40982 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(p) * * *

(3) The licensee shall provide for the

development, revision, implementation,

and maintenance of its safeguards

contingency plan by a review, as

necessary, based on an assessment by

the licensee against performance

indicators, or as soon as reasonably

practicable after a significant change

occurs in personnel, procedures,

equipment, or facilities, but no longer

than 12 months after the change. The

licensee shall ensure that all program

elements are reviewed at least every 24

months by individuals independent of

both security program management and

personnel who have direct

responsibility for implementation of the

security program. The review must

include a review and audit of safeguards

contingency procedures and practices,

an audit of the security system testing

and maintenance program, and a test of

the safeguards systems along with

commitments established for response

by local law enforcement authorities.

The results of the review and audit,

along with recommendations for

improvements, must be documented,

reported to the licensee’s corporate and

plant management, and kept available at

the plant for inspection for a period of

3 years.

* * * * *

(t) The licensee shall provide for the

development, revision, implementation,

and maintenance of its emergency

preparedness program by a review, as

necessary, based on an assessment by

the licensee against performance

indicators, or as soon as reasonably

practicable after a significant change

occurs in personnel, procedures,

equipment, or facilities, but no longer

than 12 months after the change. The

licensee shall ensure that all program

elements are reviewed at least every 24

months by persons who have no direct

responsibility for the implementation of

the emergency preparedness program.

The review shall include an evaluation

for adequacy of interfaces with State

and local governments and of licensee

drills, exercises, capabilities, and

procedures. The results of the review,

along with recommendations for

improvements, shall be documented,

reported to the licensee’s corporate and

plant management, and retained for a

period of five years. The part of the

review involving the evaluation for

adequacy of interface with State and

local governments shall be available to

the appropriate State and local

governments.

* * * * *

PART 73—PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF

PLANTS AND MATERIALS

3. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 53, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 948,

as amended, sec. 147, 94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C.

2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as amended, 204,

88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1245, sec. 1701,

106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 5841,

5844, 2297(f)).

Section 73.1 also issued under secs.

135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2232,

2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section

73.37(f) also issued under sec. 301, Pub.

L. 96–295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841

note). Section 73.57 is issued under sec.

606, Pub. L. 99–399, 100 Stat. 876 (42

U.S.C. 2169).

4. Section 73.55 is amended by

revising paragraph (g)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 73.55 Requirements for physical

protection of licensed activities in nuclear

power reactors against radiological

sabotage.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(4) The licensee shall review the

security program, as necessary, based on

an assessment by the licensee against

performance indicators, or as soon as

reasonably practicable after a significant

change occurs in personnel, procedures,

equipment, or facilities, but no longer

than 12 months after the change. The

licensee shall ensure that all program

elements are reviewed at least every 24

months by individuals who have no

direct responsibility for the

implementation of the security program.

The security program review must

include an audit of security procedures

and practices, an evaluation of the

effectiveness of the physical protection

system, an audit of the physical

protection system testing and

maintenance program, and an audit of

commitments established for response

by local law enforcement authorities.

The results and recommendations of the

security program review, management’s

findings on whether the security

program is currently effective, and any

actions taken as a result of

recommendations from prior program

reviews must be documented in a report

to the licensee’s plant manager and to

corporate management at least one level

higher than that having responsibility

for the day-to-day plant operation.

These reports must be maintained in an

auditable form, available for inspection,

for a period of 3 years.

* * * * *

5. Appendix C to Part 73, Licensee

Safeguards Contingency Plans, is

amended by revising the section titled

‘‘Audit and Review’’ to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 73—Licensee

Safeguards Contingency Plans.

* * * * *

Audit and Review

For nuclear facilities subject to the

requirements of § 73.46, the licensee shall

provide for a review of the safeguards

contingency plan at intervals not to exceed

12 months. For nuclear power reactor

licensees subject to the requirements of

§ 73.55, the licensee shall provide for a

review of the safeguards contingency plan, as

necessary, based on an assessment by the

licensee against performance indicators, or as

soon as reasonably practicable after a

significant change occurs in personnel,

procedures, equipment, or facilities, but no

longer than 12 months after the change and

shall ensure that all program elements are

reviewed at least every 24 months. A licensee

subject to either requirement shall ensure

that the review of the safeguards contingency

plan is by individuals independent of both

security program management and personnel

who have direct responsibility for

implementation of the security program. The

review must include an audit of safeguards

contingency procedures and practices, and

an audit of commitments established for

response by local law enforcement

authorities.

