Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 45053

provides an illustration of the order’s 

price-stabilizing impacts. 

Comparing producer revenue to cost 

is useful in highlighting the impact on 

producers of recent product and price 

levels. A recent hazelnut cost of 

production study from Oregon State 

University estimated cost of production 

per acre to be approximately $1,340 for 

a typical 100-acre hazelnut enterprise. 

Average hazelnut producer revenue per 

bearing acre (based on NASS acreage 

and value of production data) equaled 

or exceeded that typical cost level twice 

between 1995 and 2000. Average 

producer revenue was below typical 

costs in the other years. Without the 

stabilizing impact of the order, 

producers may have lost more money. 

The volume regulations contribute to 

orderly marketing and market stability, 

and help moderate the variation in 

returns for all producers and handlers, 

both large and small. 

While the level of benefits of this 

rulemaking is difficult to quantify, the 

stabilizing effects of the volume 

regulations impact both small and large 

handlers positively by helping them 

maintain and expand markets even 

though hazelnut supplies fluctuate 

widely from season to season. This 

regulation provides equitable allotment 

of the most profitable market, the 

domestic inshell hazelnut market. That 

market is available to all handlers, 

regardless of size.

As an alternative to this regulation, 

the Board discussed not regulating the 

2001–2002 hazelnut crop. However, 

without any regulations in effect, the 

Board believes that the industry would 

oversupply the inshell domestic market. 

Section 982.40 of the order establishes 

a procedure and computations for the 

Board to follow in recommending to 

USDA release of preliminary, interim 

final, and final quantities of hazelnuts to 

be released to the free and restricted 

markets each marketing year. The 

program results in plentiful supplies for 

consumers and for market expansion 

while retaining the mechanism for 

dealing with oversupply situations. 

Hazelnuts produced under the order 

comprise virtually all of the hazelnuts 

produced in the United States. This 

production represents, on average, less 

than 5 percent of total U.S. production 

for other tree nuts, and less than 5 

percent of the world’s hazelnut 

production. 

Last season, 82 percent of the kernels 

were marketed in the domestic market 

and 18 percent were exported. 

Domestically produced kernels 

generally command a higher price in the 

domestic market than imported kernels. 

The industry is continuing its efforts to 

develop and expand other markets with 

emphasis on the domestic kernel 

market. Small business entities, both 

producers and handlers, benefit from 

the expansion efforts resulting from this 

program. 

Inshell hazelnuts produced under the 

order compete well in export markets 

because of quality. Europe has 

historically been the primary export 

market for U.S. produced inshell 

hazelnuts, with a 10-year average of 

5,452 tons out of total average exports 

of 10,236 tons. Recent years have seen 

a significant shift in export destinations. 

Last season, inshell shipments to 

Europe totaled 3,986 tons, representing 

28 percent of exports, with the largest 

share going to Germany. Inshell 

shipments to Southwest Pacific 

countries, and Hong Kong in particular, 

have increased dramatically in the past 

few years, rising to 58 percent of total 

exports of 14,400 tons in 2000. The 

industry continues to pursue export 

opportunities. 

There are some reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements under the order. The 

reporting and recordkeeping burdens 

are necessary for compliance purposes 

and for developing statistical data for 

maintenance of the program. The 

information collection requirements 

have been previously approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

OMB No. 0581–0178. The forms require 

information which is readily available 

from handler records and which can be 

provided without data processing 

equipment or trained statistical staff. 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. This final rule does not 

change those requirements. In addition, 

as noted in the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this rule. 

Further, the Board’s meetings were 

widely publicized throughout the 

hazelnut industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meetings and participate in Board 

deliberations. Like all Board meetings, 

those held on August 31, and November 

15, 2001, were public meetings and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express their views on this issue. 

