544), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (Board or Federal Reserve), 20th and C Streets, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 7(e)(7) of the International Banking
Act (IBA) was added by the Foreign Bank Supervision Enhancement Act
(FBSEA) and requires the Board, in consultation with the Treasury
Department, to publish criteria to be used in evaluating the operations
of any foreign bank in the United States that the Board has determined
is not subject to comprehensive, consolidated supervision by its home
country supervisor. A determination by the Board that a foreign bank is
not subject to comprehensive, consolidated supervision is a sufficient
ground, in and of itself, for the Board to require, or with respect to
federal branches or agencies to recommend, termination of the foreign
bank's U.S. branches, agencies, or commercial lending company
subsidiaries. However, termination of its U.S. operations is not
mandatory in these circumstances. Instead, in enacting section 7(e)(7)
of the IBA, Congress recognized that there may be factors in particular
cases that militate against termination of a foreign bank's U.S.
operations.
On December 13, 1994, the Board published for comment a proposed
amendment to Regulation K (the Proposed Rule), 59 FR 64171, setting
forth criteria to be used in evaluating whether a foreign bank's U.S.
operations, in the absence of comprehensive, consolidated supervision,
should be terminated or permitted to continue and, if the latter,
whether any supervisory constraints should be placed upon the bank in
connection with those operations.
The Proposed Rule further provided that any foreign bank found not
to be subject to comprehensive, consolidated supervision may be
required to enter into and comply with an agreement to conduct its U.S.
operations in accordance with restrictions the Board may determine to
be appropriate in order to assure the safety and soundness of such
operations. Prior to imposing any such restrictions, whether through
written agreement or otherwise, the Board would consult with the Office
of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or the relevant state banking
authorities. In appropriate circumstances, the OCC or the relevant
state banking authorities may join in any such agreement. If any
requirements imposed in such an agreement were not adhered to, the U.S.
banking operations of the foreign bank would be subject to further
enforcement action, including potentially the issuance of an order
terminating the activities of its U.S. offices or transmittal of a
recommendation to the OCC for such termination.
The Board received six public comments with regard to the Proposed
Rule. Comments were submitted by two Members of Congress, an
association of state banking supervisors, three trade associations, and
one domestic bank. The comments focused on the following general
topics: maintaining flexibility in the evaluation process, as well as
in the supervisory responses to a determination that a foreign bank is
not subject to comprehensive, consolidated supervision; taking into
account a country's progress towards a system of comprehensive,
consolidated supervision; excluding representative offices from
evaluation under the criteria; providing notice to a foreign bank prior
to making a comprehensive, consolidated supervision determination;
clarifying relevant state banking regulators for purposes of
consultation under the rule; and evaluating a foreign bank's overall
financial condition. The comments are discussed further below.
Flexibility
The commenters generally endorsed the flexibility indicated by the
Board in proposing to take into account a wide variety of criteria in
evaluating whether a foreign bank's U.S. operations should be
terminated or permitted to continue when that foreign bank is not
subject to comprehensive, consolidated supervision.
Several commenters urged the Board to apply the criteria and
develop any subsequent supervisory response on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account the unique circumstances of the foreign bank
concerned, rather than developing a ``standardized'' response based
upon a foreign bank's country of origin. The commenters further urged
the Board explicitly to endorse the case-by-case approach to such
determinations, either in the final rule or in commentary to the final
rule.
As the Board indicated in the preamble to the Proposed Rule,
determinations with regard to whether a foreign bank is subject to
comprehensive, consolidated supervision will be made in the context of
the supervision and regulation of the foreign bank's existing U.S.
operations. A case-by-case approach to such determinations was
contemplated in the Proposed Rule and the Board continues to believe
that this is the appropriate basis on which such determinations should
be made. That said, an adverse determination with regard to whether a
particular bank is subject to comprehensive, consolidated supervision
will suggest that further inquiry may be appropriate with regard to the
nature and scope of supervision of other banks with the same home
country supervisor.
Progress Towards Comprehensive, Consolidated Supervision
The commenters also noted that many foreign supervisors have
reacted to passage of the FBSEA by undertaking initiatives to institute
systems of comprehensive, consolidated supervision. The commenters
urged the Board to take into account as an additional criterion whether
the foreign bank's home country supervisor was making progress towards
comprehensive, consolidated supervision as outlined in the minimum
standards for the supervision of international banking groups and their
cross-border establishments published by the Basle Committee on Banking
Supervision. The Board considers this to be an appropriate suggestion
and the final rule has been amended to include such a criterion.
Supervisory Response
Several commenters were concerned that imposing a requirement that
a foreign bank conduct its U.S. banking operations on the basis of such
operations being in a net-due-to position vis-a-vis the parent should
not be the standard supervisory response stemming from a determination
that a foreign bank is not subject to comprehensive, consolidated
supervision. The commenters noted generally that such a requirement
could be extremely damaging to the business of a foreign bank. These
commenters also noted that the Board, in the
[[Page 6920]]
preamble to the Proposed Rule, indicated that it was appropriate, in
developing the proposed criteria, to take into account the panoply of
tools available to the Board and other banking regulators to regulate
the operations of foreign banks not yet subject to comprehensive,
consolidated supervision. One commenter recommended that the Board
clarify that it only would use specific supervisory agreements in cases
where it has safety and soundness concerns regarding the U.S.
operations of a foreign bank, not solely on the basis that the foreign
bank's home country supervisor does not exercise comprehensive,
consolidated supervision.
The Proposed Rule provided that any foreign bank that the Board
determines is not subject to comprehensive, consolidated supervision
may be required to conduct its U.S. operations subject to such
restrictions as the Board, having taken into account the criteria,
determines to be appropriate in order to assure the safety and
soundness of the bank's U.S. operations. 59 FR 64173. The Board stated
in the preamble to the Proposed Rule that requiring a foreign bank to
conduct its U.S. banking operations in a net-due-to position vis-a-vis
the rest of the organization would be one means of assuring the safe
and sound operation of the bank's U.S. offices. The Board also noted
that other operational requirements also could be imposed, such as
collateralization of affiliate transactions, asset maintenance
requirements, increased asset pledges, and liquidity requirements.
Which of these operational requirements, if any, would be imposed upon
a foreign bank's offices in the United States following a determination
that the bank is not subject to comprehensive, consolidated supervision
would be determined in light of the circumstances of each case.
Representative Offices
Two commenters asked the Board to consider the implications of the
Proposed Rule as regards representative offices, arguing that the
criteria should not apply to foreign banks that operate only
representative offices in the United States. The Board notes that the
FBSEA permits the approval of applications to establish representative
offices even in the absence of comprehensive, consolidated supervision.
The absence of comprehensive, consolidated supervision would not mean
necessarily that any action would be taken under the criteria in
relation to a bank with only representative offices in the United
States. If, however, supervisory concerns should arise in relation to
such a bank, the criteria would apply.
Notice to Foreign Bank
One commenter noted that language in the preamble to the Proposed
Rule could imply that a Board determination as to comprehensive,
consolidated supervision may be made without notice to the foreign bank
other than when expeditious action is necessary or in connection with
an application requiring such determination. The commenter further
stated that the strength of support assessment to be made in connection
with the Supervisory Program for the U.S. Operations of Foreign Banking
Organizations presents an opportunity for a comprehensive, consolidated
supervision determination to be made unbeknownst to the foreign bank.
