Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 35563

Like all Committee meetings, the March

8, 2000, meeting was a public meeting

and all entities, both large and small,

were able to express views on this issue.

This rule imposes no additional

reporting or recordkeeping requirements

on either small or large Florida avocado

handlers. As with all Federal marketing

order programs, reports and forms are

periodically reviewed to reduce

information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sector agencies.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

rule.

A proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on April 17, 2000 (65 FR

20382). Copies of the proposed rule

were also mailed or sent via facsimile to

all Florida avocado handlers. Finally,

the proposal was made available

through the Internet by the Office of the

Federal Register. A 30-day comment

period ending May 17, 2000, was

provided for interested persons to

respond to the proposal. No comments

were received.

A small business guide on complying

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop

marketing agreements and orders may

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the

compliance guide should be sent to Jay

Guerber at the previously mentioned

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant

material presented, including the

information and recommendation

submitted by the Committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found

and determined that good cause exists

for not postponing the effective date of

this rule until 30 days after publication

in the Federal Register because: (1)

Handlers are already receiving 2000–

2001 crop avocados from growers;(2) the

fiscal period began April 1, 2000, and

the marketing order requires that the

assessment rate apply for each fiscal

period to all avocados handled during

such fiscal period; (3) the Committee

needs sufficient funds to pay its

expenses which are incurred on a

continuous basis; (4) handlers are aware

of this rule which was unanimously

recommended by the Committee at a

public meeting, and is similar to other

assessment rate actions issued in past

years; and (5) a 30-day comment period

was provided for in the proposed rule

and no comments were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 915

Avocados, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 915 is amended as

follows:

PART 915—AVOCADOS GROWN IN

SOUTH FLORIDA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 915 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 915.235 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 915.235 Assessment rate.

On and after April 1, 2000, an

assessment rate of $0.19 per 55-pound

bushel container or equivalent is

established for avocados grown in South

Florida.

Dated: May 30, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–13980 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–307–AD; Amendment

39–11759; AD 2000–11–11]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 777–200 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 777–

200 series airplanes, that requires onetime inspections to detect cracking of

the aft wheel well bulkhead, corrective

actions, if necessary, and modification

of the aft wheel well bulkhead. For

certain airplanes, this AD also requires

a one-time visual inspection to detect

excess sealant covering the outer flange

of the side fitting and lower chord and

splice area of the aft wheel well

bulkhead, and corrective actions, if

necessary. This amendment is prompted

by a report indicating that numerous

fatigue cracks were found in the aft

wheel well bulkhead. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent fatigue cracking of the aft wheel

well bulkhead, which could result in

rapid in-flight decompression of the

airplane.

DATES: Effective July 10, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of July 10,

2000.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. 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: Stan

Wood, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone (425) 227–2772; fax (425)

227–1181.

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 Boeing

Model 777–200 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

November 26, 1999 (64 FR 66426). That

action proposed to require one-time

inspections to detect cracking of the aft

wheel well bulkhead, and corrective

actions, if necessary. That action also

proposed to require modification of the

aft wheel well bulkhead. For certain

airplanes, that action also proposed to

require a one-time visual inspection to

detect excess sealant covering the outer

flange of the side fitting and lower

chord and splice area of the aft wheel

well bulkhead, and corrective actions, if

necessary.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Since the issuance of the notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the FAA

has reviewed and approved Boeing

Service Bulletin 777–53A0015, Revision

1, dated March 2, 2000. (The original

issue of the service bulletin, dated June

17, 1999, is referenced in the NPRM as

the appropriate source of service

information for accomplishment of the

proposed actions.) The procedures

described in Revision 1 of the service

bulletin are similar to those in the

original issue, and Revision 1 adds no

new airplanes to the effectivity listing.

Therefore, paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of

35564 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

this final rule have been revised to

reference Revision 1 as the appropriate

source of service information for

accomplishment of the actions required

by those paragraphs. In addition, a new

‘‘NOTE 3’’ has been added to this final

rule to specify that actions

accomplished prior to the effective date

of this AD in accordance with Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0015,

dated June 17, 1999, are considered

acceptable for compliance with this AD.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Fleet Not Affected

On behalf of one of its members, the

Air Transport Association of America

(ATA) comments that none of the

airplanes operated by that member

would be affected by the proposal. The

ATA offers no further comment and

makes no request.

Request To Revise Compliance Time:

Paragraph (a)(2)

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed

rule to specify that removal of excess

sealant from the aft wheel well

bulkhead area is not required until

accomplishment of the inspections

specified in paragraph (b) of the

proposed rule. [Paragraph (a)(2) of the

proposed rule states that, if any excess

sealant is found, it must be removed

from the aft wheel well bulkhead area

prior to further flight.] The commenter

points out that the excess sealant is of

concern because it can impede the

inspections to detect fatigue cracking

that are specified in paragraph (b) of the

proposed rule, but the excess sealant on

its own poses no threat to the continued

safe operation of an airplane.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. The compliance

time is the same for the requirements of

both paragraphs (a) and (b). Therefore,

the FAA expects the requirements of

these paragraphs will be accomplished

at the same time. No change to the final

rule is necessary in this regard.

