66980 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

collection efforts may involve

negotiation and pursuit of legal

remedies against a project sponsor or

owner, in addition to the enforcement of

a member’s rights under a mortgage or

other lien on the project.

Use of Recovered Interest for AHPEligible Projects (§ 960.12(c)(1)(i)):

Q2. If AHP subsidy and interest are

recovered by a Bank from a member,

does the interest, as well as the AHP

subsidy, have to be made available for

other AHP-eligible projects under

§ 960.12(e)?

A2. Yes.

Other Issues

Project Completion (§ § 960.1, 960.10

and 960.11):

Q1. When is ‘‘project completion’’ to

be determined for monitoring purposes?

A1. The date on which a certificate of

occupancy is issued is one way to

determine project completion. In areas

that do not require certificates of

occupancy, a Bank should identify in its

monitoring procedures alternative ways

that it will use to determine that a

project is completed.

Use of AHP Funds for Otherwise

Eligible Costs (§ 960.5):

Q2. May a Bank prohibit the use of

AHP funds for certain types of costs that

are otherwise eligible under the statute

and revised AHP regulation?

A2. No.

Retention and Monitoring

Requirements Applicable to Projects

Approved Prior to January 1, 1998

(§ § 960.1, 960.11, and 960.16):

Q3. What are the retention and

monitoring periods for projects

approved prior to January 1, 1998?

A3. The retention and monitoring

periods for projects approved prior to

January 1, 1998, are 5 years from project

completion for owner-occupied housing

and 15 years from project completion

for rental housing.

Dated: December 12, 1997.

William W. Ginsberg,

Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 97–33254 Filed 12–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6725–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–283–AD; Amendment

39–10262; AD 97–26–19]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aerospatiale

Model ATR42–300 and ATR42–320

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Aerospatiale Model

ATR42–300 and ATR42–320 series

airplanes, that currently requires

repetitive ultrasonic inspections to

detect fatigue cracks of the lower lugs of

the barrel of the main landing gear

(MLG); and replacement of cracked

lower lugs with new or serviceable

parts, and a follow-on inspection. This

amendment expands the applicability of

the existing AD. This action also

provides for an optional terminating

action, which, if accomplished,

terminates the repetitive inspection

requirement. This amendment is

prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified in this AD are

intended to detect and correct fatigue

cracking of the lower lugs of the barrel

of the MLG, which could lead to the

collapse of the MLG.

DATES: Effective January 7, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 631–

32–133, dated February 24, 1997, as

revised by Messier-Dowty Service

Bulletin Change Notice No. 1, dated

March 18, 1997, as listed in the

regulations, is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of January 7,

1998.

The incorporation by reference of

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 631–

32–132, dated January 21, 1997, as

listed in the regulations, was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of March 7, 1997 (62 FR

7665, February 20, 1997).

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

January 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

283–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from

Aerospatiale, 316 Route de Bayonne,

31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France. This

information may be examined 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 10, 1997, the FAA issued AD

97–04–09, amendment 39–9933 (62 FR

7665, February 20, 1997), which is

applicable to certain Aerospatiale Model

ATR42–300 and ATR42–320 series

airplanes. That AD requires repetitive

ultrasonic inspections to detect fatigue

cracks of the lower lugs of the barrel of

the main landing gear (MLG), for

airplanes on which the barrel assembly

has been overhauled or repaired. If any

lower lug is found to be cracked, the AD

further requires replacement of the MLG

barrel assembly with new or serviceable

parts, and a follow-on inspection. That

action was prompted by reports

indicating that, due to fatigue cracking

in the lower lugs of the barrel, the MLG

collapsed. The actions required by that

AD are intended to detect and correct

such fatigue cracking, which could lead

to the collapse of the MLG.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of that AD, the

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC), which is the airworthiness

authority for France, advises that further

investigation has revealed that the

fatigue cracking is the result of a design

flaw that may also affect new barrel

assemblies that have never been

overhauled or repaired. In addition, the

DGAC advises that the interval for the

repetitive inspections may be extended

from 700 landings to 900 landings.

Relevant Service Information

Messier-Dowty has issued Service

Bulletin 631–32–133, dated February

24, 1997, which describes procedures to

modify the lower lugs of the barrel of

the MLG. The modification entails

reconditioning the lower lugs and

installing new bushings on the swinging

lever. Accomplishment of this

modification will prevent failure of the

lugs due to fatigue cracking.

Accomplishment of the modification
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66981

eliminates the need for the repetitive

visual inspections. The DGAC classified

this service bulletin as mandatory, and

issued French airworthiness directive

96–294(B)R1, dated September 10, 1997,

in order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in France and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the DGAC has kept the FAA informed

of the situation described above. The

FAA has examined the findings of the

DGAC, reviewed all available

information, and determined that AD

action is necessary for products of this

type design that are certificated for

operation in the United States.

Explanation of Requirements of Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, this AD supersedes AD 97–04–09

to continue to require repetitive

ultrasonic inspections to detect fatigue

cracks of the lower lugs of the barrel of

the main landing gear (MLG); and

replacement of cracked lower lugs with

new or serviceable parts, and a followon inspection. This AD expands the

applicability of the existing AD to

include all Model ATR42–300 and -320

series airplanes, regardless of whether

the MLG barrel assemblies installed on

those airplanes are new, overhauled, or

repaired. Additionally, this AD extends

the repetitive inspection interval from

700 to 900 landings.

