64680 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 3410–34–C

Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of

December 1997.

Craig A. Reed,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–32194 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–37–AD; Amendment

39–10236; AD 97–25–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier

Model CL–44 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Bombardier Model CL–

44 series airplanes, that requires

revising the Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to modify the limitation that

prohibits positioning the power levers

below the flight idle stop during flight,

and to provide a statement of the

consequences of positioning the power

levers below the flight idle stop during

flight. This amendment is prompted by

incidents and accidents involving

airplanes equipped with turboprop

engines in which the ground propeller

beta range was used improperly during

flight. The actions specified by this AD

are intended to prevent loss of airplane

controllability, or engine overspeed and

consequent loss of engine power caused

by the power levers being positioned

below the flight idle stop while the

airplane is in flight.

DATES: Effective January 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: 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 FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street,

Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter LeVoci, Flight Test Pilot, Systems

and Flight Test Branch, ANE–172, FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, 10

Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream,

New York 11581; telephone (516) 256–

7514; fax (516) 568–2716.

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 all Bombardier

Model CL–44 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

May 28, 1997 (62 FR 28813). That action

proposed to require revising the

Limitations Section of the FAAapproved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to modify the limitation that

prohibits the positioning of the power

levers below the flight idle stop while

the airplane is in flight, and to add a

statement of the consequences of

positioning the power levers below the

flight idle stop while the airplane is in

flight.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64681

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Request to Withdraw the Proposal

One commenter, the manufacturer,

considers that a revision to the

Limitations Section of the AFM, issued

on December 6, 1996, fully meets the

intent of the proposed rule. Therefore,

the manufacturer concludes that an AD

for the Model CL–44 series airplane is

not required.

The FAA does not concur that

inserting the AFM revision referenced

by the commenter into the AFM

provides an adequate method of

compliance with the final rule. That

revision does not contain reference to

the fact that failure to observe the

prohibition may cause loss of airplane

control, and as such, does not

completely meet the intent of the rule.

The FAA acknowledges that revising the

AFM to add the phrase ‘‘loss of airplane

control’’ as a consequence of failure to

observe the prohibition would provide

adequate compliance with the

requirements of the final rule.

Therefore, the FAA will consider

requests for approval of an alternative

method of compliance in accordance

with the provisions of paragraph (b) of

this AD.

Request to Clarify That No Accidents

Occurred on the CL–44

This same commenter notes that the

text of the proposed rule does not make

it clear that no accidents have occurred

on Model CL–44 series airplanes as a

result of ground propeller beta range

being used improperly during flight.

The commenter requests that the FAA

clarify this in the final rule.

The FAA acknowledges that no

accidents have occurred involving

Model CL–44 series airplanes that have

been attributed to ground propeller beta

range being used improperly during

flight. However, the FAA considers that

the wording of the Summary section of

the proposed rule that states, ‘‘This

proposal is prompted by incidents and

accidents involving airplanes equipped

with turboprop engines in which the

ground propeller beta range was used

improperly during flight,’’ is correct.

The fact that the FAA did not

specifically name each manufacturer

and airplane model on which those

incidents or accidents occurred does not

negate the fact that such incidents and

accidents did occur on airplanes

equipped with turboprop engines. The

FAA finds that no change to the final

rule is necessary.

Clarification of the Rule

Since the issuance of the NPRM, the

FAA has noted that operations manuals

for certain airplanes equipped with Dart

turboprop engines may contain

reference to ‘‘ground fine pitch’’ rather

than ‘‘operations below the flight idle

stop,’’ as specified in the proposed rule.

Although the operations manuals refer

to both of those phrases, the FAA finds

that some clarification is necessary.

Therefore, the FAA has added the

phrase ‘‘(i.e., ground fine pitch)’’ in

paragraph (a) of the final rule as a

parenthetical definition of ‘‘operations

below the flight idle stop’’ in the final

rule.

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

The FAA estimates that 1 Bombardier

Model CL–44 series airplane of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately 1 work hour

to accomplish the proposed actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Based on these figures, the

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

operator is estimated to be $60 for the

one affected airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is 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 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.

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, 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:

97–25–12 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly

Canadair): Amendment 39–10236.

Docket 97–NM–37–AD.

Applicability: All Model CL–44 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

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 (b) 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 loss of airplane controllability,

or engine overspeed and consequent loss of

engine power caused by the power levers

being positioned below the flight idle stop

while the airplane is in flight, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of

the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to include the following statements.

This action may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.