This commenter recommended that the final rule confirm that a foreign
bank will always receive notice and an opportunity to provide its views
and relevant information when a comprehensive, consolidated supervision
determination is being made and expeditious action in the public
interest is not necessary.
As the Board indicated in the Proposed Rule, all determinations
with regard to whether a foreign bank is subject to comprehensive,
consolidated supervision will be made in the context of the supervision
of the foreign bank's U.S. operations or, of course, in connection with
an application. Just as is the case with other such determinations, a
foreign bank generally will have an opportunity to provide its views
and any information it considers relevant during the course of the
application, supervision, or examination process. Information gained in
the course of the supervisory process will be available to the Board
when making the determination of whether a foreign bank is subject to
comprehensive, consolidated supervision. Any action that might result
from a determination, such as a decision to terminate or to begin
enforcement proceedings, would provide the foreign bank with an
opportunity to provide further information to the Board.
State Banking Regulators
One commenter noted that the criteria do not specify which state
banking regulator would be the ``relevant'' banking regulator in those
cases where a foreign bank has operations in more than one state. This
commenter, therefore, recommended that the Board clarify that the
``relevant'' state regulator includes all state bank regulators where
the foreign bank in question has offices. This amendment is consistent
with the intention underlying the subject provision of the Proposed
Rule and the final rule has been amended accordingly.
Evaluation of Financial Condition
One commenter indicated that due regard should be accorded
different accounting systems used by the foreign bank when evaluating
the soundness of the foreign bank's financial condition, particularly
if the accounting treatments differ from U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles. The Board considers that no amendment to the
Proposed Rule is necessary to address this point. The Board notes that
it approaches the evaluation of a foreign bank's financial condition
with sufficient flexibility to accommodate such accounting differences,
yet with sufficient rigor to reach a view regarding whether the foreign
bank's overall financial strength is equivalent to that required of
U.S. banks seeking to engage in similar activities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed
the rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of
Management and Budget. No collections of information pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub.
L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), it is certified that the final rule
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities that are subject to its regulation.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 211
Exports, Federal Reserve System, Foreign banking, Holding
companies, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons outlined above, the Board is amending 12 CFR Part
211 as set forth below:
PART 211--INTERNATIONAL BANKING OPERATIONS (REGULATION K)
1. The authority citation for Part 211 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 221 et seq., 1818, 1841 et seq., 3101 et
seq., 3901 et seq.
2. A new Sec. 211.30 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:
[[Page 6921]]
Sec. 211.30 Criteria for evaluating the U.S. operations of foreign
banks not subject to consolidated supervision.
(a) General. Pursuant to the Foreign Bank Supervision Enhancement
Act, Pub.L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2286 (1991), the Board shall develop and
publish criteria to be used in evaluating the operations of any foreign
bank in the United States that the Board has determined is not subject
to comprehensive supervision or regulation on a consolidated basis.
(b) Criteria. Following a determination by the Board that, having
taken into account the standards set forth in Sec. 211.24(c)(1) of this
subpart, a foreign bank is not subject to comprehensive, consolidated
supervision by its home country supervisor, the Board shall consider
the following criteria in determining whether the foreign bank's U.S.
operations should be permitted to continue and, if so, whether any
supervisory constraints should be placed upon the bank in connection
with those operations:
(1) The proportion of the foreign bank's total assets and total
liabilities that are located or booked in its home country, as well as
the distribution and location of its assets and liabilities that are
located or booked elsewhere;
(2) The extent to which the operations and assets of the foreign
bank and any affiliates are subject to supervision by its home country
supervisor;
(3) Whether the appropriate authorities in the home country of such
foreign bank are actively working to establish arrangements for the
comprehensive, consolidated supervision of such bank and whether
demonstrable progress is being made;
(4) Whether the foreign bank has effective and reliable systems of
internal controls and management information and reporting, which
enable its management properly to oversee its worldwide operations;
(5) Whether the foreign bank's home country supervisor has any
objection to the bank continuing to operate in the United States;
(6) Whether the foreign bank's home country supervisor and the home
country supervisor of any parent of the foreign bank share material
information regarding the operations of the foreign bank with other
supervisory authorities;
(7) The relationship of the U.S. operations to the other operations
of the foreign bank, including whether the foreign bank maintains funds
in its U.S. offices that are in excess of amounts due to its U.S.
offices from the foreign bank's non-U.S. offices;
(8) The soundness of the foreign bank's overall financial
condition;
(9) The managerial resources of the foreign bank, including the
competence, experience, and integrity of the officers and directors and
the integrity of its principal shareholders;
(10) The scope and frequency of external audits of the foreign
bank;
(11) The operating record of the foreign bank generally and its
role in the banking system in its home country;
(12) The foreign bank's record of compliance with relevant laws, as
well as the adequacy of its money laundering controls and procedures,
in respect of its worldwide operations;
(13) The operating record of the U.S. offices of the foreign bank;
(14) The views and recommendations of the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency or the state banking regulators in those states in
which the foreign bank has operations, as appropriate;
(15) Whether the foreign bank, if requested, has provided the Board
with adequate assurances that such information will be made available
on the operations or activities of the foreign bank and any of its
affiliates as the Board deems necessary to determine and enforce
compliance with the International Banking Act, the Bank Holding Company
Act, and other applicable federal banking statutes; and
(16) Any other information relevant to the safety and soundness of
the U.S. operations of the foreign bank.
(c) Restrictions on U.S. operations.--(1) Terms of agreement. Any
foreign bank that the Board determines is not subject to comprehensive
supervision or regulation on a consolidated basis by its home country
supervisor may be required to enter into an agreement to conduct its
U.S. operations subject to such restrictions as the Board, having
considered the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section,
determines to be appropriate in order to assure the safety and
soundness of its U.S. operations.
(2) Failure to enter into or comply with agreement. A foreign bank
that is required by the Board to enter into an agreement pursuant to
paragraph (c)(1) of this section and either fails to do so or fails to
comply with the terms of such agreement may be subject to enforcement
action in order to assure safe and sound banking operations under 12
U.S.C. 1818, or to termination or a recommendation for termination of
its U.S. operations under Sec. 211.25 (a) and (e) of this subpart and
section (7)(e) of the IBA (12 U.S.C. 3105(e)).
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, February 15, 1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-3910 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3895 Vessel Identification System; Effective Date Change
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6942-6943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3895]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6943]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 187
[CGD 89-050]
RIN 2115-AD35
Vessel Identification System; Effective Date Change
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Interim final rule: change in effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 25, 1995, the Coast Guard published an interim final
rule in the Federal Register (60 FR 20310) for establishing a vessel
identification system and prescribing guidelines for State vessel
titling systems. The effective date of the interim final rule was April
24, 1996. This document suspends the effective date of the guidelines
for the State vessel titling systems for a period of two years.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This document is effective February 23, 1996. 33 CFR
part 187, subpart D, is suspended through April 23, 1998. All other
provisions of the interim final rule will become effective on April 24,
1996, as stated in the interim final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Commander Richard Ferraro, Project Manager, Information
Resources Division (G-MIR-3), Office of Marine Safety, Security and
Environmental Protection, (202) 267-0386, between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: One provision of the interim final rule
prescribes the procedures for obtaining certification of compliance
with guidelines for State vessel titling systems. Many comments pointed
out that compliance of the States with these guidelines may create
undue hardship upon the marine industry where titling, vessel
documentation, mortgage recording, and lending institutions are
concerned. The delay in the effective date until April 24, 1998, was
deemed necessary in order to allow the Coast Guard, States, and the
public time to further review the complexities of the State titling
guideline issues identified during review of the comments received
regarding this interim final rule. A delay of two years should provide
sufficient time to complete the rulemaking on vessel titling
guidelines.
