Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26735

for award and shall be conducted as

promptly as possible. The issue as to

whether the position of OFHEO in the

underlying adversary adjudication was

substantially justified shall be

determined on the basis of the whole

administrative record that was made in

the underlying adversary adjudication.

(b) A request that the adjudicative

officer order further proceedings under

this section shall specifically identify

the information sought on the disputed

issues and shall explain why the

additional proceedings are necessary to

resolve the issues.

§ 1735.26 Decision of the adjudicative

officer.

(a) The adjudicative officer shall make

the initial decision on the basis of the

written record, except if further

proceedings are ordered under

§ 1735.25.

(b) The adjudicative officer shall issue

a written initial decision on the

application for award within 30 days

after completion of proceedings on the

application. The initial decision shall

become the final decision of OFHEO

after 30 days from the day it was issued,

unless review is ordered under

§ 1735.27.

(c) In all initial decisions, the

adjudicative officer shall include

findings and conclusions with respect to

the applicant’s eligibility and an

explanation of the reasons for any

difference between the amount

requested by the applicant and the

amount awarded. If the applicant has

sought an award against more than one

agency, the adjudicative officer shall

also include findings and conclusions

with respect to the allocation of

payment of any award made.

(d) In initial decisions on applications

filed pursuant to § 1735.4(a), the

adjudicative officer shall include

findings and conclusions as to whether

OFHEO made a demand that was

substantially in excess of the decision in

the underlying adversary adjudication

and that was unreasonable when

compared with that decision; and, if at

issue, whether the applicant has

committed a willful violation of the law

or otherwise acted in bad faith, or

whether special circumstances would

make the award unjust.

(e) In decisions on applications filed

pursuant to § 1735.4(b), the adjudicative

officer shall include written findings

and conclusions as to whether the

applicant is a prevailing party and

whether the position of OFHEO was

substantially justified; and, if at issue,

whether the applicant unduly

protracted or delayed the underlying

adversary adjudication or whether

special circumstance make the award

unjust.

§ 1735.27 Review by OFHEO.

Within 30 days after the adjudicative

officer issues an initial decision under

§ 1735.26, either the applicant or agency

counsel may request the Director of

OFHEO to review the initial decision of

the adjudicative officer. The Director of

OFHEO or his or her designee may also

decide, on his or her own initiative, to

review the initial decision. Whether to

review a decision is at the discretion of

the Director of OFHEO or his or her

designee. If review is ordered, the

Director of OFHEO or his or her

designee shall issue a final decision on

the application for award or remand the

application for award to the

adjudicative officer for further

proceedings under § 1735.25.

§ 1735.28 Judicial review.

Any party, other than the United

States, that is dissatisfied with the final

decision on an application for award of

fees and expenses under this part may

seek judicial review as provided in 5

U.S.C. 504(c)(2).

§ 1735.29 Payment of award.

To receive payment of an award of

fees and other expenses granted under

this part, the applicant shall submit a

copy of the final decision that grants the

award and a certification that the

applicant will not seek review of the

decision in the United States courts to

the Director, Office of Federal Housing

Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20552. OFHEO

shall pay the amount awarded to the

applicant within 60 days of receipt of

the submission of the copy of the final

decision and the certification, unless

judicial review of the award has been

sought by any party to the proceedings.

Dated: May 2, 2000.

Armando Falcon, Jr.,

Director, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise

Oversight.

[FR Doc. 00–11524 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4220–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–04–AD; Amendment

39–11715; AD 2000–09–06]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Maule

Aerospace Technology, Inc. M–4, M–5,

M–6, M–7, MX–7, and MXT–7 Series

Airplanes and Models MT–7–235 and

M–8–235 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to certain Maule Aerospace

Technology, Inc. (Maule) M–4, M–5, M–

6, M–7, MX–7, and MXT–7 series

airplanes and Models MT–7–235 and

M–8–235 airplanes. This AD requires

you to inspect all NicopressTM sleeve

terminal ends for correct size

compression, with adjustment or

replacement, as necessary. This AD

results from a report of the rudder cable

slipping out of the NicopressTM sleeve

while one of the affected airplanes was

landing. The actions specified by this

AD are intended to detect and correct

improper crimping of the NicopressTM

sleeve, which could cause a control

cable to slip from the sleeve. This could

result in loss of rudder, elevator,

aileron, or flap control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on

May 30, 2000. The Director of the

Federal Register approved the

incorporation by reference of certain

publications listed in the regulation as

of May 30, 2000.

The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) must receive any comments on

this rule on or before June 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 2000–CE–04–AD, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, MO

64106.

You may get the service information

referenced in this AD from Maule

Aerospace Technology Inc., 2099

Georgia Highway 133 South, Moultrie,

GA 31768; telephone: (912) 985–2045,

facsimile: (912) 890–2402.