The licensee shall document the results

and the recommendations of the safeguards

contingency plan review, management

findings on whether the safeguards

contingency plan is currently effective, and

any actions taken as a result of

recommendations from prior reviews in a

report to the licensee’s plant manager and to

corporate management at least one level

higher than that having responsibility for the

day-to-day plant operation. The report must

be maintained in an auditable form, available

for inspection for a period of 3 years.

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.,

Acting Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 97–20191 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Parts 100 and 114

[Notice 1997—12]

Definition of ‘‘Member’’ of a

Membership Association

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission is seeking

comments on how to revise its rules

governing who is a ‘‘member’’ of a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40983

membership association following the

decision of the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit in Chamber of Commerce of the

United States v. Federal Election

Commission. The Commission is not

proposing specific amendments to the

rules at this time but is rather

attempting to obtain general guidance

on the factors to be considered in

determining this relationship.

DATES: Comments are due on September

2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to Susan E. Propper,

Assistant General Counsel, and must be

submitted in either written or electronic

form. Written comments should be sent

to the Federal Election Commission, 999

E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463.

Faxed comments should be sent to (202)

219–3923, with printed copy follow-up.

Electronic mail comments should be

sent to members@fec.gov and should

include the full name, electronic mail

address and postal service address of

the commenter. Additional information

on electronic submission is provided

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Susan E. Propper, Assistant General

Counsel, or Ms. Rita A. Reimer,

Attorney, 999 E Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 219–3690

or (800) 424–9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

as amended (‘‘FECA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) permits

membership associations to solicit

contributions from their members for a

separate segregated fund (‘‘SSF’’), which

contributions can be used for federal

political purposes. The Act also allows

membership associations to

communicate with their members on

any subject, including communications

that include express electoral advocacy.

2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)(A), 441b(b)(4)(C).

The implementing regulations defining

who is a ‘‘member’’ of a membership

association are found at 11 CFR

100.8(b)(4)(iv) and 11 CFR 114.1(e).

On August 30, 1993, the Commission

published the text of revisions to these

regulations. 58 FR 45770. The revised

rules became effective on November 10,

1993. 58 FR 59640. The rules provide

that either a significant financial

attachment to the membership

association (not merely the payment of

dues) or the right to vote directly for all

members of the association’s highest

governing body is sufficient in and of

itself to confer membership rights.

However, in most instances a

combination of regularly-assessed dues

and the right to vote directly or

indirectly for at least one member of the

association’s highest governing body is

required. The term ‘‘membership

association’’ includes membership

organizations, trade associations,

cooperatives, corporations without

capital stock, and local, national and

international labor organizations that

meet the requirements set forth in these

rules.

These rules were adopted in response

to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Federal

Election Commission v. National Right

to Work Committee (‘‘NRWC’’), 459 U.S.

196 (1982), and a series of Advisory

Opinions (‘‘AO’’) adopted by the

Commission following that decision.

NRWC rejected an argument by a

nonprofit, noncapital stock corporation,

whose articles of incorporation stated

that it had no members, that it should

be able to treat as members, and thus

solicit funds to its SSF from, individuals

who had at one time responded, not

necessarily financially, to an NRWC

advertisement, mailing, or personal

contact. The Supreme Court rejected

this definition of ‘‘member,’’ saying that

to accept it ‘‘would virtually excise from

the statute the restriction of solicitation

to ‘members.’’’ Id. at 203. The Court

determined that ‘‘members’’ of nonstock

corporations should be defined, at least

in part, by analogy to stockholders of

business corporations and members of

labor unions. Viewing the question from

this perspective meant that ‘‘some

relatively enduring and independently

significant financial or organizational

attachment is required to be a

‘member’’’ for these purposes. Id. at 204.

The recent revisions to the

Commission’s rules were intended to

incorporate this standard.

The United States District Court for

the District of Columbia held that the

revised ‘‘member’’ rules were not

arbitrary, capricious or manifestly

contrary to the statutory language, and

therefore deferred to what the court

found to be a valid exercise of the

Commission’s regulatory authority.