All other provisions of the interim final rule will become
effective on April 24, 1996.
Accordingly, under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 2103; 49 CFR 1.46, 33
CFR part 187, subpart D is suspended effective February 23, 1996
through April 23, 1998.
Dated: February 14, 1996.
Joseph H. Angelo,
Director for Standards, Office of Marine Safety, Security and
Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 96-3895 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3888 Amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act; Regulations Regarding Tribal Gaming
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7054-7056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3888]
[[Page 7053]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of the Treasury
_______________________________________________________________________
31 CFR Part 103
Amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act; Regulations Regarding Tribal
Gaming; Final Rule and application to Tribal Gaming; Final Rule and
Application to Tribal Casinos; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7054]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
31 CFR PART 103
RIN 1506-AAO7
Amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act; Regulations Regarding Tribal
Gaming
AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (``FinCEN'') is
amending the regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act to include
casinos operated by or on behalf of Indian tribes within the definition
of financial institution set forth in those regulations. The amendments
extend the reporting and recordkeeping requirements and anti-money
laundering safeguards of the Bank Secrecy Act to tribal casinos.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective August 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard C. Senia, Senior Financial
Enforcement Officer, Office of Regulatory Policy and Enforcement,
FinCEN, (703) 905-3931, or Joseph M. Myers, Attorney-Advisor, Office of
Legal Counsel, FinCEN, (703) 905-3590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This final rule amends the regulations implementing the statute
popularly known as the ``Bank Secrecy Act,'' Pub. L. 91-508, as
amended, codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31
U.S.C. 5311-5330. The final rule: (i) amends the definition of
``casino'' in 31 CFR 103.11(n)(7)(i) to include explicitly casinos
operating on Indian lands; (ii) amends the regulatory definitions of
``person'' and ``United States'' in 31 CFR 103.11(z) and 103.11(nn),
respectively; (iii) adds definitions of the terms ``Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act,'' ``State,'' and ``Territories and Insular
Possessions'' in 31 CFR 103.11(rr), 103.11(ss), and 103.11(tt),
respectively; and (iv) makes a conforming change to the recordkeeping
and retention requirements of 31 CFR 103.36(b)(7) to reflect the
regulatory system contemplated by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(IGRA). The amendments reflect the terms of section 409 of the Money
Laundering Suppression Act of 1994 (the ``MLSA''), Title IV of the
Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994,
Pub. L. 103-325.
FinCEN published a notice of proposed rulemaking (the ``Notice'')
in the Federal Register on August 3, 1995 (60 FR 39665) proposing the
amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act regulations that are the subject of
this final rule. Only four comments were submitted in response to the
Notice. These comments were submitted, respectively, by a staff
attorney at the National Indian Gaming Commission, by the governments
of two states within which tribal lands are located, and by one tribal
casino.
The only substantive change made to the rule is the postponement of
the rule's effective date until August 1, 1996. FinCEN believes that
the delayed effective date will provide tribes and tribal casino
management companies with a reasonable amount of time to implement
operating and staff training programs for Bank Secrecy Act compliance.
In this connection, FinCEN is publishing in today's Federal Register a
notice of a tribal casino Bank Secrecy Act compliance conference to be
held in April of this year.
Explanation of Provisions
A. Definition of ``Casino''
The definition of casino is amended to include explicitly casinos
operating on Indian lands. Under this amendment, the term ``casino''
now includes any casino duly licensed or authorized to do business
under the IGRA or other federal, state, or tribal law or arrangement
affecting Indian lands.
The general need for and appropriateness of treatment of casinos as
financial institutions for purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act have been
accepted since the mid-1980s. The Department of the Treasury has made
clear the need to prevent casinos, which offer to their customers a
variety of financial services such as deposit or credit accounts, check
cashing and currency exchange services, from being used as a vehicle
for money laundering. The potential risk of money laundering in casinos
on Indian lands is not any less than the risk of money laundering in
state-licensed casinos. Thus, this final rule makes casinos operating
on Indian lands subject to the full set of reporting and recordkeeping
provisions, and anti-money laundering safeguards, of the Bank Secrecy
Act to which other casinos in the United States are subject.
The amendments make it clear that the term ``casino'', as applied
to tribal lands, includes not only tribal casinos created in conformity
with IGRA. The term also includes casinos operating on Indian lands
under a view that compliance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is
unnecessary or inconsistent with inherent tribal rights; such non-IGRA
sanctioned tribal casinos are not exempted from the terms of the Bank
Secrecy Act. In its comments, the State of California specifically
noted its approval of this language in the amendments, and cited the
fact that a significant number of casinos on Indian lands within its
borders were operating Class III gaming without the tribal-state
compact required by IGRA.
The other changes in the definition of casino are designed simply
to list explicitly the three classes of government authorities that can
authorize or license casinos subject to the Bank Secrecy Act. The
changes are intended neither to expand nor contract the coverage of the
Bank Secrecy Act to casinos operating under state authority or under
the authority of various United States territories or possessions.
Recognizing the need to proceed thoughtfully in adopting the rules
of the Bank Secrecy Act to the realities of the operation of casinos on
Indian lands, the Notice specifically sought comment about whether any
part of the Bank Secrecy Act applicable to casinos generally did not
accurately reflect the way tribal casinos operate. Few comments were
received on this issue; the comments that were received indicated that
tribal casinos operate similarly to non-tribal casinos, and that both
tribal and non-tribal casinos should be treated uniformly under the
Bank Secrecy Act.
The State of California commented that the term ``casino'' should
be defined to include Indian gaming establishments engaging in bingo,
lotteries, and pari-mutuel wagering. As outlined in the Notice, the
retention at this time of the term ``casino,'' rather than substitution
in 31 CFR 103.11(n)(7)(i) of the broader authorizing language of 31
U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)(X), is intentional. The Department of the Treasury
generally has sought to apply the Bank Secrecy Act to gaming
establishments that provide both gaming and an array of financial
services for their patrons. Activities such as bingo, lotteries, and
pari-mutuel wagering, are not generally offered in casino-like settings
and may create different problems for law enforcement, tax compliance,
and anti-money laundering programs than do full-scale casino
operations. Consequently, although the MLSA grants the Department of
the Treasury authority to extend the Bank Secrecy Act to the full range
of gaming establishments in the United States, FinCEN intends at this
time to concentrate on taking the initial step of extending the
existing Bank Secrecy Act structure to true casino-like establishments
operating on Indian
[[Page 7055]]
lands. (Of course, a full-scale casino that happens to offer, inter
alia, pari-mutuel wagering, for example, is included within the
definition of ``casino'' with respect to all of its gaming activities.)
FinCEN also sought comment on how compliance by tribal casinos with
the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act could best be examined and
enforced. Aside from a suggestion from the one tribal casino commenter
that external auditors were best suited to examine for compliance with
the Bank Secrecy Act, FinCEN received no other responses to this
question. The Internal Revenue Service is generally responsible for
auditing the Bank Secrecy Act compliance by casinos and has full
authority to audit such compliance by tribal casinos.