You may examine this information at

FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 2000–CE–04–AD, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, MO

64106; or at the Office of the Federal

26736 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cindy Lorenzen, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, GA

30349; telephone: (770) 703–6078,

facsimile: (770) 703–6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

What Events Have Caused This AD?

The FAA has received a report of the

rudder cable slipping out of the

NicopressTM sleeve while a Maule

Model M–7–235C airplane was landing.

Investigation of this accident revealed

that the NicopressTM sleeve was not

adequately crimped and was slightly

larger than the gauge dimension.

What Is the Cause of the Problem?

Maule did not set a crimping tool to

correct specification for the elevator and

rudder cables that were installed on

certain Maule airplane models on Type

Certificate No. 3A23, Revision 26, dated

April 6, 2000. Maule has no way of

determining exactly what time frame the

crimping tool was not set to

specification. Each airplane utilizes

approximately 27 NicopressTM sleeves.

The airplane models affected are

listed in the AD portion of this

document.

What Are the Consequences if the

Condition Is Not Corrected?

An improperly crimped NicopressTM

sleeve, if not detected and corrected,

could cause a control cable to slip from

the sleeve. This could result in loss of

rudder, elevator, aileron, or flap control.

Is There Service Information That

Applies to This Subject?

Maule has issued Mandatory Service

Bulletin No. 20, dated December 27,

1999.

What Are the Provisions of This Service

Bulletin?

The service bulletin:

• Includes procedures for inspection

of all NicopressTM sleeve terminal ends

for correct size compression; and

• Specifies provisions for adjustment

or replacement, as necessary.

FAA’s Determination and an

Explanation of the Provisions of the AD

What Has FAA Decided?

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

including the relevant service

information, FAA has determined that:

• An unsafe condition exists or could

develop on certain Maule M–4, M–5,

M–6, M–7, MX–7, and MXT–7 series

airplanes and Models MT–7–235 and

M–8–235 airplanes of the same type

design; and

• AD action should be taken in order

to detect and correct improper crimping

of the NicopressTM sleeve, which could

cause a control cable to slip from the

sleeve.

What Does This AD Require?

This AD requires you to inspect all

NicopressTM sleeve terminal ends for

correct size compression, with

adjustment or replacement, as

necessary.

Will I Have the Opportunity To

Comment Prior to the Issuance of the

Rule?

Because the unsafe condition

described in this document could result

in loss of rudder, elevator, aileron, or

flap control, FAA finds that notice and

opportunity for public prior comment

are impracticable. Therefore, 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 and was not preceded by

notice and opportunity for public

comment, FAA invites comments on

this rule. You may submit whatever

written data, views, or arguments you

choose. You need to include the rule’s

docket number and submit your

comments in triplicate to the address

specified under the caption ADDRESSES.

The FAA will consider all comments

received on or before the closing date.

We may amend this rule in light of

comments received. Factual information

that supports your ideas and suggestions

is extremely helpful in evaluating the

effectiveness of the AD action and

determining whether we need to take

additional rulemaking action.

The FAA is re-examining the writing

style we currently use in regulatory

documents, in response to the

Presidential memorandum of June 1,

1998. That memorandum requires

federal agencies to communicate more

clearly with the public. We are

interested in your comments on whether

the style of this document is clearer, and

any other suggestions you might have to

improve the clarity of FAA

communications that affect you. You

can get more information about the

Presidential memorandum and the plain

language initiative at http://

www.plainlanguage.gov.

The FAA specifically invites

comments on the overall regulatory,

economic, environmental, and energy

aspects of the rule that might suggest a

need to modify the rule. You may

examine all comments we receive before

and after the closing date of the rule in

the Rules Docket. We will file a report

in the Rules Docket that summarizes

each FAA contact with the public that

concerns the substantive parts of this

AD.

If you want us to acknowledge the

receipt of your comments, you must

include a self-addressed, stamped

postcard. On the postcard, write

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2000–CE–04-

AD.’’ We will date stamp and mail the

postcard back to you.

Regulatory Impact

These regulations will not have a

substantial direct effect on the States, on

the relationship between the national

Government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, FAA

has determined that this final rule does

not have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and is not a significant regulatory action

under Executive Order 12866. We have

determined that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If FAA

determines that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, we will

prepare a final regulatory evaluation.

You may obtain a copy of the evaluation

(if required) from the Rules Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority

delegated to me by the Administrator,

the 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26737

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. FAA amends Section 39.13 by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

2000–09–06 Maule Aerospace Technology,

Inc.: Amendment 39–11715; Docket No.

2000–CE–04–AD.

