Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26781

l DISAPPROVE (Voting against means

other Farm Credit System associations will

not be chartered to allow them to lend in

your current association’s lending area.

However, you will be able to continue to

borrow from your current association, as

explained in the enclosed Information

Statement.)

If I do not direct how this ballot shall be

voted, I intend it to be cast to APPROVE the

question.

Note: For your vote to count, your Proxy

Ballot and Proxy Form must be received in

the association office no later than (time) on

(date) or delivered to an election official prior

to balloting at the stockholders’ meeting. You

have the right to cancel your proxy at any

time prior to the beginning of balloting at the

stockholders’ meeting.

A–5—Brief Summary of the Question

In a July 14, 1998, Philosophy Statement,

the FCA Board expressed its view that

competition is beneficial for customers and

will help ensure that the System will

continue to meet the current and future

needs of rural America. To facilitate

competition and improve services for all

farmers, ranchers, and other eligible

customers, the FCA Board indicated its

support for several measures including the

removal of geographical restrictions of

System entities.

The FCA Board will accept applications for

national charters from System direct lender

associations in the near future. Before the

FCA can grant applications for full

nationwide charters, however, the Agency

must carry out two requirements of the Act

that call for stockholder voting in certain

areas of the country. Congress required

stockholder voting in the geographic area in

which the Federal Intermediate Credit Bank

of Jackson or its successor (AgFirst Farm

Credit Bank) is chartered to provide shortand intermediate-term credit and the Farm

Credit Bank of Texas is chartered to provide

long-term credit. Congress also required the

consent of stockholders of three production

credit associations in New Mexico pursuant

to section 433 of the Agricultural Credit Act

of 1987.

Your association serves the [counties/states

of xxx], and (insert either (1) has territory

that is within the geographic area of the

successor to the former Federal Intermediate

Credit Bank of Jackson or (2) reaffiliated

under section 433.] As a result, you are being

asked whether you approve the FCA’s

issuance of charters to associations that

would allow them to make similar loans to

you and other eligible customers in the

territory of your Association.

Approval of the question does not,

however, guarantee that other associations

will be chartered to lend in your

Association’s territory. Following the

stockholder vote on the question, the board

of directors of the [insert appropriate bank]

[and insert associations if this Information

Statement refers to section 5.17 (a)(13) and

(a)(14)] will also vote on the question. The

question must be approved by a majority of

the stockholders voting and a majority of the

board of directors of the banks [and

associations, if appropriate] before another

System lender may be chartered to make

similar loans in the territory of your

Association. If approved by all parties

involved, the FCA may grant requests from

other FCS associations to serve the territory

currently served by your Association.

A–6—Advantages and Disadvantages of

Approving the Question

There are advantages and disadvantages of

your approval of the question. The following

is a brief discussion of the principal

advantages and disadvantages to the

stockholders of your Association. This

discussion does not claim to provide a

complete analysis of all the expected

outcomes of approval of the question. In

addition, there can be no assurance that any

expected advantage or disadvantage below

will take place in whole or part. The

realization of any advantages and

disadvantages depends on how each

association implements its nationwide

charter. You should also consider that the

advantages and disadvantages affect not only

you but all other eligible FCS customers and

potential customers.

ADVANTAGES

Allowing other System associations to

make loans in the territory of your

Association may provide System customers

in the [insert geographic area] with more

choices for credit. You may have a greater

choice of financial products because System

lenders offer different loan products, interest

rates, and repayment options. If the question

is approved, you may have the freedom to

select the System lender of your choice.

Competition for loans within a geographic

area may also provide associations the

opportunity and incentive to become more

efficient and more competitive. This

competition is likely to lower the cost of

credit and improve the quality of service for

you and other customers.

System lenders across the country may be

better able to develop niche products and

thus offer specialized lending services to

customers in the territory of your Association

and across the country. You may be able to

obtain your main source of operational

funding from one lender and specialized

services from another. Nationwide charters

may also enable System lenders to provide

seamless credit to agricultural producers

regardless of the producer’s geographic

location. E-commerce services may be

enhanced after territorial restrictions are

removed.

Finally, approval of this question may

heighten awareness of each System lender’s

public policy mission for service within its

original chartered territory. The FCA will

continue to ensure that each System

association fulfills its responsibility to make

services available to all eligible customers

within its current chartered territory.