FinCEN also received comments seeking: (i) clarification of the
terms ``gross annual gaming revenue'' and ``gaming day'' in the casino
definition; (ii) an increase in the $1 million threshold in the
definition of casino; and (iii) reconsideration of certain casino
recordkeeping and verification rules withdrawn on March 12, 1993.
Because the scope of these comments goes beyond the scope of the
Notice, these comments are not addressed in this final rule.
As outlined in the Notice, the uniform treatment of state-licensed
and tribal casinos is a necessary prelude to the consideration of
broader issues affecting the application of the BSA to the entire
gaming industry. Those issues include whether clarifications should be
made in the definition of casino as new types of gaming develop (or
whether the term ``casino'' is sufficiently elastic to encompass such
developments 1), whether special rules should be formulated for
small casinos, and how best to implement with respect to casinos the
suspicious transaction reporting and anti-money laundering program
rules authorized in the amendments made to the Bank Secrecy Act by the
Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act of 1992, Title XV of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-550, and by
the Money Laundering Suppression Act.
\1\ For example, an establishment that claimed to be a gambling
``club'' rather than a casino because it simply offered customers an
opportunity to gamble with one another, but that in practice funded
certain customers so that other customers were in effect gambling
against ``house'' money, and that offered its customers financial
services of various kinds, could well be a casino under present law.
If so, such a ``club'' would violate the Bank Secrecy Act now (that
is, without the need for further regulatory changes) if it failed to
report currency transactions in excess of $10,000, or allowed a
customer to deposit funds in a player bank account without requiring
customer identifying information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Conforming Changes in ``Meaning of Terms''
Changes are made to the definition of ``person'' and ``United
States'' in 31 CFR 103.11 (z) and (nn), and definitions of the terms
``Indian Gaming Regulatory Act'', ``State'', and ``Territories and
Insular Possessions'' are added to Sec. 103.11 as new paragraphs (rr),
(ss), and (tt), respectively. These definitions are added as required
corollaries to the new casino definition.
C. Additions to Record Maintenance Requirements
Conforming language is added to the requirement of 31 CFR
103.36(b)(7) that casinos retain all records, documents, or manuals
required to be maintained under state and local laws or regulations.
The new language recognizes that a casino on tribal lands will retain
certain documents because tribal rules or tribal-state compacts, rather
than state regulation, require their retention. The amendment simply
conforms the recordkeeping and retention requirements to this fact.
D. Effective Date
Compliance with the reporting and recordkeeping provisions, and
anti-money laundering safeguards of the Bank Secrecy Act, will depend
in large part on the operating and staff training programs put in place
at tribal casinos. The amendments made by the final rule will become
effective on August 1, 1996, to allow tribes and their management
enterprises a reasonable amount of time to train their staff members
and to establish programs designed to comply with the requirements of
the Bank Secrecy Act. As noted above, FinCEN also is publishing in
today's Federal Register a notice of a tribal casino compliance
conference to be held in April of this year.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this final rule (i) is not subject to
the ``budgetary impact statement'' requirement of section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) and (ii) is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. It
is not anticipated that this final rule will have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more. Nor will it affect adversely in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state,
local, or tribal governments or communities. The final rule is neither
inconsistent with, nor does it interfere with, actions taken or planned
by other agencies. Finally, the final rule raises no novel legal or
policy issues.
Because this final rule affects only Indian gaming establishments
with gross annual gaming revenues in excess of $1 million, it is hereby
certified that this final rule is not likely to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Banks, banking, Currency, Foreign banking,
Investigations, Law enforcement, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Taxes.
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
For the reasons set forth above in the preamble, 31 CFR Part 103 is
amended as follows:
PART 103--FINANCIAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING OF CURRENCY AND
FOREIGN TRANSACTIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 103 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5330.
2. Section 103.11 as amended at 60 FR 228, 60 FR 44144, and 61 FR
4331 effective April 1, 1996, is further amended by revising paragraphs
(n)(7)(i), (z), and (nn), and adding paragraphs (rr), (ss), and (tt) to
read as follows:
Sec. 103.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(7)(i) Casino. A casino or gambling casino that: Is duly licensed
or authorized to do business as such in the United States, whether
under the laws of a State or of a Territory or Insular Possession of
the United States, or under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or other
federal, state, or tribal law or arrangement affecting Indian lands
(including, without limitation, a casino operating on the assumption or
under the view that no such authorization is required for casino
operation on Indian lands); and has gross annual gaming revenue in
excess of $1 million. The term includes the principal headquarters and
every domestic branch or place of business of the casino.
* * * * *
(z) Person. An individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust or
estate, a joint stock company, an
[[Page 7056]]
association, a syndicate, joint venture, or other unincorporated
organization or group, an Indian Tribe (as that term is defined in the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act), and all entities cognizable as legal
personalities.
* * * * *
(nn) United States. The States of the United States, the District
of Columbia, the Indian lands (as that term is defined in the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act), and the Territories and Insular Possessions of
the United States.
* * * * *
(rr) Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
of 1988, codified at 25 U.S.C. 2701-2721 and 18 U.S.C. 1166-68.
(ss) State. The States of the United States and, wherever necessary
to carry out the provisions of this part, the District of Columbia.
(tt) Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, and all other territories and
possessions of the United States other than the Indian lands and the
District of Columbia.
Sec. 103.36 [Amended]
3. Section 103.36(b)(7) is amended by adding after the words
``state and local laws or regulations'' the words ``, regulations of
any governing Indian tribe or tribal government, or terms of (or any
regulations issued under) any Tribal-State compacts entered into
pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, with respect to the
casino in question''.
Dated: February 14, 1996.
Stanley E. Morris,
Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 96-3888 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-03-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3886 Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Incorporated Models AT-802 and AT-802A Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6934-6935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3886]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-59-AD; Amendment 39-9520; AD 96-04-08]
Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Incorporated Models AT-802
and AT-802A Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to Air Tractor, Incorporated (Air Tractor) Models AT-802 and
AT-802A airplanes. This action requires repetitively replacing the main
landing gear legs. Failure of the main landing gear legs on an AT-802A
prompted this action. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent possible failure of the main landing gear legs, which, if not
detected and corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane
during landing operations.
DATES: Effective April 12, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from Air Tractor Incorporated, P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374;
telephone (817) 564-5616, facsimile (817) 564-2348. This information
may also be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket 95-CE-59-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob May, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Aircraft Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
Texas 76193-0150; telephone (817) 222-5155, facsimile (817) 222-5960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply
to Air Tractor, Incorporated (Air Tractor) Models AT-802 and AT-802A
airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1995 (60
FR 52130). The action proposed to require repetitively replacing the
main landing gear legs in accordance with Snow Engineering Company
Service Letter (SL) 104A, dated July 29, 1995.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor
corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any
additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.
The FAA estimates that 18 airplanes in the U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 12 hours per
airplane to accomplish this action, and that the average labor rate is
approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost approximately $2,816 per
airplane. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of this AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $63,648 ($3,536 per airplane). This
figure is based on the assumption that no affected airplane owner/
operator has replaced the main landing gear legs and does not take into
account the number of repetitive replacements each operator would incur
over the life of the airplane. The FAA has no way of determining how
many main landing gear replacements each owner/operator will incur.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this
action is
[[Page 6935]]
contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by
contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
Ad No. 96-04-08 Air Tractor Incorporated: Amendment 39-9520; Docket
No. 95-CE-59-AD.