‘‘Positioning of power levers below the

flight idle stop (i.e., ground fine pitch) while
64682 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the airplane is in flight is prohibited. Such

positioning may lead to loss of airplane

control or may result in an overspeed

condition and consequent loss of engine

power.’’

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, New York

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, New York ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

(c) 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.

(d) This amendment becomes effective on

January 13, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 2, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–32112 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

15 CFR Part 295

[Docket No. 970822200–7272–02]

RIN 0693–AB44

Advanced Technology Program

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Technology

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) is

issuing a final rule which amends the

implementing regulations for the

Advanced Technology Program (ATP).

Major changes include an increase in

the cost-sharing requirement for large

companies applying as single proposers

in future competitions; modification of

the ATP evaluation criteria for project

selection to place greater emphasis on

joint ventures and consortia with a

broad range of participants; and a new

rule for the valuation of transfers

between separately-owned joint venture

members which applies to transfers of

goods, including computer software,

and services provided by the transferor

related to the maintenance of those

goods, when those goods or services are

transferred from one joint venture

member to other separately-owned joint

venture members.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

December 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

To receive additional program

information, contact Barbara Lambis at

(301) 975–4447.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

National Institute of Standards and

Technology is issuing a final rule which

amends regulations found at part 295 of

title 15 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, which implements the

Advanced Technology Program (ATP).

In a statement to Congress in March of

1997, Secretary of Commerce William

M. Daley announced a Departmental

study of several issues raised by

Members of Congress and others

concerning the policies and procedures

of the ATP. The study was designed to

make recommendations for possible

changes to improve the effectiveness of

the program. Following issuance of a 30-

day notice of opportunity for public

comment on ways to improve the

operation of the ATP, recommendations

for possible changes were made to

improve the effectiveness of the

program.

In order to implement the

recommendations and the decisions of

Secretary Daley, the National Institute of

Standards and Technology is today

issuing changes to the operating

procedures of the Advanced Technology

Program found at part 295 of title 15 of

the Code of Federal Regulations. These

changes strengthen the fundamental

mission of the ATP: for Government to

work in partnership with industry to

foster the development and broad

dissemination of challenging, high-risk

technologies that offer the potential for

significant, broad-based economic

benefits for the nation. Such a unique

government-industry research

partnership fosters the acceleration not

only of dramatic gains in existing

industries, but also acceleration of the

development of emerging or enabling

technologies leading to revolutionary

new products, industrial processes and

services for the world’s markets and

work to spawn industries of the 21st

century. Furthermore, the changes also

ensure that the fundamental strengths of

the ATP remain unchanged, especially

the requirement that the ATP continue

to be a wholly merit-driven program

based on peer review.

Description of the Changes

Changes to part 295 include revisions

on the following topics (please see the

analysis of comments below for

additional details):

• Revised section 295.32(b) increases

the cost-sharing requirement for large

companies applying as single proposers

in future competitions. ‘‘Large

businesses,’’ as the term is defined in

the revised Sec. 295.2(k), are required to

cost-share at a minimum of 60 percent.

• The term ‘‘large business’’ is

defined as including any business,

including any parent company plus

related subsidiaries, having annual

revenues in excess of the amount

published by ATP in the relevant

annual notice of availability of funds. In

establishing this amount, ATP may

consider the dollar value of the total

revenues of the 500th company in

Fortune Magazine’s Fortune 500 listing.

• The ATP evaluation criteria for

project selection are modified to: (1)

place greater emphasis on joint ventures

and consortia with a broad range of

participants; and (2) better define the

multi-step selection process based on all

of the criteria in Sec. 295.6.

• A new rule is established in Sec.

295.25 regarding the valuation of

transfers between separately-owned

joint venture members. The rule applies

to transfers of goods, including

computer software, and services

provided by the transferor related to the

maintenance of those goods, when those

goods or services are transferred from

one joint venture member to other

separately-owned venture members.

• Also, a number of administrative

and clerical changes are proposed to be

implemented to part 295 for consistency

and clarity.

Summary of Comments

On September 17, 1997, NIST

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking in the Federal Register (62

FR 48802). In response to this notice

three letters were received; one from a

not-for-profit research organization, one

from a U.S.-owned for-profit company,

and one from an individual. An analysis

of the comments follows.

Section 295.2 Definitions—(1

Comment)

One commenter stated that the

definition of ‘‘matching funds’’ under

Section 295.2(1) eliminates reference to

in-kind contribution of personnel and

requested clarification on whether NIST

considers personnel costs to be a cash

contribution that would not be subject

to the 30 percent limitation on in-kind.

NIST Response: Under the ATP

program, personnel contributions are