Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 211 / Tuesday, October 31, 2000 / Proposed Rules 64901

After accomplishment of the installation of

new shear pins, Canadair Regional Jet TR RJ/

68–1, dated February 15, 2000, may be

removed from the AFM.

Inspection of Maintenance Records Required

by This AD

(f) For airplanes having serial numbers

7143, and 7145 through 7357 inclusive:

Within 14 days after the effective date of this

AD, perform a one-time inspection of the

maintenance records to determine the

replacement status of the shear pins of the

elevator flutter dampers, in accordance with

Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of

Canadair Regional Jet Service Bulletin S.B.

601R–27–100, Revision ‘A,’ dated March 10,

2000.

(1) If the maintenance records indicate that

all shear pins were NOT replaced after

delivery of the airplane, or if all shear pins

were replaced with shear pins having P/N

601R24063–31/S: No further action is

required by this AD.

(2) If the maintenance records indicate that

any shear pin was replaced after delivery of

the airplane with a shear pin having P/N

601R24063–31 or 601R24063–953, or if the

maintenance records do not verify that all

shear pins having P/N 601R24063–31/S are

installed: Accomplish the requirements of

paragraph (g) of this AD at the times

specified in that paragraph.

AFM Revision and Replacement Required by

This AD

(g) For airplanes on which any shear pin

of the elevator flutter dampers of the

elevators was replaced after delivery of the

airplane with a shear pin having P/N

601R24063–31 or 601R24063–953, or for

airplanes on which verification of shear pins

having P/N 601R24063–31/S is not possible:

Accomplish the requirements of paragraphs

(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the times

specified in those paragraphs.

(1) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Normal Procedures

Section of the AFM by inserting Canadair

Regional Jet TR RJ/68–1, dated February 15,

2000 in the AFM, which advises the flight

crew of an additional first-flight-of-the-day

check of the elevator control system.

(2) Within 12 months after the effective

date of this AD, replace the shear pins with

new, improved shear pins having P/N

601R24063–31/S, in accordance with Part C

of the Accomplishment Instructions of

Canadair Regional Jet Service Bulletin S.B.

601R–27–100, Revision ‘A,’ dated March 10,

2000. After accomplishment of the

installation of new shear pins, the temporary

revision required by paragraph (g)(1) of this

AD may be removed from the AFM.

Spares

(h) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install a shear pin of the elevator

flutter dampers having P/N 601R24063–31 or

601R24063–953 on any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(i) 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.

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 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(j) 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.

Note 6: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Canadian airworthiness directive CF–

2000–10, dated March 23, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October

25, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–27947 Filed 10–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–72–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300 B2, A300 B4, A300 B4–600, A300

B4–600R, A300 F4–600R, and A310

Series Airplanes

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

certain Airbus Model A300 B2, A300

B4, A300 B4–600, A300 B4–600R, A300

F4–600R, and A310 series airplanes.

This proposal would require

modification of the escape slides. This

action is necessary to prevent deflation

of the escape slide after deployment,

which could result in a delay during an

emergency evacuation. This action is

intended to address the identified

unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

72–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. Comments may be

submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: 9–

anm–nprmcomment@faa.gov.

Comments sent via fax or the Internet

must contain ‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–

72–AD’’ in the subject line and need not

be submitted in triplicate. Comments

sent via the Internet as attached

electronic files must be formatted in

Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or

ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2110; fax (425) 227–1149.

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 shall

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.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments by issue. For

example, discuss a request to change the

compliance time and a request to

change a service bulletin reference as

two separate issues.

• For each issue, state the specific

change to the proposed AD being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

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

64902 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 211 / Tuesday, October 31, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 No. 2000–NM–72–AD.’’ 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, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

2000–NM–72–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Model A300 B2, A300 B4, A300 B4–600,

A300 B4–600R, A300 F4–600R, and

A310 series airplanes. The DGAC

advises that it has received several

reports that escape slides deflated

immediately after deployment during

operational tests. The slides deflated

because the inflation bottle actuator

punctured the lower part of the slide

during deployment. The DGAC advises

that a slide could be punctured if the

inflation bottle was improperly installed

(upside-down in its fabric-type bag)

when the slide was packed. Such a slide

puncture and consequent deflation, if

not corrected, could result in a delay

during an emergency evacuation.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued the following

service bulletins:

Service bulletin Revision

level Date Model

A300–25–0466 ............................................................ 01 ................ December 1, 1999 ......................................... A300 B2

A300 B4

A300–25–6146 ............................................................ 01 ................ December 1, 1999 ......................................... A300 B4–600

A300 B4–600R

A300 F4–600R

A310–25–2133 ............................................................ Original ....... June 21, 1999 ................................................ A310

These service bulletins describe

procedures for modification of certain

BFGoodrich escape slides. The

modification involves:

• Installing a pad on the actuator of

the inflation bottle to protect the slide

in case of contact between the bottle and

the slide; and

• Replacing the fabric-type bottle bag

(used on earlier slides) with a strap-type

bottle bag to ensure the correct

orientation of the bottle.