Request To Remove Airplane from

Effectivity

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise the applicability of the proposed

rule to delete the airplane having line

number 1. The commenter states that

this airplane is owned by the

manufacturer and is operated in

accordance with an experimental

airworthiness certificate. The

commenter asserts that this airplane

does not accumulate enough flight

cycles to develop significant fatigue

cracking of the aft wheel well bulkhead.

The commenter also states that, if the

airplane is sold, the manufacturer will

incorporate a design change equivalent

to the requirements of this AD prior to

delivery. The commenter claims that

inclusion of the subject airplane in the

applicability of this AD will ‘‘introduce

additional unnecessary complications in

obtaining certification of this airplane.’’

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. Though the

airplane is operated in accordance with

an experimental airworthiness

certificate, the airplane is still subject to

the unsafe condition addressed in this

AD. Based on the current utilization of

the airplane, the FAA acknowledges

that it may be some time before the

airplane will be required to be in

compliance with this AD. However,

eventually, the airplane must be

inspected and modified in accordance

with this AD, or modified with a design

change that will provide an equivalent

level of safety. Any design change that

the manufacturer develops in lieu of the

actions required by this AD must be

approved as an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with

paragraph (e) of this AD. No change to

the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise Compliance Time:

Paragraph (d)

One commenter requests that the

compliance time stated for removal of

excess sealant specified in paragraph (d)

of the proposed rule be revised from

‘‘prior to further flight’’ to ‘‘prior to the

threshold specified for fatigue

inspections in Section 9 of the 777

Maintenance Planning Document

[MPD]. . . .’’ The commenter states that

the removal of the excess sealant in the

area described in paragraph (d) of the

proposed rule is intended to allow the

fatigue inspections specified in Section

9 of the MPD to be properly conducted.

The commenter states that the

paragraph, as worded in the proposed

rule, ‘‘can be interpreted to mean that

the sealant must be removed to facilitate

fatigue inspection of these areas at

11,000 flights.’’ Further, the commenter

states, ‘‘There is no data to suggest that

these areas would be subject to

significant fatigue cracking earlier than

the threshold specified in the MPD

(currently 30,000 flights for all

Structures items).’’

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. Excess sealant

may impede detection of unexpected

damage during general visual

inspections performed as part of routine

maintenance. Thus, the FAA finds it is

necessary to require the sealant to be

removed prior to further flight after

accomplishment of the modification in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this

AD. No change to the final rule is

necessary in this regard.

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

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 109 Boeing

Model 777–200 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 35 airplanes of

U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

For all airplanes, it will take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

general visual and HFEC inspections at

an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of these inspections on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $4,200, or

$120 per airplane.

For all airplanes, it will take

approximately 28 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

modification at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts will

cost approximately $6,013 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the modification on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $269,255, or $7,693 per

airplane.

For certain airplanes, it will take 3

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the inspection to detect excess sealant at

an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of this inspection on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $180 per

airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein 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, it is

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 35565

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

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.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

2000–11–11 Boeing: Amendment 39–11759.

Docket 99–NM–307–AD.

Applicability: Model 777–200 series

airplanes having line numbers 1 through 144;

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 (e) 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 cracking of the aft wheel

well bulkhead, which could result in rapid

in-flight decompression of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

General Visual Inspection

(a) For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in

Boeing Service Bulletin 777–53A0015,

Revision 1, dated March 2, 2000: Prior to the

accumulation of 11,000 total flight cycles, or

within 4,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later,

perform a one-time general visual inspection

to detect excess sealant covering the outer

flange of the side fitting and lower chord and

splice of the aft wheel well bulkhead, in

accordance with Part I of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

general visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘A

visual examination of an interior or exterior

area, installation, or assembly to detect

obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This

level of inspection is made under normally

available lighting conditions such as

daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight, and may require removal or opening of

access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or

platforms may be required to gain proximity

to the area being checked.’’

Note 3: Inspections and modifications

accomplished prior to the effective date of

this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 777–53A0015, dated June

17, 1999, are considered acceptable for

compliance with paragraphs (a), (b), and (d)

of this AD.

(1) If no excess sealant is detected, no

further action is required by this paragraph.

(2) If any excess sealant is detected, prior

to further flight, remove the excess sealant

from the aft wheel well bulkhead area in

accordance with the service bulletin.

Inspections/Modification

(b) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes, as

identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777–

53A0015, Revision 1, dated March 2, 2000:

Prior to the accumulation of 11,000 total

flight cycles, or within 4,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform a one-time general

visual inspection to detect cracking of the

adjacent structure of the aft wheel well

bulkhead and perform a one-time high

frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to

detect cracking of the fastener holes in the

web, side fitting, and outer chord of the aft

wheel well bulkhead, in accordance with

Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of

the service bulletin.