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

This AD affects the following airplane

models and serial numbers, certificated in

any category:

GROUP 1 AIRPLANES

Models Serial numbers

MX–7–160C 34001C.

M–7–260C 30001C through 30004C,

30007C through 30011C,

30013C, and 30014C.

M–7–420AC 29001C.

MX–7–180C 28001C through 28011C.

MT–7–260 .. 27001C and 27003C.

M–7–260 .... 26002C through 26007C.

M–7–235C 25001C through 25037C,

25040C, 25041C, and

25044C.

M–7–235A .. 24001C.

M–7–235B .. 23001C through 23056C,

23058C, and 23059C.

MX–7–180B 22001C through 22016C.

MXT–7–

180A.

21001C through 21067C,

21070C, 21072C, 21076C,

21077C, 21079C, and

21081C.

MX–7–180A 20001C through 20063C.

MX–7–160 .. 19001C through 19046C.

MXT–7–160 17001C through 17008C.

MT–7–235 .. 18001C through 18041C,

18044C, and 18047C.

M–8–235 .... 15001C through 15005C.

MXT–7–180 14000C through 14095C.

MX–7–180 .. 11066C through 11097C.

MX–7–235 .. 10081C through 10122C.

GROUP 1 AIRPLANES—Continued

Models Serial numbers

M–7–235 .... 4078C, 4080C, 4083C, 4086C,

and 4089C through 4132C.

M–6–235 .... 7508C, 7510C, 7516C, and

7518C through 7521C.

GROUP 2 AIRPLANES

Models Serial numbers

Bee Dee M–

4.

3 through 14.

M–4 ............ 3 through 94 (Bee Dee: 3–14;

and M–4: 15–94).

M–4C ......... 1C through 11C.

M–4S .......... 1S, 2S, and 3S.

M–4T .......... 1T, 2T, and 3T.

M–4–210 .... 1001 through 1045.

M–4–210C 1001C through 1117C.

M–4–220C 2001C through 2190C.

M–4–220S .. 2001S.

M–4–180C 3001C through 3006C.

M–5–200 .... 8015C and 8022C.

M–5–210C 6001C through 6206C.

M–5–220C 5001C through 5057C.

M–5–235C 7001C through 7248C, 7250C

through 7353C, A7354C,

A7355C, 7356C, 7357C,

A7358C, 7359C, A7360C,

A7361C, 7362C through

7365C, A7366C, A7367C,

7368C through 7376C,

7445C, 7451C, 7460C,

7467C, 7470C, 7478C

through 7480C, 7484C

through 7487C, and 7515C.

M–5–180C 8001C through 8014C, 8016C

through 8019C, 8021C,

8023C through 8042C,

8044C through 8064C, and

8068C through 8094C.

GROUP 2 AIRPLANES—Continued

Models Serial numbers

M–5–210T .. 9001C through 9010C.

M–6–235 .... 7249C, 7356C, 7379C through

7444C, 7446C through

7450C, 7452C through

7459C, 7461C through

7466C, 7468C, 7469C,

7471C through 7475C,

7488C through 7507C,

7509C, 7511C through

7514C, and 7517C.

M–6–180 .... 8020C, 8043C, and 8065C

through 8067C.

M–7–235 .... 4001C through 4077C, 4079C,

4081C, 4082C, 4084C,

4085C, 4087C, and 4088C.

M–7–235 .... 12001C and 12002C. These

airplanes were manufactured

as Model M–7–235 airplanes

and then modified in accordance with STC SA2661SO.

This modification changed

the model designation of

these airplanes to M–7–420.

MX–7–235 .. 10001C through 10080C.

MX–7–180 .. 11001C through 11065C.

MX–7–420 .. 13001C through 13003C.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes on the U.S. Register must

comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to detect and correct improper crimping of

the NicopressTM sleeve, which could cause a

control cable to slip from the sleeve. This

could result in loss of rudder, elevator,

aileron, or flap control.

(d) What must I do to address this

problem? To address this problem,

accomplish the following:

Action Compliance time Procedures

Inspect all Nicopress TM sleeve terminal ends

for correct size compression..

For Group 1 airplanes: Within the next 25

hours time-in-service (TIS) after May 30,

2000 (the effective date of this AD); and.

Accomplish in accordance with the ACTION

TO BE TAKEN AND TOOLS REQUIRED

section of Maule Mandatory Service Bulletin

No. 20, dated December 27, 1999.

For Group 2 airplanes: Within the next 100

hours TIS after May 30, 2000 (the effective

date of this AD)..

Adjust or replace any terminal compressions

that are outside of the limits specified in the

service information..

Prior to further flight after the inspection required by this AD..Accomplish in accordance with the ACTION

TO BE TAKEN AND TOOLS REQUIRED

section of Maule Mandatory Service Bulletin

No. 20, dated December 27, 1999.

