26120 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 88 / Friday, May 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532—

Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey

Areas

* * * * *

Colorado

Denver

Survey Area

Colorado:

Adams

Arapahoe

Boulder

Denver

Douglas

Gilpin

Jefferson

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Colorado:

Clear Creek

Eagle

Elbert

Garfield

Grand

Jackson

Lake

Larimer

Logan

Morgan

Park

Phillips

Pitkin

Rio Blanco

Routt

Sedgwick

Summit

Washington

Weld

Yuma

Southern Colorado

Survey Area

Colorado:

El Paso

Pueblo

Teller

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Colorado:

Alamosa

Archuleta

Baca

Bent

Chaffee

Cheyenne

Conejos

Costilla

Crowley

Custer

Delta

Dolores

Fremont

Gunnison

Hinsdale

Huerfano

Kiowa

Kit Carson

Las Animas

Lincoln

Mineral

Montrose

Otero

Ouray

Pitkin

Prowers

Rio Grande

Saguache

San Juan

San Miguel

* * * * *

Utah

Survey Area

Utah:

Box Elder

Davis

Salt Lake

Tooele

Utah

Weber

Area of Application. Survey area plus:

Utah:

Beaver

Cache

Carbon

Daggett

Duchesne

Emery

Garfield

Grand

Iron

Juab

Millard

Morgan

Piute

Rich

San Juan (Only includes the Canyonlands

National Park portion.)

Sanpete

Sevier

Summit

Uintah

Wasatch

Washington

Wayne

Colorado:

Mesa

Moffat

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–11199 Filed 5–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 532

RIN 3206–AI86

Prevailing Rate Systems; Definition of

Napa County, CA, to a

Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management is issuing a final rule to

add Napa County, California, as an area

of application to the Solano, CA,

nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal

Wage System (FWS) wage area. This

change is necessary because NAF FWS

employees will have work stations in

Napa County, and Napa County was not

previously an NAF wage area.

DATES: Effective Date: This regulation is

effective on June 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Hopkins, (202) 606–2848, FAX:

(202) 606–0824, or email

jdhopkin@opm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 15, 1999, the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM)

published an interim rule (64 FR 61769)

to redefine the Solano, California,

nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal

Wage System (FWS) wage area by

adding Napa County, CA, as an area of

application. Under section 5343 of title

5, United States Code, OPM is

responsible for defining FWS wage

areas. For this purpose, we follow the

regulatory criteria in section 532.219(b)

of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

The Solano wage area presently has

one survey county, Solano County, and

two area of application counties, Marin

and Sonoma Counties, CA. The Army

and Air Force Exchange Service

acquired the Yountville Retail Facility

located in Napa County and staffed the

new activity with approximately eight

employees, two of whom are FWS

employees. Under 5 CFR 532.219, each

NAF wage area ‘‘shall consist of one or

more survey areas, along with

nonsurvey areas, having

nonappropriated fund employees.’’

Napa County does not meet the

regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.219

to be a separate NAF wage area;

however, OPM may combine nonsurvey

counties with a survey area to form a

wage area. Therefore, OPM defined

Napa County as an area of application

to an existing NAF wage area. The

Solano wage survey consists of one

survey county, Solano County, and

three area of application counties,

Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Counties, CA.

The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory

Committee, the national labormanagement committee responsible for

advising OPM on matters concerning

the pay of FWS employees, reviewed

and concurred by consensus with this

change. The interim rule had a 30-day

public comment period, during which

OPM did not receive any comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this regulation will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because it will affect only Federal

agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

Administrative practice and

procedure, Freedom of information,

Government employees, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 88 / Friday, May 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26121

Accordingly, under the authority of 5

U.S.C. 5343, the interim rule (64 FR

61769) amending 5 CFR part 532

published on November 15, 1999, is

adopted as final with no changes.

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–11198 Filed 5–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NE–46–AD; Amendment 39–

11714; AD 2000–09–05]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Allison

Engine Company AE 3007 Series

Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Allison Engine

Company AE 3007 series turbofan

engines. This AD would require removal

of certain cone shafts from service

before exceeding new cyclic life limits

and replacement with serviceable parts.