Applicability: Model AT-802 and AT-802A Airplanes (all serial
numbers), certificated in any category:
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it. Compliance: Required upon the accumulation of 3,000
landings or within the next 25 landings after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later, unless already accomplished, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings.
Note 2: If the number of landings is not known, calculate by
multiplying three landings per one hour time-in-service (TIS).
To prevent possible failure of the main landing gear legs, which
could result in loss of control of landing operations and possible
loss of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Replace the main landing gear legs, Air Tractor part number
(P/N) 40091-2, in accordance with Air Tractor Service Bulletin (SB)
104A, dated July 29, 1995.
(b) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, Aircraft Certification Office, 2601
Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0150. The request shall
be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who
may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Fort Worth
Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office.
(d) The replacements required by this AD shall be done in
accordance with Air Tractor Service Bulletin 104A, dated July 29,
1995. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies may be obtained from Air Tractor Incorporated, P.O.
Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,
601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., 7th Floor, suite
700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment (39-9520) becomes effective on April 12,
1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 13, 1996.
Michael Gallagher,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3886 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3836 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320-231 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6931-6932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3836]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-89-AD; Amendment 39-9522; AD 96-04-10]
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320-231 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Airbus Model A320-231 series airplanes, that
requires modification of the fire wall of each engine. This amendment
is prompted by a report of a fire in the engine of an in-service
airplane due to the fire wall being improperly sealed during
production. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
propagation of a fire through a gap (opening) in the fire wall in the
event of an engine fire, as a result of improperly sealed fire wall.
DATES: Effective March 25, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2589, fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A320-231
series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on November 8,
1995 (60 FR 56270). That action proposed to require modification of the
fire wall of each engine on these airplanes.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Two commenters support the proposal.
One commenter requests that the proposal be withdrawn. This
commenter, International Aero Engines, states that its records indicate
that all engines installed on affected airplanes worldwide have been
modified already in accordance with the procedures that were proposed
in the notice. In light of this, the commenter considers that an AD to
require modification of the engines is unnecessary.
The FAA does not concur. This commenter did not provide specific
data to the FAA to verify that all affected airplanes have been
modified. Without that data, this AD is necessary to ensure that all
airplanes currently on the U.S. Register, as well as any airplane later
imported and placed on the U.S. Register, are modified in accordance
with the AD. Further, it is the responsibility of the FAA to ensure
that the configuration that resulted in the addressed unsafe condition
is corrected and is not reintroduced into the U.S. fleet either through
production, repair, or overhaul; this AD is the appropriate vehicle for
doing that.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
The FAA estimates that 108 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor
rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied by the
manufacturer at no cost to operators. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $12,960, or $120
per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-04-10 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39-9522. Docket 95-NM-89-AD.
[[Page 6932]]
Applicability: Model A320-231 series airplanes on which Airbus
Modification 23929 (reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-78-1009)
has not been installed, certificated in any category.
-Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent propagation of a fire through a gap (opening) in the
fire wall as a result of an improperly sealed fire wall in the event
of an engine fire, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the fire wall of each engine in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-78-1009, dated October 14, 1993.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The modification shall be done in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-78-1009, dated October 14, 1993. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on March 25, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 14, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3836 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3835 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6932-6934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3835]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-215-AD; Amendment 39-9521; AD 96-04-09]
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to all Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, that
requires an inspection to detect the presence of a drain hole in
certain mounting frames of the auxiliary power unit (APU). If a drain
hole is present, the AD requires an inspection to detect corrosion of
the mounting frame, and eventual replacement of the mounting frame.
This amendment is prompted by a report indicating that corrosion was
found on a number of mounting frames of the APU. The actions specified
by this AD are intended to prevent such corrosion, which could lead to
failure of the frame and consequently render the APU inoperative and/or
create a potential fire hazard.
DATES: Effective March 25, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. This information may be examined at the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate,
Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite
700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2141; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100
series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on December 20,
1994 (59 FR 65514). That action proposed to require an inspection to
detect the presence of a drain hole in certain mounting frames of the
auxiliary power unit (APU). If a drain hole is present, the action
proposed to require an inspection to detect corrosion of the mounting
frame, and eventual replacement of the mounting frame.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
One commenter supports the proposal.
Another commenter requests that the FAA withdraw the proposal for
what this commenter perceives as lack of justification. This commenter
purports that corrosion of the APU frame will not result in a critical
safety of flight condition. The commenter contends that, even if the
subject frame were to fail completely, the APU cannot fall or lean
enough to sever any fuel or electrical lines; therefore, the
possibility that the failure of the mounting frame could become a
potential fire hazard is simply conjecture. Based on these assertions,
the commenter considers that no unsafe condition exists, and requests
that the FAA review its justification for the proposed rule to ensure
that it is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
The FAA does not concur with either the commenter's request or
assertions.
First, the FAA points out that the existing design of the drain
hole on certain APU mounting frames allows the accumulation of moisture
on the frame. These frames have been found to be particularly sensitive
to corrosion caused by such moisture accumulation. Corrosion of these
frames could cause them to fail, especially when exposed to higher
loads during airplane touchdown.
Second, the Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD) (which is the airworthiness
authority for the Netherlands) and the FAA, have determined that, if a
mounting frame were to fail due to associated corrosion, the APU could
be displaced and consequently sever APU fuel lines located in the
adjacent area. The leaking fuel could then pose a fire hazard. This is
the unsafe condition that this AD intends to prevent. In addition, the
APU could be rendered inoperative because of the failure of its support
assembly. If it were inoperative, electrical power may not be available
[[Page 6933]]
during flight, or both electrical and pneumatic power may not be
available when the airplane is on the ground, when such power is needed
via the APU.
Third, although there have been no reported cases of inoperative
APU's or fuel leakage caused by the problems associated with the
failure of the APU mounting frames, the potential for them to occur
still exists. In fact, when Fokker examined the subject APU mounting
frames removed from in-service airplanes, it found that up to 73% of
the thickness at the place of the drain holes in these frames was
fretted away. This reduced thickness, which is attributed to the
typical effects of corrosion, weakens the integrity of the frames and,
consequently, can lead to their failure.
Finally, according to section 39.1 of the FAR (14 CFR 39.1), the
issuance of an AD is based on the finding that an unsafe condition
exists and that condition is likely to exist or develop in aircraft of
a particular type design. The responsibilities placed on the FAA by the
Federal Aviation Act do not limit it from making any unsafe condition
the proper subject of an AD--regardless of whether or not the unsafe
condition has actually occurred in service and led to an incident or
accident. When sufficient data exist to demonstrate that an unsafe
condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design, the issuance of an AD is appropriate in order to address
that potential unsafe condition and to prevent its occurrence.
This same commenter also requests clarification as to the
applicability of the proposed rule. The commenter points out that,
although both the proposed AD and the parallel Dutch AD are applicable
to all Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, the referenced
Fokker service bulletin calls out only certain airplanes (serial
numbers 11244 through 11402) in its effectivity listing. This commenter
knows of four airplanes on which the suspect frames were found, but
these airplanes were not included in the service bulletin's effectivity
listing. The commenter believes that the service bulletin should be
revised to specify that all airplanes must be inspected.