Chamber of Commerce of the United

States (‘‘Chamber’’) v. Federal Election

Commission, Civil Action No. 94–2184

(D.D.C. Oct. 28, 1994)(1994 WL 615786).

However, the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit reversed. 69 F.3d 600 (D.C.Cir.

1995), amended on denial of rehearing,

76 F.3d 1234 (D.C.Cir. 1996).

The case was jointly brought by the

Chamber of Commerce and the

American Medical Association

(‘‘AMA’’), two associations that do not

provide their asserted ‘‘members’’ with

the voting rights necessary to confer this

status under the current rules. The court

held that the ties between these

members and the Chamber and the

AMA are sufficient to comply with the

Supreme Court’s NWRC criteria, and

therefore concluded that the

Commission’s rules are invalid because

they define the term ‘‘member’’ in an

unduly restrictive fashion. 69 F.2d at

604.

The Chamber is a nonprofit

corporation whose members include

3,000 state and local chambers of

commerce, 1,250 trade and professional

groups, and 215,000 ‘‘direct business

members.’’ The members pay annual

dues ranging from $65 to $100,000 and

may participate any of 59 policy

committees that determine the

Chamber’s position on various issues.

However, the Chamber’s Board of

Directors is self-perpetuating (that is,

Board members elect their successors);

so no member entities have either direct

or indirect voting rights for members of

the Board.

The AMA challenged the exclusion

from the definition of member 44,500

‘‘direct’’ members, those who do not

belong to a state medical association.

Direct members pay annual dues

ranging from $20 to $420; receive

various AMA publications; and

participate in professional programs put

on by the AMA. They are also bound by

and subject to discipline under the

AMA’s Principles of Medical Ethics.

However, since state medical

associations elect members of the

AMA’s House of Delegates, that

organization’s highest governing body,

direct members do not satisfy the voting

criteria set forth in the current rules.

The Chamber of Commerce court, in

an Addendum to the original decision,

noted that the Commission ‘‘still has a

good deal of latitude in interpreting’’ the

term ‘‘member.’’ 76 F.3d at 1235.

However, in its original decision, the

court held the rules to be arbitrary and

capricious (as applied to the Chamber),

since under the current rules even those

paying $100,000 in annual dues cannot

qualify as members. As for the AMA,

the rule excludes members who pay up

to $420 in annual dues and, among

other organizational attachments, are

subject to sanctions under the Principles

of Medical Ethics. The court explained

that this latter attachment ‘‘might be

thought, [] for a professional, [to be] the

most significant organizational

attachment.’’ 69 F.3d at 605 (emphasis

in original).

On February 24, 1997, the

Commission received a Petition for

Rulemaking from James Bopp, Jr., on

behalf of the National Right to Life

Committee, Inc. The Petition urged the

Commission to revise its rules defining

who is a member of a membership
40984 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

association to reflect the Chamber of

Commerce decision.

The Commission published a Notice

of Availability (‘‘NOA’’) in the Federal

Register on March 29, 1997. 62 FR

13355. The Commission received two

comments in response to the NOA.

Other than its comments on the

Chamber’s and the AMA’s member

attachments that it found sufficient to

comply with the Supreme Court’s

NRWC criteria, the Chamber of

Commerce court provided little

guidance on how the current rules

should be revised to comply with this

ruling. Both of these associations

present specific and somewhat unique

circumstances that do not necessarily

lend themselves to generalizations

applicable to the broader membership

association community. Nor did the

Petition for Rulemaking suggest

alternative language for this purpose.

The Commission has therefore

decided to issue an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘ANPRM’’),

seeking general comments on how best

to effectuate this decision. After

analyzing the comments received in

response to the ANPRM, the

Commission may issue a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’)

seeking comments on specific regulatory

language.

The current rules provide a ‘‘safe

harbor’’ for membership associations,

since those who meet the requirements

set forth in these rules clearly enjoy

‘‘member’’ status. Associations can also

seek advisory opinions pursuant to 2

U.S.C. 437f and 11 CFR part 112 to

determine how the rules, as interpreted

in the Chamber of Commerce decision,

apply to their particular situations. This

has already been done by certain

entities, including the Chicago

Mercantile Exchange (‘‘CME’’ or the

‘‘Exchange’’). See discussion of AO

1997–5, infra.

