Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66197

of the leverage ratio is that it does not

account for the wide spectrum of credit

risk and creates an incentive for the

institution to avoid investing in low-risk

assets.

A Modified Leverage Ratio

To address some of the concerns with

the leverage ratio discussed above, it

might be appropriate to consider

modifying the measure to account for

off-balance sheet exposures. A modified

leverage ratio could incorporate the

simplicity of the leverage ratio while

seeking to remedy its main weaknesses.

A modified leverage ratio would be a

relatively simple measure—a major

objective of the non-complex

framework. A disadvantage of the

modified leverage ratio is that, unlike

the risk-based approach, it would

provide no capital benefit to banking

organizations that maintain a low-risk

profile and might encourage institutions

to invest in higher-risk assets.

The appropriate capital framework for

a non-complex institution depends

partly on the screening criteria chosen

to assess complexity or risk. If complex

or high-risk banking organizations can

be effectively screened out of the noncomplex category, then the benefits of a

leverage-based approach will likely be

enhanced. Similarly, if banking

organizations with significant offbalance sheet items are screened out of

the non-complex framework, then use of

a modified leverage ratio (that

incorporates off-balance sheet items)

might be unnecessary to assure

sufficient levels of regulatory capital.

Question 12: What elements of the

current risk-based framework should be

retained within a simplified risk-based

framework? What elements should not

be included?

Question 13: Should classes of assets

be re-assigned to other and potentially

new risk weights, based on relative

comparisons of historical charge-off data

or other empirical sources, including

but not limited to credit ratings?

Question 14: Is a leverage ratio a

sufficient method for determining

capital adequacy of non-complex

institutions in a range of economic

conditions?

Question 15: If off-balance sheet items

are incorporated into a modified

leverage ratio, what items should be

incorporated, and how?

Question 16: What degree of burden

reduction is foreseeable regarding any of

the alternatives? Do the foreseeable

benefits of burden reduction outweigh

any concerns about establishing a noncomplex domestic framework?

E. Implementation Issues

The establishment of a simplified

capital framework presents a host of

implementation issues. How would

banking organizations be placed within

the simplified framework? Once

subjected to the simplified framework,

how would the institution transition to

a more complex framework, if needed?

Would there be a transition or

adjustment period? These

implementation issues can be foreseen,

but not fully addressed, until a

framework is determined.

Moreover, the Agencies must

determine the least burdensome and

most efficient manner to collect data

necessary to identify the universe of

non-complex institutions and to provide

this information to banking

organizations in a timely manner.

Options include requiring the Agencies

to determine which banking

organizations are subject to the noncomplex framework using current

regulatory reports, or requiring a

banking organization to seek entry into

the non-complex framework by filing an

application.

On an ongoing basis, a change in size,

structure, complexity, or risk profile of

a non-complex institution could impact

its continued eligibility for the

simplified framework. Institutions that

were no longer deemed ‘‘non-complex’’

could be required to comply with the

standards applicable to complex

banking organizations or to take other

remedial steps. For an institution

transitioning from the non-complex

framework to the complex regime, an

adjustment period might be necessary to

meet reporting and capital

requirements.

Establishment of a process for

monitoring on-going eligibility for the

simplified framework should also be

considered. The process used to collect

and report data should not undermine

burden reduction, one of the primary

objectives of a non-complex framework.

Question 17: How could the noncomplex capital adequacy framework be

initially implemented and thereafter

applied on an ongoing basis?

Question 18: Should banking

organizations no longer deemed ‘‘noncomplex’’ be required to comply with

the otherwise applicable capital

standards? What other alternatives

could be made available for these

banking organizations? What types of

transition would be most appropriate?

III. OCC and OTS Executive Order

12866 Determination

The Comptroller of the Currency and

the Director of the Office of Thrift

Supervision have determined that this

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

does not constitute a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order

12866.

Dated: October 26, 2000.

John D. Hawke, Jr.,

Comptroller of the Currency.

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, October 23, 2000.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 17th day of

October, 2000.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

Dated: October 19, 2000.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Ellen Seidman,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–28270 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P; 6210–01–P; 6714–01–P;

6720–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–70–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A319, A320, and A321 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 all

Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321

series airplanes. This proposal would

require revising the Airworthiness

Limitations Section of the Instructions

for Continued Airworthiness to

incorporate service life limits for certain

items and inspections to detect fatigue

cracking, accidental damage, or

corrosion in certain structures. This

proposal is prompted by issuance of a

revision to Airbus Industrie A319/A320/

A321 Maintenance Planning Document

and Airworthiness Limitation Items

document, which specify new or more

restrictive compliance times for

structural inspection and replacement

action. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to ensure the

structural integrity of these airplanes.

DATES: Comments must be received by

December 4, 2000.

66198 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

70–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 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-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent

via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. ‘‘2000–NM–70–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,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is 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

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–70–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–70–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Generale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France, has

notified the FAA that a revision to

Section 9–1 of the Airbus Industrie

A319/A320/A321 Maintenance

Planning Document (MRB) has been

issued. That revised section provides

the service life limits for certain items.