DISADVANTAGES

As System lenders compete for customers,

some associations may become less viable if

added competitive pressures reduce profit

margins. In addition, if the challenges

associated with greater competition are not

met, the capital investment of stockholders

may be at a higher risk. There are 165

associations that may request nationwide

charters. As a result, the management of your

Association may be under increased pressure

to provide efficient and cost effective

services.

In the long run, some associations may be

forced to cut back or eliminate certain

services. Also, associations entering new

geographic areas may primarily focus on

larger or more profitable borrowers while less

attention may be given to the more marginal

borrowers in the associations’ new and

existing chartered territories.

Some associations may not be competitive

in their present form and may have to merge

or take other corporate restructuring actions

to remain viable.

A–7—X Association Board Statement

(Optional)

The Association board of directors may

state its views and recommendation on the

question and elaborate on the reasons for its

recommendation.

A–8—Statement of the FCA Board

This statement will be provided during

FCA’s review period.

Dated: May 4, 2000.

Nan P. Mitchem,

Acting Secretary, Farm Credit Administration

Board.

[FR Doc. 00–11551 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–SW–57–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Schweizer

Aircraft Corporation Model 269A,

269A–1, 269B, 269C, 269C–1, 269D,

and TH–55A Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD) applicable to Schweizer

Aircraft Corporation (Schweizer) Model

269A, 269A–1, 269B, 269C, 269C–1, and

269D helicopters. That AD currently

requires inspecting the tail rotor

swashplate shaft (shaft) nut for

looseness and, if loose, inspecting the

shaft for proper size; subsequently

inspecting the shafts not previously

inspected; and replacing any undersized

shaft prior to further flight. This new

action would reduce the applicability by

specifying certain serial number tail

rotor pitch control (pitch control)

assemblies and shipping dates but

would add the Schweizer Model TH–

26782 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules

55A helicopter to the applicability. This

proposal is prompted by the discovery

of an undersized replacement shaft

during routine maintenance. The

actions specified by this proposed AD

are intended to prevent failure of the

shaft, loss of the tail rotor, and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–SW–57–

AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also

send comments electronically to the

Rules Docket at the following address:

9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov. Comments

may be inspected at the Office of the

Regional Counsel between 9 a.m. and 3

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George J. Duckett, Aviation Safety

Engineer, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, 10 Fifth

Street, 3rd Floor, Valley Stream, New

York 11581, telephone (516) 256–7525,

fax (516) 568–2716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed 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

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 99–SW–57–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 99–SW–57–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

The FAA issued AD 99–17–10,

Amendment 39–11258, on August 4,

1999 (64 FR 44823, August 18, 1999), to

require inspecting the shaft nut for

looseness and, if loose, inspecting the

shaft, part number (P/N) 269A6049–3,

for proper size; subsequently inspecting

the shafts not previously inspected; and

replacing any undersized shaft prior to

further flight. That action was prompted

by the discovery of an undersized

replacement shaft during routine

maintenance. The requirements of that

AD are intended to prevent failure of the

shaft and subsequent loss of control of

the helicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has determined that the TH–55A

model helicopter could have an

undersized shaft installed and should

have been included in the applicability

of AD 99–17–10. Additionally, we have

received reports of undersized shafts

shipped from the factory as spares

between September 1 and December 1,

1998. This action requires inspecting

each shaft nut for looseness and each

shaft for improper size, replacing each

shaft, as necessary, and adding

Schweizer Model TH–55A to the

applicability requirements.

The FAA has reviewed Schweizer

Service Bulletins B–271.1 for Schweizer

Models 269A, 269A–1, 269B, 269C, and

TH–55A; C1B–009.1 for the Model

269C–1; and DB–007.1 for the Model

269D, all dated October 14, 1999. These

service bulletins describe procedures for

inspecting the shaft nut, P/N 269A6258,

for looseness by using a firm hand

pressure and inspecting the shaft, P/N

269A6049–3, for proper size.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other Schweizer Model

269A, 269A–1, 269B, 269C, 269C–1,

269D and TH–55A helicopters of these

same type designs, the proposed AD

would supersede AD 99–17–10 to

require inspecting the shaft nut, P/N

269A6258, for looseness; inspecting the

shaft, P/N 269A6049–3, for proper size;

and replacing any undersized shaft with

an airworthy shaft of the proper size for

helicopters with equipment installed as

follows:

• Shaft, P/N 269A6049–3, shipped

from the factory between September 1

and December 1, 1998, and installed

after the helicopter was manufactured,

or

• Pitch control assembly, P/N

269A6050–5, with serial number with

an ‘‘S’’ prefix and number 1047 through

1061.