The Commission notes that there are

three preliminary requirements an

entity must meet before it qualifies as a

‘‘membership association’’ for purposes

of these rules: It must expressly provide

for ‘‘members’’ in its articles and bylaws; expressly solicit members; and

expressly acknowledge the acceptance

of membership, such as by sending a

membership card or including the

member on a membership newsletter

list. 11 CFR 100.8(b)(4)(iv)(A),

114.1(e)(1). These requirements were

not challenged in the litigation and the

Commission does not anticipate that it

will propose any changes to this

language.

The Chamber of Commerce, in

commenting on the NOA, argued that

these three requirements should in and

of themselves be sufficient to confer

membership status. However, it may be

that these attachments, standing alone,

are insufficient to meet the ‘‘relatively

enduring and independently significant

financial or organizational attachment’’

standard articulated by the NRWC

Court. (The other comment, from the

Internal Revenue Service (‘‘IRS’’), stated

that a potential rulemaking on this topic

would not conflict with the Internal

Revenue Code or any IRS regulation.)

In addition to retaining these three

preliminary requirements, the

Commission believes that the current

rules recognizing as members those who

have a stronger financial interest in an

association than paying dues (for

example, the ownership of a stock

exchange seat) and those who have the

right to vote directly for all members of

the association’s highest governing

body, should likewise be retained for

those associations that meet either of

these requirements. 11 CFR

100.8(b)(4)(iv)(B) (1), (3); 114.1(e)(2) (i),

(iii). Thus, the Commission is seeking

comments on what other attachments,

or combination of attachments, should

also be sufficient to confer membership

status in lieu of current

100.8(b)(4)(iv)(B)(2) and 114.1(e)(2)(ii).

One approach would be to establish a

certain level of annual dues as in and of

itself sufficient for this purpose. Those

who paid this amount would be

considered members regardless of

whether they had organizational

attachments to the association. One

possibility is that any amount of annual

dues set by an association would be a

sufficient financial attachment,

regardless of amount. Another

possibility is a $200 per year cut-off

point, since $200 is the amount that

Congress has decided is such a

significant attachment to a political

committee that itemized disclosure is

required for what could be considered

‘‘membership’’ in a political committee.

The Commission welcomes comments

on this approach as well as suggestions

for what level of annual dues would be

appropriate to confer membership

status, if this were to be included in the

rules.

For a lesser dues obligation, the rules

might list other factors the Commission

would consider per se sufficient to

provide the required organizational

attachment, provided that some level of

dues was also required. These could

include such attachments as the voting

rights contained in the current rule; the

right to serve on policy-making boards

and/or vote on policy issues; eligibility

to be elected to governing positions in

the organization; and whether the

member may be subject to disciplinary

action by the association. If this

approach is adopted, the Commission

would like to make this list as

comprehensive as possible, so that the

large majority of covered entities will be

able to quickly determine who qualifies

as a member.

On May 16, 1997, the Commission

determined in AO 1997–5 that, based on

the facts presented, both owners and

lessees of seats on the Chicago

Mercantile Exchange could be

considered ‘‘members’’ of the CME for

purposes of these rules. The memberowners, by virtue of their ownership

stake, qualify as members under 11 CFR

100.8(b)(4)(iv)(B)(1) and 114.1(e)(2)(i).

In addition, the Commission found,

member-lessees have sufficient rights

and obligations to also qualify as

members. These attachments include

substantial financial obligations to the

CME, the right to serve on policyformulating committees, and the

possibility of sanctions by the CME that

would impact on their professional

status. AO 1997–5 overruled AO 1988–

39 and 1987–31 (in part), which had

concluded that only one membership in

the Exchange existed with respect to

each leased membership. The

Commission is seeking comments on

whether to incorporate this result into

the regulatory text.

The Commission’s rules at 11 CFR

100.8(b)(4)(iv)(B) and 114.1(e)(2) that

require both a financial and an

organizational attachment for members

of most membership associations clearly

include two-tiered associations, such as

those in which members vote for

delegates to a convention, and those

delegates elect those who serve on the

association’s highest governing body. At

the time of the 1993 amendment, the

Commission explained that multi-tiered

associations could solicit across all tiers,

as long as the various tiers met the same

criteria that govern solicitations by twotiered associations. Explanation and

Justification for Regulations on the

Definition of ‘‘Member’’ of a

Membership Association, 58 FR 45770

(1993). In addition, the Commission

authorized farm cooperatives as defined

in the Agricultural Marketing Act of

1929 (12 U.S.C. 1141j) and those entities

eligible for assistance under the Rural

Electrical Act of 1936 as amended (7

U.S.C. 901–950aa–1) to solicit across all

tiers even though the precise

attachments set forth at 11 CFR

100.8(b)(4)(iv)(B) and 114.1(e)(2) might

not always be present. 11 CFR

114.7(k)(1). Federations of trade

associations had earlier been given this

same right, 11 CFR 114.8(g), as had

labor organizations, 11 CFR 114.1(e)(4).