The FAA does not concur that additional action is necessary. Since
in-service experience has shown that APU mounting frames are regularly
removed from and (re-) installed on aircraft upon removal of the APU,
the FAA has determined that the suspect frames could be installed on
any Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 airplane. In light of this, the
applicability of the AD, which makes all airplanes subject to the
requirements, is correct. In any case, where there are differences
between the AD and the service bulletin, the AD prevails.
One commenter requests that the rule be revised to extend the
compliance time for replacement of the mounting frames from the
proposed 30 days or 90 days (depending upon the results of the
inspection for corrosion) to one year for all cases. The commenter
states that Fokker has indicated that it has only 2 frames in stock to
support the replacement requirement. In addition, the lead time for
procurement of a replacement frame is minimum of 127 days.
The FAA concurs that some adjustment to this compliance time can be
made. Reports received by the FAA indicate that most airplanes already
have been inspected in accordance with the requirements of this AD, and
have been found not to have the suspect APU mounting frames installed.
Therefore, the FAA considers that only a limited number of replacement
mounting frames actually will be required. However, the FAA
acknowledges that timely parts availability may be a problem for some
operators. In light of this, the FAA finds that the compliance time for
replacement of the frame can be extended to 9 months for cases where no
corrosion is found on the frame, and to 3 months for cases where
corrosion is found. The FAA finds that safety will not be compromised
by the extension of these compliance times. The final rule has been
revised accordingly.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously
described. The FAA has determined that this change will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
The FAA estimates that 119 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 13 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor
rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of
the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $92,820, or $780 per
airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-04-09 Fokker: Amendment 39-9521. Docket 94-NM-215-AD.
Applicability: All Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes,
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
[[Page 6934]]
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent corrosion of certain mounting frames of the auxiliary
power unit (APU), which could render the APU inoperative and may
lead to a potential fire hazard, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, perform
a detailed visual inspection to detect the presence of a drain hole
in frame member M of the mounting frames, having part number (P/N)
D67050-407, of the auxiliary power unit (APU), in accordance with
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-49-022, dated August 27, 1992.
(1) If no drain hole(s) is present, no further action is
required by this AD.
(2) If any drain hole is present, prior to further flight,
perform a detailed visual inspection to detect corrosion on the
mounting frame of the APU, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(i) If no corrosion is detected, within 9 months after
accomplishing the visual inspection, replace the mounting frame with
a new mounting frame in accordance with the service bulletin.
(ii) If any corrosion is detected, within 3 months after
accomplishing the visual inspection, replace the mounting frame with
a new mounting frame in accordance with the service bulletin.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
on any airplane a mounting frame, having P/N D67050-407, that has a
drain hole in frame member M.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished. Issued in Renton,
Washington, on December 14, 1994.
(e) The inspection and replacement shall be done in accordance
with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-49-022, dated August 27, 1992.
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199
North Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on March 25, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 14, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3835 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3614 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6927-6928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3614]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-77-AD; Amendment 39-9518; AD 96-04-06]
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes, that requires
replacement of the relays in the forward electronics rack of the
braking system of the landing gear with new relays. This amendment is
prompted by reports of loss of the systems of the braking/steering
control unit (BSCU) on these airplanes due to electrical overvoltage of
the relays. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
such electrical overvoltage of the relays, which could result in the
loss of the BSCU systems, and subsequent loss of the antiskid functions
and nose wheel steering of the airplane.
DATES: Effective March 25, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the
[[Page 6928]]
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington,
DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles D. Huber, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2589; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A320 series
airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 20, 1995 (60
FR 54202). That action proposed to require replacement of certain
relays in the forward electronics rack 90VU of the braking system of
the landing gear with new relays.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the three comments received.
The commenters support the proposed rule.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
The FAA estimates that 87 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor
rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied by the
manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $10,440, or
$120 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-04-06 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39-9518. Docket 95-NM-77-AD.
Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes on which Airbus
Modification 23611 (reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1115)
has not been installed, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent an electrical overvoltage of the relays, which could
result in the loss of the braking/steering control unit (BSCU)
systems, and subsequent loss of the antiskid functions and nose
wheel steering of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 10 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace relays 24 GG and 25 GG in the forward electronics rack 90VU
of zone 120 of the braking system of the landing gear with new
relays, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1115,
Revision 2, dated September 21, 1994.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The replacement shall be done in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-32-1115, Revision 2, dated September 21, 1994,
which contains the following list of effective pages:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
level
Page No. shown on Date shown on page
page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-4, 13........................... 2 Sept. 21, 1994.
5-12.............................. 1 Apr. 22, 1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on March 25, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 12, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3614 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3613 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 and A300-600 Series Airplanes Equipped With SOGERMA-SOCEA Pilot, Co-Pilot, and Third Occupant Seats
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6928-6931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3613]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6929]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-191-AD; Amendment 39-9519; AD 96-04-07]
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 and A300-600 Series
Airplanes Equipped With SOGERMA-SOCEA Pilot, Co-Pilot, and Third
Occupant Seats
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is applicable to certain Airbus Model A310 and A300-600 series
airplanes. This amendment requires repetitive inspections to detect
distortion and/or cracks on the attachment brackets of the backrest
recline control locks of certain seats. It also provides for an
optional modification which, if accomplished, terminates the repetitive
inspections. This amendment is prompted by a report of failure of the
bracket of the backrest recline control lock on a seat due to fatigue-
related cracking. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent fatigue-related cracking and/or distortion, which could result
in failure of the seat backrest attach fitting, and the subsequent
uncommanded 50 deg. angle recline of the pilot or co-pilot seat; this
situation could lead to the temporary inability of the pilots to
control the airplane.
DATES: Effective March 25, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Forde, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2146; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A310 and
A300-600 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on June
2, 1995 (60 FR 526678) as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections to
detect distortion and/or cracks on the attachment brackets of the
backrest recline control locks of certain seats. It also proposed an
optional modification which, if accomplished, would terminate the
repetitive inspection requirement.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Support for the Proposal
Three commenters support the proposal.
Request To Withdraw the Proposal
One commenter requests that the proposal be withdrawn. This
commenter contends that an AD is not justified based on only one
incident of failure that occurred on one seat. The commenter considers
that issuing an AD to address only this one occurrence is a
misapplication of the AD process.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA
points out that the seat backrest recline lock mechanism currently is
not the subject of routine maintenance to determine the presence of
distortion or cracking. Therefore, cracking and distortion potentially
could be present or developing on these components throughout the
affected fleet. While it is true that there has been only one incident
of failure of the lock mechanism identified so far, the FAA finds that
the unsafe condition presented by such failure is likely to exist or
develop on other products of this same type design. According to
section 39.1 (``Airworthiness Directives'') of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR 39.1), the issuance of an AD must be based on
just such a finding. Further, it is within the FAA's authority to issue
AD's to require actions to address unsafe conditions that are not
otherwise being addressed (or addressed adequately) by normal
maintenance procedures. The intent of this AD is to ensure that
maintenance procedures include inspections of the backrest recline lock
mechanism.
Request To Extend Compliance Time
Another commenter, an operator, requests that the compliance time
for the initial inspection be extended. This commenter plans to
accomplish the terminating modification at a time that coincides with
its normally scheduled maintenance checks and, therefore, requests that
the compliance time for the inspection be extended to June 1997.