An interim final rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on March 14, 2002. Copies of 

the rule were mailed by the Board’s staff 

to all Board members and hazelnut 

handlers. In addition, the rule was made 

available through the Internet by the 

Office of the Federal Register and 

USDA. That rule provided for a 60-day 

comment period which ended May 13, 

2002. 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 

Board’s recommendation, and other 

information, it is found that finalizing 

the interim final rule, without change, 

as published in the Federal Register (67 

FR 11406, March 14, 2002) will tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 982 

Filberts, Hazelnuts, Marketing 

agreements, Nuts, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

PART 982—HAZELNUTS GROWN IN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON 

Accordingly, the interim final rule 

amending 7 CFR part 982 which was 

published at 67 FR 11406 on March 14, 

2002, is adopted as a final rule without 

change.

Dated: July 1, 2002. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 02–16973 Filed 7–5–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2001–NM–46–AD; Amendment 

39–12798; AD 2002–13–10] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–10–10, –10F, –15, 

–30, –30F, –30F (KC10A and KDC–10), 

–40, and –40F Airplanes; Model MD–

10–10F and –30F Airplanes; and Model 

MD–11 and –11F Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a 

new airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–10–10, –10F, –15, 

45054 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

–30, –30F, –30F (KC10A and KDC–10), 

–40, and –40F airplanes; Model MD–10–

10F and –30F airplanes; and Model 

MD–11 and –11F airplanes. This AD 

requires repetitive tests for electrical 

continuity and resistance and repetitive 

inspections to detect discrepancies of 

the fuel boost/transfer pump connectors; 

and corrective actions, if necessary. This 

action is necessary to prevent arcing of 

connectors in the fuel boost/transfer 

pump circuit, which could result in a 

fire or explosion of the fuel tank. This 

action is intended to address the 

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective August 12, 2002. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of August 12, 

2002.

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Boeing Commercial Aircraft 

Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024). This information may be 

examined at the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington; at the FAA, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California; or at the Office of the Federal 

Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., 

Suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Technical Information: Philip C. Kush, 

Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, 

ANM–140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; 

telephone (562) 627–5263; fax (562) 

627–5210. 

Other Information: Judy Golder, 

Airworthiness Directive Technical 

Editor/Writer; telephone (425) 687–

4241, fax (425) 227–1232. Questions or 

comments may also be sent via the 

Internet using the following address: 

judy.golder@faa.gov. Questions or 

comments sent via the Internet as 

attached electronic files must be 

formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for 

Windows or ASCII text.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to 

include an airworthiness directive (AD) 

that is applicable to certain McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–10–10, –10F, –15, 

–30, –30F (KC–10A and KDC–10), –40, 

and –40F series airplanes; Model MD–

10–10F and –30F series airplanes; and 

Model MD–11 and –11F series 

airplanes; was published in the Federal 

Register on September 20, 2001 (66 FR 

48388). That action proposed to require 

repetitive tests for electrical continuity 

and resistance and repetitive 

inspections to detect discrepancies of 

the fuel boost/transfer pump connectors; 

and corrective actions, if necessary. 

Explanation of New Relevant Service 

Information 

Since the issuance of the proposed 

AD, the manufacturer has issued Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin DC10–28A228, 

including Appendix, Revision 02, dated 

December 7, 2001. The proposed AD 

refers to the original issue, dated 

December 11, 2000, and Revision 01, 

dated July 16, 2001, of that service 

bulletin, as acceptable sources of service 

information for McDonnell Douglas 

Model DC–10–10, –10F, –15, –30, –30F, 

–30F (KC10A and KDC–10), –40, and 

–40F airplanes; and Model MD–10–10F 

and –30F airplanes. Revision 02 of the 

service bulletin contains no new 

procedures, but adds a single airplane, 

which was inadvertently omitted from 

previous issue of the service bulletin, to 

the effectivity listing. 

The FAA has revised applicable 

paragraphs of this final rule to refer to 

Revision 02 as an acceptable source of 

service information. However, the 

applicability statement of this final rule 

continues to refer to Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin DC10–28A228, 

including Appendix, Revision 01. 