(1) If no cracking is detected during the

general visual and HFEC inspections, prior to

further flight, modify the aft wheel well

bulkhead (including cold working; replacing

the fairing support bracket and splice plates

with revised fairing support brackets and

splice plates; and installing new web

doublers and, if necessary, shims), in

accordance with Part II of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(2) If any cracking is detected during the

general visual inspection, prior to further

flight, accomplish the requirements of

paragraph (c) of this AD.

(3) If any cracking is detected during the

one-time HFEC inspection, prior to further

flight, remove additional fasteners, and

perform a second HFEC inspection to detect

cracking of the fastener holes, in accordance

with Part II of the Accomplishment

Instructions of the service bulletin.

(i) If no cracking is detected during the

second HFEC inspection, prior to further

flight, oversize all the holes to the diameter

specified in the service bulletin, and perform

a third HFEC inspection to detect cracking of

the fastener holes, in accordance with Part II

of the Accomplishment Instructions of the

service bulletin.

(A) If no cracking is detected during the

third HFEC inspection, prior to further flight,

replace the fasteners with new fasteners and

modify the aft wheel well bulkhead

(including cold working; replacing the fairing

support bracket and splice plates with

revised fairing support brackets and splice

plates; and installing new web doublers and,

if necessary, shims), in accordance with Part

II of the Accomplishment Instructions of the

service bulletin.

(B) If any cracking is detected during the

third HFEC inspection, prior to further flight,

accomplish the requirements of paragraph (c)

of this AD.

(ii) If any cracking is detected during the

second HFEC inspection, prior to further

flight, accomplish the requirements of

paragraph (c) of this AD.

Repair

(c) For airplanes on which cracking has

been detected during any inspection required

by paragraph (b)(2), (b)(3)(i)(B), or (b)(3)(ii) of

this AD, prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Seattle Airplane Certification Office

(ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate;

or in accordance with data meeting the type

certification basis of the airplane approved

by a Boeing Company Designated

Engineering Representative who has been

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to

make such findings. For a repair method to

be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as

required by this paragraph, the Manager’s

approval letter must specifically reference

this AD.

Removal of Excess Sealant

(d) For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in

Boeing Service Bulletin 777–53A0015,

Revision 1, dated March 2, 2000, on which

excess sealant was detected and removed in

accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD:

Prior to further flight following the

accomplishment of the modification required

by paragraph (b) of this AD, remove any

excess sealant in the remaining area of the

lower lobe of the aft wheel well bulkhead

between stringers S–27L and S–27R, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) 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

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

35566 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(f) 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.

Incorporation by Reference

(g) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of

this AD, the actions shall be done in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

777–53A0015, Revision 1, dated March 2,

2000. 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 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–

2207. 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.

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

July 10, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 24,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–13565 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NE–36–AD; Amendment 39–

11763; AD 2000–11–15]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell

International Inc. (Formerly

AlliedSignal Inc.) ALF502R and LF507

Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD), that

requires revisions to Chapter 5,

Airworthiness Limitations section, of

the Honeywell International Inc.

ALF502R and LF507 series Engine

Manuals to include required enhanced

inspection of selected critical lifelimited parts at each piece-part

exposure. This action requires an air

carrier’s approved continuous

airworthiness maintenance program to

incorporate these inspection

procedures. This action is prompted by

a Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) study of in-service events

involving uncontained failures of

critical rotating engine parts that

indicated the need for improved

inspections. The improved inspections

are needed to identify those critical

rotating parts with conditions, which if

allowed to continue in service, could

result in uncontained failures. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent critical life-limited

rotating engine part failure, which could

result in an uncontained engine failure

and damage to the airplane.

DATES: Effective July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The rules docket 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:

Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5245,

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 AlliedSignal Inc.

ALF502R and LF507 series turbofan

engines was published in the Federal

Register on August 5, 1999 (64 FR

42619). That action proposed to require

revisions to Chapter 5, Airworthiness

Limitations section, of the Honeywell

International Inc. ALF502R and LF507

engine manual, and, for air carriers,

their approved continuous

airworthiness maintenance program.

Honeywell International Inc. (formerly

AlliedSignal Inc.), the manufacturer of

ALF502R and LF507 series turbofan

engines, has provided the FAA with a

detailed proposal that identifies and

prioritizes the critical rotating engine

parts with the highest potential to

hazard the airplane in the event of

failure, along with instructions for

enhanced, focused inspection methods.

These enhanced inspections will be

conducted at piece-part opportunity, as

defined in this AD, rather than at

specific inspection intervals.

Comment Received

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comment received.

The commenter supports the rule as

proposed.

The FAA notes that several different

companies have held the type certificate

for these engine models. In order to

make certain that all manuals are

revised to include the enhanced

inspection program, not just the

manuals that bear the name of the

current holder of the type certificate, the

FAA has added the names of the former

type certificate holders to paragraph (a).

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 this change.

The FAA has determined that this

change will neither increase the

economic burden on any operator nor

increase the scope of the AD.

Economic Analysis

The FAA estimates that 200 engines

installed on airplanes of US registry

would be affected by this AD, that it

would take approximately 56 work

hours per engine to accomplish the

required actions. The average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the AD

on US operators is estimated to be

$672,000.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein 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, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this regulation (1) IS not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

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.