The FAA does not concur with this commenter's request. Based on the
unsafe condition associated with the failure of the lock mechanism
(uncommanded 50 deg. angle recline of the pilot or co-pilot seat), the
FAA considers that the compliance time for the inspection, as proposed,
represents the most appropriate interval of time allowable for the
affected airplanes to continue to operate prior to accomplishing that
inspection without compromising safety. The FAA also finds that, in
order to ensure continuing operational safety, these inspections must
be repeated at regular intervals until a terminating modification is
installed. However, paragraph (c) of the final rule does provide
affected operators the opportunity to apply for an adjustment of the
compliance time if data are presented to justify such an adjustment.
Explanation of New Service Information
On March 22, 1995, SOGERMA-SOCEA issued Revision 2 of Service
Bulletin 25-233. Revision 2 completely supersedes Revision 1, which was
referenced in the supplemental NPRM as the appropriate source of
service information. This new revision describes new procedures for
modification of the backing of the control locks attachment fittings of
the seat backrest recline. This modification involves installing
certain nuts, lock nuts, back plates, fittings, and flat washers on the
seat bottoms. Accomplishment of this modification eliminates the need
for repetitive inspections of the lock mechanism. The Direction
Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness
authority for France, approved this revision of the service bulletin;
and the FAA has revised paragraph (b) of the final rule to cite
Revision 2 as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the terminating modification. Modifications that were
accomplished in accordance with Revision 1 of the service bulletin
prior to the effective date of the final rule are considered acceptable
for compliance.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously
described. The FAA has
[[Page 6930]]
determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden
on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 49 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 4 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the required inspections, and that the average
labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $11,760, or $240
per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
Should an operator elect to accomplish the optional terminating
action that is provided by this AD, the number of hours required to
accomplish it would be approximately 1 per airplane, at an average
labor charge of $60 per work hour. Required parts would be supplied by
the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures,
the total cost impact of the optional terminating action on U.S.
operators would be $60 per airplane.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-04-07 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39-9519. Docket 94-NM-191-AD.
Applicability: Model A310 and A300-600 series airplanes equipped
with SOGERMA-SOCEA pilot, co-pilot, and third occupant seats; as
listed in SOGERMA-SOCEA Service Bulletin 25-229, dated November 26,
1993; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent fatigue cracks and/or distortion in the seat bracket
of the backrest recline control lock, which could result in failure
of the seat backrest attach fittings, the uncommanded 50 deg. angle
recline of the pilot or co-pilot seat, and, subsequently, lead to
the temporary inability of the pilots to control the airplane,
accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total flight hours or
within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, perform a detailed visual inspection to
detect distortion and/or cracks on the attachment brackets of the
backrest recline control locks of certain seats, in accordance with
SOGERMA-SOCEA Service Bulletin 25-229, dated November 26, 1993.
(1) If no bracket is distorted or cracked, repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight hours.
(2) If any bracket is distorted or cracked, prior to further
flight, accomplish either paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this
AD.
(i) Replace both of the brackets and their associated attachment
fittings with new parts, in accordance with SOGERMA-SOCEA Service
Bulletin 25-229, dated November 26, 1993. Thereafter, repeat the
inspection at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight hours. Or
(ii) Modify the backing of the control locks attachment fittings
of the seat backrest recline, in accordance with SOGERMA-SOCEA
Service Bulletin 25-233, Revision 2, dated March 22, 1995.
Accomplishment of this modification constitutes terminating action
for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD.
Note 2: Modification of the backing of the control locks
attachment fittings of the seat backrest recline that was
accomplished in accordance with SOGERMA-SOCEA Service Bulletin 25-
233, Revision 1, dated March 22, 1995, prior to the effective date
of this AD, is considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(b) Modification of the backing of the control locks fittings of
the backrest recline in accordance with SOGERMA-SOCEA Service
Bulletin 25-233, Revision 2, dated March 22, 1995, constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of
this AD.
Note 3: Modification of the backing of the control locks
attachment fittings of the seat backrest recline that was
accomplished in accordance with SOGERMA-SOCEA Service Bulletin 25-
233, Revision 1, dated March 22, 1995, prior to the effective date
of this AD, is considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph
(b) of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The inspections and replacements shall be done in accordance
with SOGERMA-SOCEA Service Bulletin 25-229, dated November 26, 1993.
The modification shall be done in accordance with SOGERMA-SOCEA
Service Bulletin 25-233, Revision 2, dated March 22, 1995, which
contains the following list of effective pages:
[[Page 6931]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision level
Page No. shown on page- Date shown on page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-4, 6-16...................... 2.............. Mar. 22, 1995.
5.............................. Original....... Sept. 14, 1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on March 25, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 12, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3613 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3149 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A340 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6924-6927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3149]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6925]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-262-AD; Amendment 39-9515; AD 96-04-04]
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A340 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Airbus Model A340 series airplanes. This action
requires repetitive inspections to detect corrosion and cracking of the
shortening mechanism pins in the main landing gear (MLG), and repair or
replacement, if necessary. It also requires replacement of the
shortening mechanism pin and retraction mechanism pins; the forward
pintle pin; the shortening mechanism bellcrank pin; and the bellcrank
subassembly of the shortening mechanism. This amendment is prompted by
reports of failure of the shortening mechanism pins due to improper
grinding of the chrome plating during manufacture, which led to the
initiation of stress corrosion and cracks. The actions specified in
this AD are intended to prevent failure of these pins, which could lead
to a significant reduction of the shock absorber capability or damage
to various components of the MLG, and eventually could lead to the
failure of the MLG.
DATES: Effective March 11, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 11, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before April 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-262-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from
Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,
France. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite
700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2589; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, recently
notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus
Model A340 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that there have been two
cases of failure of the shortening mechanism pin of the main landing
gear (MLG) assembly on in-service airplanes.
In one case, investigation revealed that the pin had broken into
three parts, the chrome plating was detached from the base metal around
the breaks, and heavy corrosion was present on all of the fracture
surfaces. A metallurgical analysis of the broken pin concluded that the
pin fractures were the result of cracks in the pin's chrome plating and
subsequent stress corrosion. The cracks in the chrome plating most
likely occurred as a result of ``grinding abuse'' when the pin was
ground during manufacture. The subsequent penetration of moisture
through the cracks to the base metal initiated the stress corrosion and
the local detachment of the chrome plating.
In the second case, investigation revealed that the pin had failed
as a result of damage caused by stress corrosion.
The DGAC also advises that similar ``grinding abuse'' may also be
present on some forward pintle pins installed on the main strut and
dressings of certain affected airplanes, and on the shortening
mechanism bellcrank pins of the bellcrank subassembly of the MLG.
Failure of the shortening mechanism pin on the MLG could result in
substantial damage to the shortening mechanism, the shock absorber, and
the inner top side of the main fitting. This condition could lead to a
significant reduction of the shock absorber capability, and eventually
could lead to the failure of the MLG.
Likewise, failure of the forward pintle pins or the shortening
mechanism bellcrank pins could also result in damage to the shortening
mechanism and/or the surrounding area and components, and eventually
could lead to the failure of the MLG.