Do not install a Nicopress TM sleeve without assuring that the terminal compressions are

within the limits specified in the service information..

As of May 30, 2000 (the effective date of this

AD)..

Accomplish in accordance with the ACTION

TO BE TAKEN AND TOOLS REQUIRED

section of Maule Mandatory Service Bulletin

No. 20, dated December 27, 1999.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? (1) You may use an alternative method

of compliance or adjust the compliance time

if:

(i) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(ii) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Atlanta ACO.

(2) 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 (e)(1) 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 you have not eliminated the

unsafe condition, specific actions you

propose to address it.

26738 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Cindy Lorenzen,

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895

Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, GA

30349; telephone: (770) 703–6078; facsimile,

(770) 703–6097.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD?

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD .

(h) Are any service bulletins incorporated

into this AD by reference? You must

accomplish the actions required by this AD

in accordance with Maule Mandatory Service

Bulletin No. 20, dated December 27, 1999.

The Director of the Federal Register approved

this incorporation by reference under 5

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You can get

copies from Maule Aerospace Technology,

Inc., 2099 Georgia Hwy. 133 South, Moultrie,

GA 31768. You can look at copies at FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

MO, or at the Office of the Federal Register,

800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(i) When does this amendment become

effective? This amendment becomes effective

on May 30, 2000.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April

27, 2000.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–11176 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–244–AD; Amendment

39–11704; AD 2000–08–18]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 Series Airplanes,

and Model MD–88 and MD–90–30

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 series airplanes,

and Model MD–88 and MD–90–30

airplanes, that requires replacement of

the lanyard assembly pins of the

evacuation slides with solid corrosionresistant pins. This amendment is

prompted by a report that, due to stress

corrosion on the lanyard pins, the arms

of the lanyard assembly of the

evacuation slide were found to be

frozen. The actions specified by this AD

are intended to prevent the improper

deployment of the evacuation slide due

to stress corrosion, which could delay or

impede evacuation of passengers during

an emergency.

DATES: Effective June 13, 2000. The

incorporation by reference of certain

publications listed in the regulations is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of June 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Aircraft

Group, Long Beach Division, 3855

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, CA

90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Dept. 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, WA; or at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA;

or at the Office of the Federal Register,

800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Sinclair, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137;

telephone (562) 627–5338; fax (562)

627–5210.

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 McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 series airplanes,

and Model MD–88 and MD–90–30

airplanes was published as a

supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal

Register on November 26, 1999 (64 FR

66417). That action proposed to require

replacement of the lanyard assembly

pins of the evacuation slides with solid

corrosion-resistant pins.

Comments Received

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 Proposed AD

One commenter supports the

proposed AD. Another commenter states

that the proposed AD does not affect its

fleet.

Requests To Revise Applicability

Statement of Proposed AD

Two commenters request that the

applicability statement of the proposed

AD be revised to exclude freighter

airplanes on which emergency

evacuation slides have not been

installed. The commenters state that

such a revision would eliminate

alternative method of compliance

(AMOC) requests. The commenters did

not provide any data to substantiate

their request.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA

is unable to verify that all freighter

airplanes are not equipped with

evacuation slides. Therefore, all affected

freighter airplanes must be included in

the applicability statement of the final

rule. However, under the provisions of

paragraph (c) of the final rule, the FAA

may consider requests for approval of an

AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to

substantiate that replacement of the

lanyard pins with solid corrosionresistant pin are not necessary.

One commenter questions whether

Boeing latch assembly, part number (P/

N) 69–70843–1, should be included in

the applicability statement of the

proposed AD. The commenter states

that the roll pin, P/N MS39086–140,

which resulted in the corrosion

problem, is present in the Boeing latch

assembly, as well as the Douglas latch

assembly, P/N’s 3961899–1 and

3956939–501.

The FAA has determined that the

subject Boeing latch assemblies are not

susceptible to stress corrosion, and

therefore, are not subject to the

identified unsafe condition of this AD.

Therefore, no change to the final rule is

necessary.

Requests for Alternative Method of

Compliance (AMOC)

One commenter requests that the FAA

approve lanyard assembly pin, P/N

MS16555–627, as an AMOC for the pin

required by the AD (reference

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin DC9–25A357, dated February

11, 1997). The commenter states that

this pin is shorter and would not require

any machining. If the FAA does not

approve the pin having P/N MS16555–

627, the commenter requests that the

FAA approve the installation of an

unmodified pin, P/N MS16555–628,

which would protrude from the latch

assembly. The commenter states that

both of these alternatives would not

interfere with the operation of the

lanyard or deployment of the slide and