This modification will reduce the

possibility of the slide being punctured

by contact with the regulator valve

during inflation. Accomplishment of the

actions specified in these service

bulletins is intended to adequately

address the identified unsafe condition.

The DGAC classified these service

bulletins as mandatory and issued

French airworthiness directive 2000–

059–302(B), dated February 9, 2000, in

order to ensure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

The Airbus service bulletins refer to

BFGoodrich Service Bulletin 7A1296/

7A1298–25–298, dated January 15,

1999, as an additional source of service

information for modifying the escape

slides.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France and are 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

Proposed 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, the proposed AD would require

modification of the escape slides, as

specified in the Airbus service bulletins

described previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 126 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per slide to

accomplish the proposed actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Required parts would cost

approximately $124 to $185 per slide.

Each Model A300 and A300–600 series

airplane has 6 escape doors, and each

Model A310 series airplane has 4 escape

doors. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be between

$736 and $1,470 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this proposed 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 proposed herein

would 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 proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 211 / Tuesday, October 31, 2000 / Proposed Rules 64903

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 2000–NM–72–AD.

Applicability: The following airplanes,

certificated in any category:

Model

Equipped with

any BFGoodrich

slide having part

number—

Excluding airplanes modified in accordance with—

A300 B2, A300 B4 ................................................................................... 7A1296–001

7A1296–002

7A1296–003

7A1296–004

7A1298–001

7A1298–002

7A1298–003

7A1298–004

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–25–0466, Revision 01,

dated December 1, 1999; or

BFGoodrich Service Bulletin 7A1296/7A1298–25–

298, dated January 15, 1999.

A300 B4–600, A300 B4–600R, A300 F4–600R ...................................... 7A1296–001

7A1296–002

7A1296–003

7A1296–004

7A1298–001

7A1298–002

7A1298–003

7A1298–004

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–25–6146, Revision 01,

dated December 1, 1999; or

BFGoodrich Service Bulletin 7A1296/7A1298–25–

298, dated January 15, 1999.

A310 ......................................................................................................... 7A1298–001

7A1298–002

7A1298–003

7A1298–004

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–25–2133, dated January 21, 1999; or

BFGoodrich Service Bulletin 7A1296/7A1298–25–

298, dated January 15, 1999.

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 (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.

To prevent deflation of the escape slide

after deployment, which could result in a

delay during an emergency evacuation,

accomplish the following:

Modification

(a) Within 34 months after the effective

date of this AD, modify the escape slides in

accordance with the applicable Airbus

service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD.

TABLE 1.—SERVICE BULLETINS

Model Service

bulletin Revision level Date

A300 ......................................................................... A300–25–0466 01 ............................................................................. December 1, 1999.

A300–600 ................................................................. A300–25–6146 01 ............................................................................. December 1, 1999.

A310 ......................................................................... A310–25–2133 Original .................................................................... January 21, 1999.

Note 2: The Airbus service bulletins refer

to BFGoodrich Service Bulletin 7A1296/

7A1298–25–298, dated January 15, 1999, as

an additional source of service information

for modifying the escape slides.

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install, on any airplane, a

BFGoodrich escape slide having a part

number listed in Table 2 of this AD, unless

that slide has been modified in accordance

with this AD:

TABLE 2.—SLIDE PART NUMBERS

7A1296–001 ............................. 7A1296–002

TABLE 2.—SLIDE PART NUMBERS—

Continued

7A1296–003 ............................. 7A1296–004

7A1298–001 ............................. 7A1298–002

7A1298–003 ............................. 7A1298–004

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,

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport

Airplane Directorate, FAA. 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

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

64904 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 211 / Tuesday, October 31, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1Commission regulations cited herein may be

found at 17 CFR Ch. I (2000). SEC regulations cited

herein may be found at 17 CFR Ch. II (2000).

Section 4d(2) of the Act may be found at 7 U.S.C.

§ 6d(2) (1994).

2Regulation 1.32 further requires that the FCM

complete the segregation computation for each

trading day prior to 12:00 noon on the next business

day and that the computation, and all supporting

data, be maintained for a five-year period in

accordance with Commission Rule 1.31. 3Commodity Exchange Authority Administrative

Determination No. 171 (Aug. 13, 1959). 4A distinction is sometimes drawn between a net

liquidating deficit and a debit balance. A net

liquidating deficit is an amount owed to the FCM

resulting from the combination of the customer’s

debit or credit ledger balance and the mark-tomarket gain or loss on any open positions in the

customer’s account. A debit balance is the amount

owed to the FCM by the customer represented by

the debit ledger balance, and implies that there are

no open positions in the account. For purposes of

this proposal, a net liquidating deficit also includes

customers’ accounts with debit ledger balances and

no open positions.