Airbus Industrie has issued the following service bulletins that
contain procedures to address this problem:
1. Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4050, dated April 10, 1995; and
Revision 1, dated May 17, 1995. These service bulletins describe
procedures for conducting repetitive visual inspections to detect
cracks and corrosion of the shortening mechanism pins. The inspection
procedures also call for a one-time lubricating of the affected
shortening mechanism links. The service bulletins also describe
procedures for replacement of the shortening mechanism pin and
retraction mechanism pins of the MLG (left- and right-hand side) with
pins that are properly chrome-plated and not susceptible to problems
associated with corrosion. (These service bulletins refer to Messier-
Dowty Service Bulletins A33/34-32-29 and A33/34-32-30 for more detailed
procedural instructions.)
2. Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4058, dated April 10, 1995; and
Revision 1, dated May 17, 1995. These service bulletins describe
procedures for removing discrepant forward pintle pins and replacing
them with new or reworked pintle pins that are not susceptible to the
problems associated with corrosion. This replacement will ensure the
integrity of the affected components of the MLG. (These service
bulletins refer to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletins A33/34-32-28 and
A33/34-32-32 for more detailed procedural instructions.)
3. Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4062, dated May 17, 1995. This
service bulletin describes procedures for replacing discrepant
shortening mechanism bellcrank pins with new or serviceable pins that
are not susceptible to the problems associated with corrosion. It also
describes procedures for replacing the bellcrank subassembly of the
shortening mechanism of the MLG. These replacements will ensure the
integrity of the affected components of the bellcrank and the MLG.
(This service bulletin refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletins A33-
34-32-44 and A33/34-32-45 for more detailed procedural instructions.
The DGAC classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued
French airworthiness directive (CN) 94-244-012(B)R3, dated July 19,
1995, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes
in France.
This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.19) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD
action is necessary for products of this
[[Page 6926]]
type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of the
MLG. This AD requires, initially, repetitive visual inspections to
detect damage or cracks of the shortening mechanism pivot pin, and
replacement, if necessary. It also requires a one-time lubrication
(greasing) of the MLG shortening mechanism main links.
This AD also requires replacement of the following items:
1. The shortening mechanism pivot pin, and the retraction mechanism
pins of the MLG on the left- and right-hand sides (after these
replacements are accomplished, the required repetitive visual
inspections are terminated);
2. The forward pintle pin fitted to the MLG;
3. The shortening mechanism bellcrank pin of the MLG; and
4. The bellcrank subassembly of the shortening mechanism of the
MLG.
These actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with
the service bulletins described previously.
None of the Model A340 series airplanes affected by this action are
on the U.S. Register. All airplanes included in the applicability of
this rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign
registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action.
However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that
the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these
subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future.
Should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S.
Register in the future, the following costs could be expected:
Inspection of the shortening mechanism pivot pin would require
approximately .5 work hour to accomplish the required actions, at an
average labor charge of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of this inspection requirement would be $30 per airplane
per inspection cycle.
Replacement of the shortening mechanism pivot pin and retraction
mechanism pins would require approximately 118 work hours per airplane
to accomplish, at an average labor charge of $60 per work hour. Based
on these figures, the cost impact of this replacement requirement would
be $7,080 per airplane.
Replacement of the forward pintle pin would require approximately
92 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor charge of
$60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this
replacement requirement would be $5,520 per airplane.
Replacement of the shortening mechanism bellcrank pin and bellcrank
subassembly would require approximately 13 work hours per airplane to
accomplish, at an average labor charge of $60 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of this replacement requirement would be
$780 per airplane.
Since this AD action does not affect any airplane that is currently
on the U.S. register, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no
additional burden on any person. Therefore, notice and public
procedures hereon are unnecessary and the amendment may be made
effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not
preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, comments are
invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this
rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may
desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
ADDRESSES.
All communications received on or before the closing date for
comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of
the comments received. Factual information that supports the
commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating
the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional
rulemaking action would be needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-262-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-04-04 Airbus: Amendment 39-9515. Docket 95-NM-262-AD.
Applicability: Model A340 series airplanes; having
manufacturer's serial numbers (MSN) 002 through 009 inclusive, 011,
013 through 016 inclusive, 018 through 029 inclusive, 031 through
036 inclusive, or 038; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the
[[Page 6927]]
owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of
compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. The request
should include an assessment of the effect of the modification,
alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD;
and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request
should include specific proposed actions to address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent collapse of the main landing gear, accomplish the
following:
(a) For airplanes having MSN 005 through 009 inclusive, 011, 013
through 016 inclusive, 018 through 029 inclusive, 031 through 034
inclusive, or 038: Accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2) of this AD:
(1) Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, perform a
visual inspection to detect corrosion and cracks of the shortening
mechanism (pivot) pins of the main landing gear (MLG), in accordance
with Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4050, dated April 10, 1995, or
Revision 1, dated May 17, 1995.
(i) If no corrosion or cracking is found, repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 days.
(ii) If any corrosion or cracking is found, prior to further
flight, replace the shortening mechanism pin and the retraction
mechanism pin with a new pin in accordance with the service
bulletin. Accomplishment of this replacement constitutes terminating
action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this AD.
(2) Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, perform a
one-time lubrication (greasing) of the MLG shortening mechanism main
links in accordance with the service bulletin.
(b) Prior to the accumulation of 1,500 total landings, or within
3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later, but no later than 12 months after the effective date of this
AD, accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and
(b)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes having MSN 005 through 009 inclusive, 011, 013
through 016 inclusive, 018 through 029 inclusive, 031 through 034
inclusive, or 038: Replace the shortening mechanism pivot pin, and
the retraction mechanism pins of the MLG, left- and right-hand side,
in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4050, dated April
10, 1995, or Revision 1, dated May 17, 1995.
(2) For airplanes having MSN 021 through 029 inclusive, or 031
through 034 inclusive: Replace the forward pintle pins fitted to the
MLG in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4058, dated
April 10, 1995, or Revision 1, dated May 17, 1995.
(3) For airplanes having MSN 002 through 009 inclusive, 011, 013
through 016 inclusive, 018 through 029 inclusive, or 031 through 036
inclusive: Replace the shortening mechanism bellcrank pin of the MLG
in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4062, dated May
17, 1995.
(c) For airplanes having MSN 002 through 009 inclusive, 011, 013
through 016 inclusive, 018 through 029 inclusive, or 031 through 036
inclusive: Prior to the accumulation of 7,250 total landings, or
within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, replace the bellcrank subassembly of the shortening
mechanism of the MLG in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin
A340-32-4062, dated May 17, 1995.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) The actions shall be done in accordance with the following
Airbus service bulletins, which contain the following list of
effective pages:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus service bulletin and date Page No. Revision level shown on page Date shown on page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A340-32-4050, April 10, 1995..................... 1-15- (Original)- April 10, 1995.
A340-32-4050, Revision 1, May 17, 1995-.......... 1, 2, 5, 10- 1- May 17, 1995.
3, 4, 6-9, 11-15- (Original)- April 10, 1995.
A340-32-4058, April 10, 1995..................... 1-10- (Original)- April 10, 1995.
A340-32-4058, Revision 1, May 17, 1995-.......... 1-3, 7-9- 1- May 17, 1995.
4-6, 10- (Original)- April 10, 1995.
A340-32-4062, May 17, 1995....................... 1-10- (Original)- May 17, 1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on March 11, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 7, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3149 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.