Because the effectivity listing of 

Revision 02 adds an airplane, we find 

that requiring accomplishment of the 

actions in this AD on that airplane 

would necessitate issuance of a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking and re-opening of the 

comment period. Considering the nature 

of this unsafe condition and the number 

of airplanes in the affected fleet, we find 

that it would be inappropriate to delay 

issuance of this final rule in this way. 

The FAA may consider additional 

rulemaking to require accomplishment 

of the actions in this AD on the airplane 

added to Revision 02 of the referenced 

service bulletin. 

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. 

Allow Use of Equivalent Equipment 

Three commenters, together with the 

Air Transport Association of America 

(on behalf of its members), note that the 

proposed AD specifies the use of a 

Quadtech 1864 megohm meter for the 

electrical continuity and resistance tests 

that would be required by paragraph (a) 

of the AD. The commenters note that the 

referenced service bulletins allow the 

use of an equivalent megohm meter that 

meets current and voltage requirements. 

One of the commenters explains that it 

is common for test equipment to change 

frequently and the required model 

specified in the AD may not be available 

in the future.

The FAA concurs that an equivalent 

megohm meter that meets current and 

voltage requirements, as specified in the 

applicable referenced service bulletin, is 

acceptable for doing the required tests. 

We have revised paragraph (a) of this 

final rule accordingly. 

Extend Compliance Time 

Two commenters, as well as the Air 

Transport Association on behalf of their 

members, request that we extend the 

compliance time for the initial 

inspection from the proposed period of 

six months after the effective date of the 

AD. One commenter asks for 12 months 

and another for 18 months on the basis 

that the proposed compliance time may 

not be sufficient to allow operators to do 

the requirements during scheduled 

maintenance. The commenter that 

requests 18 months states that such an 

extension would provide an acceptable 

level of safety. As its rationale, the 

commenter notes that it is not aware of 

any previous incidents of arcing of the 

connectors that occurred without 

corresponding fuel boost/transfer pump 

circuit protection, and a low-fuelpressure light illuminated during these 

incidents. Further, the commenter 

explains that another AD has mandated 

new cockpit procedures that eliminate 

the possibility of continued arcing and 

significantly reduce the likelihood of an 

ignition source in the fuel tank in the 

event of a pump failure. 

We do not concur. The intent of the 

proposed tests and inspections is to find 

and fix arcing damage or installation 

defects of the boost/transfer pump, 

pump connector, and associated wiring, 

in order to minimize pump failures or 

subsequent damage. In the continuing 

investigation of arcing damage of pumps 

and connectors, we have found other 

instances of arcing that occurred 

without fuel boost/transfer pump circuit 

protection and without cockpit 

indication that arcing damage has 

occurred. Because of the continuing 

incidents of arcing damage during 

operation, we find that it would be 

inappropriate to extend the compliance 

time for the requirements of this AD. No 

change to the final rule is necessary in 

this regard. 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 45055

Revise Cost Impact 

Two commenters request that we 

revise the estimated cost impact of the 

proposed AD. They state that the 

estimate of 65 work hours and a total 

cost of $3,900 per airplane is low. The 

commenters want the cost estimate to 

include the cost for repairing pumps 

and replacing wiring harnesses. One 

commenter stresses the poor reliability 

of the boost pump housing check valves. 

We do not concur. The cost impact 

estimate in AD actions is limited to the 

cost of actions actually required by the 

rule. It does not consider the costs of 

‘‘on condition’’ actions, such as repair 

or replacement (‘‘corrective actions, if 

necessary’’). Such ‘‘on-condition’’ repair 

actions would be required to be 

accomplished, regardless of AD 

requirements, in order to correct an 

unsafe condition identified in an 

airplane and to ensure operation of that 

airplane in an airworthy condition, as 

required by the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. No change to the final rule 

is necessary in this regard. 

Explanation of Changes to Final Rule 

The FAA has revised the applicability 

statement in this final rule to identify 

model designations as published in the 

most recent type certificate data sheet 

for the affected models. We have also 

revised related model designations in 

the preamble. 

Also, for clarification, we have 

revised the definition of a ‘‘general 

visual inspection’’ in this final rule. 