The Chamber of Commerce court, in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40985

discussing the AMA’s organizational

attachments, cited these exceptions as

another basis for its ruling that the AMA

should be able to cross-solicit across

multiple tiers even where no voting

rights were present. 69 F.3d at 606.

If the Commission expands the

membership definition, many multitiered associations that may not

presently qualify for cross-tier

solicitation would likely be able to do

so. The Commission welcomes

comments on whether this should be

stated explicitly in the rules, as well as

whether the particular circumstances of

certain multi-tiered associations might

justify different standards.

All comments on this ANPRM should

be addressed to Susan E. Propper,

Assistant General Counsel, and must be

submitted in either written or electronic

form. Written comments should be sent

to the Commission’s postal service

address: Federal Election Commission,

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC

20463. Faxed comments should be sent

to (202) 219–3923. Commenters

submitting faxed comments should also

submit a printed copy to the

Commission’s postal service address to

ensure legibility. Comments may also be

sent by electronic mail to

members@fec.gov. Commenters sending

comments by electronic mail should

include their full name, electronic mail

address and postal service address

within the text of their comments. All

comments, regardless of form, must be

submitted by September 2, 1997.

The Commission also welcomes

comments on any related topic.

Dated: July 25, 1997.

John Warren McGarry,

Chairman, Federal Election Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–20094 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6713–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–ANE–13]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal

Inc. TPE331 Series Turboprop and

TSE331 Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

AlliedSignal Inc., (formerly Garrett

Engine Division, Garrett Turbine Engine

Company and AiResearch

Manufacturing Company of Arizona)

TPE331 series turboprop and TSE331

turboshaft engines. This proposal would

require replacement or radiographic

inspection, and replacement , if

necessary, of certain third stage turbine

stators with serviceable parts. This

proposal is prompted by a report of an

outer band weld that cracked

subsequent to a radiographic inspection

required by a previous AD. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent third stage turbine

wheel separation due to thermal fatigue

cracking and shifting of the third stage

turbine stator, which could contact the

third stage turbine wheel and result in

an uncontained engine failure and

damage to the aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

97–ANE–13, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: ‘‘9-

ad-engineprop@faa.dot.gov’’. Comments

sent via the Internet must contain the

docket number in the subject line.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information on

AlliedSignal Service Bulletin No.

TPE331–A72–0861, Revision 2, dated

April 23, 1997, referenced in the

proposed rule may be obtained from

AlliedSignal Aerospace, Attn: Data

Distribution, M/S 64–3/2101–201, P.O.

Box 29003, Phoenix, AZ 85038–9003;

telephone (602) 365–2493, fax (602)

365–5577. The service information on

National Flight Services Service

Bulletin No. NF–TPE331–A72–10961,

dated April 28, 1997, referenced in the

proposed rule may be obtained from

either National Flight Services, Inc.

10971 E. Airport Services Road, Toledo

Express Airport, Swanton, OH 43558;

telephone (419) 865–2311, fax (419)

867–4224, or http://www.natfs.com, or

National Flight Services of Arizona,

Inc., 5170 W. Bethany Home Road,

Glendale, AZ 85301; telephone (602)

931–1143, fax (602) 931–7264. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, New England Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington,

MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5246;

fax (562) 627–5210.

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 Number 97–ANE–13.’’ 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, New England Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 97–aNE–13, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299.

Discussion

The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) has received a report of a third

stage turbine stator outer band weld that

cracked on an AlliedSignal Inc. Model

TPE331–5 turboprop engine. This weld,

removed from service in January 1996

after the crack was discovered during

turbine maintenance, had passed a onetime radiographic inspection for

unacceptable weld penetration and

thermal fatigue cracking required by AD

87–19–02. While AD 87–19–02 was