The FAA estimates that 28 helicopters

would be affected by this AD. For each

helicopter, it would take 0.25 work hour

to accomplish the 10-hour inspection

and 3.6 work hours to accomplish the

inspection and replacement, if

necessary, at the 100-hour or annual

inspection interval. The average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Required

parts would cost approximately $1400

per helicopter. Based on these figures,

the total cost impact of the AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $45,668.

The regulations proposed herein

would 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,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (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) if

promulgated, 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 draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

proposed action is 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, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26783

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Amendment 39–11258 and by

adding a new airworthiness directive to

read as follows:

Schweizer Aircraft Corporation: Docket No.

99-SW–57–AD. Supersedes AD 99–17–

10, Amendment 39–11258, Docket No.

99–SW–31–AD.

Applicability: Model 269A, 269A–1, 269B,

269C, 269C–1, 269D and TH–55A

helicopters, with a tail rotor swashplate shaft

(shaft), part number (P/N) 269A6049–3, or a

tail rotor pitch control assembly (pitch

control), P/N 269A6050–5, with a serial

number (S/N) with an ‘‘S’’ prefix and number

1047 through 1061, installed, certificated in

any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

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 helicopters 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 failure of the shaft, loss of the

tail rotor, and subsequent loss of control of

the helicopter, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS);

(1) Determine whether the factory-installed

shaft, part number (P/N) 269A6049–3, has

been replaced with a shaft shipped from the

factory between September 1 and December

1, 1998, inclusive, or if a pitch control, P/N

269A6050–5, with a S/N with an ‘‘S’’ prefix

and numbers 1047 through 1061 is installed.

(2) If the factory ship date for a

replacement shaft cannot be positively

determined, if the shipping date was between

September 1 and December 1, 1998,

inclusive, or if the pitch control S/N has an

‘‘S’’ prefix and number 1047 through 1061,

(i) Before further flight and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS,

accomplish ‘‘Procedure, Part I,’’ of Schweizer

Service Bulletins B–271.1 for Models 269A,

269A–1, 269B, 269C and TH–55A

helicopters; C1B–009.1 for the Model 269C–

1, or DB–007.1 for the Model 269D, all dated

October 14, 1999 (SB), as applicable.

(ii) At the next scheduled 100-hour or

annual inspection, whichever occurs first,

accomplish Part II, paragraphs a. through d.,

of the applicable SB. Shafts not meeting the

requirements of paragraph d. of the

applicable SB must be replaced with an

airworthy shaft prior to further flight.

(b) Before installing a replacement shaft,

determine the date the shaft was shipped

from the factory. If the date was between

September 1 and December 1, 1998,

inclusive, or cannot be determined,

accomplish the inspections required by Part

II, paragraph d., of the applicable SB prior to

installation. Replace any unairworthy shaft

with an airworthy shaft.

(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, New York

Aircraft Certification Office. Operators shall

submit their requests through an FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

concur or comment and then send it to the

Manager, New York Aircraft Certification

Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York Aircraft

Certification Office.

(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 helicopter

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 28,

2000.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–11523 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–SW–42–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Bell

Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC)

Model 430 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD) applicable to BHTC

Model 430 helicopters. That AD

requires inspecting all four main rotor

adapter assemblies for evidence of

flapping and lead-lag contact. That AD

also requires installing a never-exceedvelocity (VNE) placard with markings

on the airspeed indicator glass and

instrument case and a revision to the

rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) to reflect

the airspeed revision. This action would

provide mandatory terminating action

for requirements of that AD by replacing

the fluidlastic damper blade sets with

improved sets that incorporate a

pressure indicator to detect loss of

damper fluid. This proposal is

prompted by the need for a positive

means of detecting loss of damper fluid

that could result in main rotor tip path

plane separation. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

prevent increased vibrations, damage to

the main rotor system, and subsequent

loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–SW–42–

AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also

send comments electronically to the

Rules Docket at the following address:

9–asw–adcomments@faa.gov.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer,

Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft

Standards Staff, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone

(817) 222–5122, fax (817) 222–5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed 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

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their mailed

comments submitted in response to this

notice must submit a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 99–SW–42–

AD.’’ The postcard will be date stamped

and returned to the commenter.