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 2000–059–

302(B), dated February 9, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October

25, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–27948 Filed 10–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 1

RIN 3038–AB52

Recordkeeping; Amendments to the

Daily Computation of the Amount of

Customer Funds Required To Be

Segregated

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is

proposing to amend Commission Rule

1.32 to permit a futures commission

merchant (‘‘FCM’’), in computing the

amount of customer funds required to

be held in segregated accounts pursuant

to section 4d(2) of the Commodity

Exchange Act (‘‘Act’’), to offset a net

liquidating deficit or debit ledger

balance in a customer’s account with

securities that have a ‘‘ready market’’ as

defined by Rule 15c3–1(c)(11) of the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘SEC’’) and that are deposited as

margin by such customer.1 The proposal

would limit the amount of the offset to

the market value of the securities, less

the applicable haircuts set forth in SEC

Rule 15c3–1(c)(2)(vi). The FCM would

also be required to maintain a security

interest in the securities, including a

written authorization to liquidate the

securities at the FCM’s discretion, and

to segregate the securities in a

safekeeping account with a bank, trust

company, clearing organization of a

contract market, or another FCM.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Jean A. Webb, Secretary,

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC

20581. In addition, comments may be

sent by facsimile to (202) 418–5521, or

by electronic mail to secretary@cftc.gov.

Reference should be made to

‘‘Recordkeeping—Futures Commission

Merchants’ Daily Computation of the

Customer Segregated Amounts.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Smith, Special Counsel,

Division of Trading and Markets,

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC

20581; telephone (202) 418–5495;

electronic mail tsmith@cftc.gov; or

Henry J. Matecki, Financial Audit and

Review Branch, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, 300 S. Riverside

Plaza, Room 1600–N, Chicago, IL 60606;

telephone (312) 886–3217; electronic

mail hmatecki@cftc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Offsetting Customer Net Liquidating

Deficits or Debit Ledger Balances With

Securities That Have a ‘‘Ready Market’’

A. Background

Section 4d(2) of the Act requires,

among other things, that an FCM

segregate from its own assets all money,

securities, and other property held for

customers as margin for their

commodity futures and option

contracts, as well as any gains accruing

to such customers from open futures

and option positions. The statute also

prohibits an FCM from using the money,

securities, or property of one customer

to margin or secure futures or option

positions of another customer. The

segregation requirement is intended to:

Protect customers who are dealing with

an FCM by assuring the FCM has funds

available to readily liquidate its

obligations to its customers; assure an

FCM has funds available to meet its

daily variation margin obligations to the

clearing organizations of contract

markets; and prohibit an FCM from

misappropriating customer funds for its

own purposes.

Commission Regulations 1.20 through

1.30 implement the segregation of funds

provisions of Section 4d(2) of the Act.

Rule 1.32, a related recordkeeping

regulation, requires each FCM to

prepare a daily computation which

shows: (1) The amount of funds that an

FCM is required to segregate for

customers who are trading on U.S.

commodity exchanges pursuant to the

Act and the Commission’s regulations;

(2) the amount of funds the FCM

actually has in segregated accounts; and

(3) the amount, if any, of the FCM’s

residual interest in the customer funds

segregated. The computations required

by Rule 1.32 are hereinafter collectively

referred to as the ‘‘segregation

computation’’. 2

In 1959, the Commodity Exchange

Authority (‘‘CEA’’), the predecessor

agency of the Commission, issued

Administrative Determination No. 171

(‘‘AD No. 171’’) in which it expressed

the opinion that if an FCM elects to

accept securities from a customer as

margin, the securities, for purposes of

computing the segregation computation,

must be handled separately from the

money deposited by, or due to, other

customers.3 The AD further provided

that any net liquidating deficit in the

account of a customer who deposited

securities as margin was required to be

covered by a deposit in segregation of an

equivalent amount of the FCM’s own

money. This effectively required an

FCM who held securities for a particular

customer to segregate for the full value

of those securities even though the

customer’s account liquidated to a

deficit. For example, if a customer had

a credit ledger balance of $3,000 and a

mark-to-market loss on open positions

of $4,200, that customer’s account

would liquidate to a deficit of $1,200.4

If that customer also had securities with

a market value of $50,000 on deposit

with the FCM as margin for his

commodity account, the FCM would be

required to include in its daily

segregation computation, a $50,000

segregation requirement for that

customer. The FCM would not have

been able to reduce the value of the

security by the $1,200 net liquidating

deficit.

The rationale for this treatment was

that securities, unlike cash, are not

fungible. Therefore, if an FCM became

insolvent, a customer whose securities

could be identified to that customer

might be in a position to reclaim those

securities free of any pro rata

distribution. If the customer who

deposited these ‘‘specifically

identifiable’’ securities had been