Also, we have revised Note 1 of this 

final rule to clarify that airplane FUEL 

TANKS on which the fuel/boost pump 

and wiring connector have been 

removed and the fuel tank made 

inoperable are not subject to the 

requirements of this AD.

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. 

Interim Action 

This is considered to be interim 

action. The manufacturer has advised 

that it currently is developing a 

modification that will address the 

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. 

Once this modification is developed, 

approved, and available, the FAA may 

consider additional rulemaking. 

Cost Impact 

There are approximately 399 Model 

DC–10–10, –10F, –15, –30, –30F, –30F 

(KC10A and KDC–10), –40, and –40F 

airplanes; and Model MD–10–10F and 

–30F airplanes; of the affected design in 

the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates 

that 313 airplanes of U.S. registry will 

be affected by this AD, that it will take 

approximately 65 work hours per 

airplane to accomplish the required 

tests and inspections, and that the 

average labor rate is $60 per work hour. 

Based on these figures, the cost impact 

of this AD on U.S. operators of these 

airplanes is estimated to be $1,220,700, 

or $3,900 per airplane, per test or 

inspection cycle. 

There are approximately 179 Model 

MD–11 and –11F airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The FAA estimates that 115 airplanes of 

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

that it will take approximately 78 work 

hours per airplane to accomplish the 

required tests and inspections, and that 

the average labor rate is $60 per work 

hour. Based on these figures, the cost 

impact of this AD on U.S. operators is 

estimated to be $538,200, or $4,680 per 

airplane, per test or inspection cycle. 

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. The cost impact 

figures discussed in AD rulemaking 

actions represent only the time 

necessary to perform the specific actions 

actually required by the AD. These 

figures typically do not include 

incidental costs, such as the time 

required to gain access and close up, 

planning time, or time necessitated by 

other administrative actions. 

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 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:

2002–13–10 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–12798. Docket 2001–

NM–46–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–10–10, –10F, –15, 

–30, –30F, –30F (KC10A and KDC–10), –40, 

and –40F airplanes, and Model MD–10–10F 

and –30F airplanes; as listed in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin DC10–28A228, including 

Appendix, Revision 01, dated July 16, 2001; 

and Model MD–11 and –11F airplanes, as 

listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD11–28A112, including Appendix, dated 

December 11, 2000; certificated in any 

category.

Note 1: Airplane fuel tanks on which the 

fuel/boost pump and wiring connector have 

been physically removed and the fuel tank 

made inoperable are NOT subject to the 

requirements of this AD.

Note 2: 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 (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. 

45056 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

1Commission rules referred to herein are found 

at 17 CFR Ch. I (2001).

To prevent arcing of connectors of the fuel 

boost/transfer pump, which could result in a 

fire or explosion of the fuel tank, accomplish 

the following:

Repetitive Tests and Inspections 

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD, do tests (using a digital multimeter and Quadtech 1864 megohm meter or 

an equivalent megohm meter that meets 

current and voltage requirements, as 

specified in the applicable service bulletin) 

for electrical continuity and resistance and 

general visual inspections to detect 

discrepancies (e.g., damage, arcing, loose 

parts, wear) of the fuel boost/transfer pump 

(alternating current pumping unit) by 

accomplishing all the actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin MD11–28A112, including 

Appendix, dated December 11, 2000 (for 

Model MD–11 and –11F airplanes); or Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin DC10–28A228, 

including Appendix, dated December 11, 

2000, or Revision 01, dated July 16, 2001, or 

Revision 02, dated December 7, 2001 (for 

Model DC–10–10, –10F, –15, –30, –30F, –30F 

(KC10A and KDC–10), –40, and –40F 

airplanes, and Model MD–10–10F and –30F 

airplanes); as applicable. Repeat the tests and 

inspections thereafter every 18 months.

Note 3: 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 from within 

touching distance unless otherwise specified. 

A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual 

access to all exposed surfaces in the 

inspection area. 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.’’