In addition, a revision to Issue 3 of

Airbus Industrie A319/A320/A321

Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI)

has been issued, which provides an

inspection program to detect fatigue

corrosion, accidental damage, and

corrosion in certain structures. [The

FAA refers to the information included

in Section 9–1 of the MRB and Issue 3

of the ALI as the Airworthiness

Limitations Sections (ALS) of the

Instructions for Continued

Airworthiness.] These revisions affect

all Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321

series airplanes. The revisions to the

MRB and ALI documents provide

mandatory replacement times and

structural inspection intervals approved

under section 25.571 of the Joint

Aviation Requirements and the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571).

As airplanes gain service experience, or

as results of post-certification testing

and evaluation are obtained, it may

become necessary to add new or more

restrictive life limits or structural

inspections in order to ensure the

continued structural integrity of the

airplane.

The DGAC advises that analysis of

fatigue test data has revealed that

certain inspections must be performed

at specific intervals to preclude fatigue

cracking in certain areas of the airplane.

In addition, the DGAC advises that

certain service life limits must be

imposed for various components on

these airplanes to preclude the onset of

fatigue cracking in those components.

Such fatigue cracking, if not corrected,

could adversely affect the structural

integrity of these airplanes.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus Industrie has issued Section

9–1, ‘‘Life Limits/Monitored Parts,’’

Revision 1, dated August 13, 1999, of

Airbus Industrie A319/A320/A321

Maintenance Planning Document

(MPD), Volume 1. (The service life

limits of revision 20 and on of Chapter

05–11–00 of the Aircraft Maintenance

Manual were moved to Section 9–1 of

the MPD to provide data to enable

traceability and monitoring of selected

parts for the airplanes.) Airbus Industrie

also issued A319/A320/A321

Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI),

AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 3, dated

May 27, 1999, which specifies

inspection procedures, thresholds, and

intervals for structural significant items

(SSI’s). The ALI document specifies new

or more restrictive inspection and

replacement actions. Accomplishment

of the actions specified in these

documents is intended to adequately

address the identified unsafe condition.

The DGAC has approved the revisions

to the MPD and ALI documents in order

to assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in France. The DGAC

has not issued a corresponding

airworthiness directive, although

accomplishment of the new or more

restrictive life limits and structural

inspections contained in Section 9–1 of

the MPD and in Issue 3 of the ALI

documents may be considered

mandatory for operators of these

airplanes in France.

FAA’s Conclusions

The FAA has reviewed the revisions

to Section 9–1 of the MPD and Issue 3

of the ALI documents and 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. Pursuant

to the bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the DGAC has kept the FAA informed

of the situation described above. 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66199

airworthiness agreement. The FAA has

determined that the revisions to Section

9–1 of the MPD and to Issue 3 of the ALI

documents must be incorporated into

the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS) of the Instructions for Continued

Airworthiness.

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

a revision to the ALS of the Instructions

for Continued Airworthiness to

incorporate inspections to detect fatigue

cracking of certain Significant Structural

Items (SSI’s) and to revise life limits for

certain equipment and various

components that are specified in the

previously referenced maintenance

document.

Explanation of Action Taken by the

FAA

In accordance with airworthiness

standards requiring ‘‘damage tolerance

assessments’’ for transport category

airplanes (section 25.1529 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.1529),

and the Appendices referenced in that

section), all products certificated to

comply with that section must have

Instructions for Continued

Airworthiness (or, for some products,

maintenance manuals) that include an

ALS. That section must set forth:

• Mandatory replacement times for

structural components,

• Structural inspection intervals, and

• Related approved structural

inspection procedures necessary to

show compliance with the damagetolerance requirements.

Compliance with the terms specified

in the ALS is required by sections 43.16

(for persons maintaining products) and

91.403 (for operators) of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.16 and

91.403).

In order to require compliance with

these inspection intervals and life

limits, the FAA must engage in

rulemaking, namely the issuance of an

AD. For products certificated to comply

with the referenced part 25

requirements, it is within the authority

of the FAA to issue an AD requiring a

revision to the ALS that includes

reduced life limits, or new or different

structural inspection requirements.

These revisions then are mandatory for

operators under section 91.403(c) of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

91.403), which prohibits operation of an

airplane for which airworthiness

limitations have been issued unless the

inspection intervals specified in those

limitations have been complied with.

After that document is revised, as

required, and the AD has been fully

complied with, the life limit or

structural inspection change remains

enforceable as a part of the

airworthiness limitations. (This is

analogous to AD’s that require changes

to the Limitations Section of the

Airplane Flight Manual.)

Requiring a revision of the

airworthiness limitations, rather than

requiring individual inspections, is

advantageous for operators because it

allows them to record AD compliance

status only once—at the time they make

the revision—rather than after every

inspection. It also has the advantage of

keeping all airworthiness limitations,

whether imposed by original

certification or by AD, in one place

within the operator’s maintenance

program, thereby reducing the risk of

non–compliance because of oversight or

confusion.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 36 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

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 proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $2,160, or

$60 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 AD were not adopted.