This AD also provides for optional

modification of the lower lugs of the

barrel of the MLG, which, if

accomplished, constitutes terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirements of this AD. The

modification is required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

Interim Action

This is considered to be interim

action. The FAA is currently

considering requiring the modification

of the lower lugs of the barrel of the

MLG. However, the planned compliance

time for the installation of the

modification is sufficiently long so that

prior notice and time for public

comment will be practicable.

Determination of Rule’s Effective Date

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this rule by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications shall identify the

Rules Docket number and be submitted

in triplicate to the address specified

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this rule must

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 97–NM–283–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

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, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, 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

removing amendment 39–9933 (62 FR

7665, February 20, 1997), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD),

amendment 39-, to read as follows:

97–26–19 Aerospatiale: Amendment 39–

10262. Docket 97–NM–283–AD.

Supersedes AD 97–04–09, Amendment

39–9933.

Applicability: All Model ATR42–300 and

ATR42–320 series airplanes, 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.
66982 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct fatigue cracking in

the lower lugs of the barrel of the main

landing gear (MLG), and consequent collapse

of the MLG, accomplish the following:

(a) Perform an ultrasonic inspection to

detect fatigue cracks of the lower lugs of the

barrel of the MLG, in accordance with

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 631–32–132,

dated January 21, 1997, at the time specified

in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as

applicable:

(1) Within 2 years after the last overhaul

or repair of the lower lugs of the barrel of the

MLG, or within 60 days after March 7, 1997

(the effective date of AD 97–04–09,

amendment 39–9933), whichever occurs

later; or

(2) Within 5 years after the installation of

a new MLG barrel assembly, or within 60

days after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later.

(b) If, during any inspection required by

this AD, no echo is detected, or if the echo

is less than 20%, repeat the ultrasonic

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 900 landings.

(c) If, during any inspection required by

this AD, the echo is greater than or equal to

20%, prior to further flight, replace the MLG

barrel assembly with a new or serviceable

MLG barrel assembly, in accordance with the

service bulletin.

(1) If the damaged barrel assembly is

replaced with an overhauled or repaired

assembly, within 2 years after installation of

that overhauled or repaired part, accomplish

the actions specified in paragraph (a) of this

AD.

(2) If the damaged barrel assembly is

replaced with a new barrel assembly, within

5 years after installation of that new part,

accomplish the actions specified in

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(d) Modification of the lower lugs of the

barrel of the MLG in accordance with

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 631–32–133,

dated February 24, 1997, as revised by

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin Change

Notice No. 1, dated March 18, 1997,

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements of this

AD.

(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,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(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.

(g) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 631–

32–133, dated February 24, 1997, as revised

by Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin Change

Notice No. 1, dated March 18, 1997; and

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 631–32–132,

dated January 21, 1997.

(1) The incorporation by reference of

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 631–32–133,

dated February 24, 1997, as revised by

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin Change

Notice No. 1, dated March 18, 1997, is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) The incorporation by reference of

Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 631–32–132,

dated January 21, 1997, was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of March 7, 1997 (62 FR 7665,

February 20, 1997).

(3) Copies may be obtained from

Aerospatiale, 316 Route de Bayonne, 31060

Toulouse, Cedex 03, France. 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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 96–

294(B)R1, dated September 10, 1997.

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

January 7, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 15, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–33509 Filed 12–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 500

[Docket No. 95N–0417]

Carcinogenicity Testing of Compounds

Used in Food-Producing Animals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

regulations that set forth the

requirements for the carcinogenicity

testing of compounds used in foodproducing animals. The amended

regulations will eliminate the specific

requirement that a sponsor must

conduct oral, chronic, dose-response

studies. This action is intended to allow

FDA and sponsors greater flexibility in

choosing the types of studies used for

testing the carcinogenicity of

compounds used in food-producing

animals. The increased flexibility will

make it easier and more economical for

sponsors to complete required testing.

These actions are part of FDA’s

continuing effort to achieve the

objectives set forth in the President’s

‘‘National Performance Review’’

initiative, which is intended to provide

a comprehensive review of all rules in

order to identify those that are obsolete

and burdensome and to delete or revise

them.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret A. Miller, Center for

Veterinary Medicine (HFV–100), Food

and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish

Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–

0205.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In the Federal Register of June 20,

1996 (61 FR 31468), FDA proposed to

revise the requirements for the

carcinogenicity testing of compounds

used in food-producing animals as set

forth in § 500.80(b) (21 CFR 500.80(b))

of the new animal drug approval

regulations. The second sentence of

§ 500.80(b) of the existing regulation

states, ‘‘The bioassays that a sponsor

conducts must be oral, chronic, doseresponse studies and must be designed

to assess carcinogenicity and to

determine the quantitative aspects of

any carcinogenic response.’’ The

proposed rule would revise the existing

language to eliminate the words ‘‘must

be oral, chronic, dose-response studies

and’’ * * *.

When the existing regulation was

issued, a chronic study was the standard

test for carcinogenicity. However,

advances in models used to assess

carcinogenicity have been made in

recent years. For example, scientists

now agree that a chronic study, as

required under current regulations, may

not measure the appropriate time point

necessary to assess carcinogenicity for

some compounds. Study designs other

than a chronic study may result in a

better evaluation of the compound in a

number of cases.

FDA recognized these scientific

advances by proposing to remove the

requirement for oral, chronic, doseresponse studies so that sponsors would

have the option of using other study

designs when assessing the

carcinogenicity of compounds used for

food-producing animals. This proposed

change would allow FDA and sponsors

greater flexibility in choosing types of

studies for testing the carcinogenicity of

compounds used in food-producing

animals, making it more economical and