This amendment is prompted by

additional testing and low cycle fatigue

(LCF) life analysis that substantiate

lower cyclic lives than originally

determined. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent LCF

failure of cone shafts, which could

result in an uncontained engine failure

and damage to the aircraft.

DATES: Effective date July 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,

12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, 2300 East Devon

Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018;

telephone (847) 294–8180, fax (847)

294–7834.

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 Allison Engine

Company AE 3007A, AE 3007A1, AE

3007A1/1, AE 3007A1/2, AE 3007A1/3,

AE 3007A1P, and AE 3007C turbofan

engines was published in the Federal

Register on October 12, 1999 (64 FR

55196). That action proposed to require

the removal of certain cone shafts, P/Ns

23050728 and 23070729, from service

prior to the accumulation of new cyclic

life limits, depending on engine model.

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.

Increase Cone Shaft Life Limits for AE

3007A and AE 3007C Engines

The manufacturer requests that the

FAA increase the cone shaft life limits

for the AE 3007A and AE 3007C engines

from 7,500 cycles each to 9,500 cycles

and 14,500 cycles respectively. At the

time the NPRM was issued, the cone

shaft low cycle fatigue analysis for these

engines was not available, and the FAA

proposed lower, more conservative shaft

life limits. The analysis has since been

completed and the manufacturer

requests that the life limits be increased.

The FAA agrees. The methodology

used to determine the lives for these

engine models has been approved by the

FAA and is consistent with that used to

determine critical part lives for other

engines already in service (AE 3007A1,

AE 3007A1/1, and AE 3007A1/2).

Therefore, the cone shaft life limits for

the AE 3007A and AE3007C engines

should be increased to 9,500 cycles for

the AE 3007A engine and to 14,500

cycles for the AE 3007C engine.

Accordingly, new paragraphs (a), (b),

and (c) in the final rule are substituted

for proposed paragraph (a), and the

proposed paragraphs (b) through (g)

become paragraphs (d) through (i) in the

final rule.

Increase Cone Shaft Life Limits for AE

3007A1/3 and AE 3007A1P Engines

One commenter requests that the FAA

increase the cone shaft life limits for the

AE 3007A1/3 and AE 3007A1P engines

from 3,500 cycles and 2,400 cycles,

respectively, to 7,500 cycles each. The

commenter suggests that the cone shaft

life of the AE 3007A1/3 and AE

3007A1P engines should be increased to

match those of the AE 3007A1, AE

3007A1/1, and AE 3007A1/2 engines for

two reasons:

• The turbomachinery hardware is

the same for all the engine models

referenced above. The primary

difference between the models is the

engine control software.

• A significant operational aspect of

this group of engines is the ability to

easily maintain fleet readiness by

changing the engine model with an

engine control software change.

The FAA does not agree. When new

data from tests or analysis suggests that

component low cycle fatigue lives need

to be reduced, different approaches may

be taken, depending on the

circumstances. If there are significant

numbers of affected engines in the field

(e.g. AE 3007A, AE 3007A1, AE

3007A1/1, AE 3007A1/2, and AE 3007C

models), a life management program is

developed that allows the users some

operational flexibility while

maintaining an acceptable level of risk

for the fleet. If there is a very small

number of affected engines in the field,

the FAA prefers a life management

program structured on the lifing

methodology intended for original

certification of the engine design. For

the AE 3007A1/3 and AE 3007A1P

engines, therefore, the FAA has

determined to use the original FAA

approved lifing methodology.

Increase Cone Shaft Life Limits for AE

3007A3 Engines

One commenter requests that the FAA

increase the cone shaft life limits for the

AE 3007A3 engines.

The FAA does not agree. This engine

model was not included in the NPRM

and is beyond the scope of this AD.

Incorrect Model Designation

The NPRM incorrectly specifies the

AE 3007A1/P engine. This designation

should read ‘‘AE 3007A1P.’’ This has

been corrected in the final rule.

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

described previously. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Economic Analysis

There are approximately 598 engines

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 364

engines installed on aircraft of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately 150 work

hours per engine to accomplish the

required actions, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$3,921 per engine. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$4,703,244.