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

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–70–AD.

Applicability: All Model A319, A320, and

A321 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 (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 ensure continued structural integrity of

these airplanes, accomplish the following:

Airworthiness Limitations Revision

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Airworthiness

Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions

for Continued Airworthiness by

incorporating Section 9–1, ‘‘Life Limits/

Monitored Parts,’’ Revision 1, dated August

13, 1999, of the Airbus A319/A320/A321

Maintenance Planning Document, Volume 1,

and Airbus Industrie A319/A320/A321

Airworthiness Limitation Items AI/SE–M4/

95A.0252/96, Issue 3, dated May 27, 1999,

into the ALS.

(b) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of

this AD: After the actions specified in

paragraph (a) of this AD have been

accomplished, no alternative inspections or

66200 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

inspection intervals may be approved for the

structural elements specified in the

document listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.

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, 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–114.

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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October

27, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28092 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 75 and 350

Direct Grant Programs and Disability

and Rehabilitation Research Projects

and Centers Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to

amend the Education Department

General Administrative Regulations

(EDGAR) and the regulations for the

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). The

proposed amendments to EDGAR would

revise the general selection criteria

concerning project design, services, and

personnel available for use in direct

grant programs. Consistent with the

requirements of section 427 of the

General Education Provisions Act

(GEPA), these amendments would focus

on ensuring that discretionary grant

applicants demonstrate in their

applications the steps they will take to

ensure equitable access to, and

participation in, their federally assisted

programs by members of traditionally

underrepresented groups. The proposed

amendment to the criterion on quality of

project personnel also would add a

mandatory factor measuring the extent

to which the application includes

effective strategies for employing and

advancing in employment qualified

individuals with disabilities in the

proposed project, including the

accessibility of the project’s worksite

and equipment to these individuals. The

Secretary also proposes to include the

latter amendment concerning project

personnel in the regulations providing

selection criteria for certain programs

administered by the NIDRR.

DATES: We must receive your comments

on or before January 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about

these proposed regulations to Julius C.

Cotton, U.S. Department of Education,

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3652,

ROB–3, Washington, DC 20202–4248. If

you prefer to send your comments

through the Internet, use the following

address: comments@ed.gov.

You must include the term ‘‘proposed

selection criteria’’ in the subject line of

your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Julius C. Cotton. Telephone: (202) 708–

8562. If you use a telecommunications

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call

the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternative

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation To Comment

We invite you to submit comments

regarding these proposed regulations

and the potential effect of the use of the

proposed selection criteria in direct

grant programs supported by the

Department.

We invite you to assist us in

complying with the specific

requirements of Executive Order 12866

and its overall requirement of reducing

regulatory burden that might result from

these proposed regulations. Please let us

know of any further opportunities we

should take to reduce potential costs or

increase potential benefits while

preserving the effective and efficient

administration of the Department’s

direct grant programs.

During and after the comment period,

you may inspect all public comments

about these proposed regulations in

room 3652, ROB–3, Seventh & D Streets,

SW., Washington, DC, between the

hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,

Eastern time, Monday through Friday of

each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With

Disabilities in Reviewing the

Rulemaking Record

On request, we will supply an

appropriate aid, such as a reader or

print magnifier, to an individual with a

disability that needs assistance to

review the comments or other

documents in the public rulemaking

record for these proposed regulations. If

you want to schedule an appointment

for this type of aid, you may call (202)

205–8113 or (202) 260–9895. If you use

a TDD, you may call the Federal

Information Relay Service at 1–800–

877–8339.

Background

The Department of Education’s

mission is to ensure equal access to

education and promote educational

excellence throughout the nation. To

ensure that these goals are being met in

Department-funded discretionary grant

programs, we are proposing several

changes to the list of general selection

criteria and factors in EDGAR. These

EDGAR criteria and factors are used by

most programs of the Department. Many

programs do not have separate criteria

and rely entirely on EDGAR criteria.

Other programs have separate regulatory

criteria. EDGAR authorizes the programs

with separate criteria to use program

criteria (and statutory criteria) in

conjunction with the EDGAR criteria to

evaluate applications. As a result, these

amendments would affect most

programs of the Department. We

propose to amend the NIDRR

regulations which do not incorporate

the EDGAR provision that permits the

use of both EDGAR and program

criteria.

The proposed changes stem from two

related departmental efforts that have

the common goal of ensuring equity and

excellence in Department-funded grant

projects. The first effort relates to

current requirements found in section

427 of the General Education Provisions

Act (GEPA) (20 U.S.C. 1228a), which

was enacted by Congress in 1994.

Section 427 of GEPA requires that each

applicant for a Department grant

include in its application a description

of the steps the applicant proposes to

take to ensure equitable access to, and

participation in, its federally assisted

programs for students, teachers, and

other program beneficiaries with special

needs by addressing barriers to that

access and participation, including

barriers based on gender, race, national

origin, color, disability, or age. The

Secretary is prepared to provide

technical assistance to applicants in

connection with meeting the