Corrective Actions, If Necessary 

(b) If the result of any test required by 

paragraph (a) of this AD is outside the limits 

specified in the applicable service bulletin 

identified in that paragraph, or if any 

discrepancy is detected during any 

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this 

AD, before further flight, accomplish 

corrective actions (e.g., replacement of 

connector/wire assembly with serviceable 

connector/wire assembly, and replacement of 

the pump with a serviceable fuel boost/

transfer pump), as applicable, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11–28A112, 

including Appendix, dated December 11, 

2000 (for Model MD–11 and –11F airplanes); 

or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10–

28A228, including Appendix, dated 

December 11, 2000, Revision 01, dated July 

16, 2001, or Revision 02, dated December 7, 

2001 (for Model DC–10–10, –10F, –15, –30, 

–30F, –30F (KC10A and KDC–10), –40, and 

–40F airplanes, and Model MD–10–10F and 

–30F airplanes); as applicable. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(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, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA. Operators shall submit their requests 

through an appropriate FAA Principal 

Maintenance Inspector, who may add 

comments and then send it to the Manager, 

Los Angeles ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the 

existence of approved alternative methods of 

compliance with this AD, if any, may be 

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits 

(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 airplane to 

a location where the requirements of this AD 

can be accomplished. 

Incorporation by Reference 

(e) The actions shall be done in accordance 

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11–

28A112, including Appendix, dated 

December 11, 2000; Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin DC10–28A228, including Appendix, 

dated December 11, 2000; Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin DC10–28A228, including 

Appendix, Revision 01, dated July 16, 2001; 

or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10–

28A228, including Appendix, Revision 02, 

dated December 7, 2001; as applicable. 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 Aircraft Group, Long Beach 

Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long 

Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–

0024). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; at the 

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the 

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street 

NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. 

Effective Date 

(f) This amendment becomes effective on 

August 12, 2002.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 

2002. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 02–16531 Filed 7–5–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 30 

Foreign Futures and Options 

Transactions

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission.

ACTION: Order.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘CFTC’’) is granting an exemption to 

firms designated by the Brazilian Bolsa 

de Mercadorias & Futuros (‘‘BM&F’’) 

from the application of certain of the 

Commission’s foreign futures and 

option rules based on substituted 

compliance with certain comparable 

regulatory and self-regulatory 

requirements of a foreign regulatory 

authority consistent with conditions 

specified by the Commission, as set 

forth herein. This Order is issued 

pursuant to Commission Rule 30.10, 

which permits specified persons to file 

a petition with the Commission for 

exemption from the application of 

certain of the rules set forth in Part 30 

and authorizes the Commission to grant 

such an exemption if such action would 

not be otherwise contrary to the public 

interest or to the purposes of the 

provision from which exemption is 

sought.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lawrence B. Patent, Esq., Associate 

Chief Counsel, Susan A. Elliott, Esq., 

Staff Attorney, or Andrew V. Chapin, 

Esq., Staff Attorney, Division of Trading 

and Markets, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20581. 

Telephone: (202) 418–5430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has issued the following 

Order:

Order Under CFTC Rule 30.10 Exempting 

Firms Designated by the Bolsa de 

Mercadorias & Futuros (‘‘BM&F’’) From the 

Application of Certain of the Foreign Futures 

and Option Rules the Later of the Date of 

Publication of the Order Herein in the 

Federal Register or After Filing of Consents 

by Such Firms and the Regulatory or SelfRegulatory Organization, as Appropriate, to 

the Terms and Conditions of the Order 

Herein

Commission rules governing the offer 

and sale of commodity futures and 

option contracts traded on or subject to 

the rules of a foreign board of trade to 

customers located in the U.S. are 

contained in Part 30 of the 

Commission’s rules.1 These rules 

include requirements for intermediaries 

with respect to registration, disclosure, 

capital adequacy, protection of customer 

funds, recordkeeping and reporting, and 

sales practice and compliance 

procedures, that are generally 

comparable to those applicable to 

transactions on U.S. markets.