Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 8399 

(5) Forest Service. (i) Civil penalty for 

willful disregard of the prohibition 

against the export of unprocessed timber 

originating from Federal lands, codified 

at 16 U.S.C. 620d(c)(1)(A), has a 

maximum of $1,035,909 per violation or 

three times the gross value of the 

unprocessed timber, whichever is 

greater. 

(ii) Civil penalty for a violation in 

disregard of the Forest Resources 

Conservation and Shortage Relief Act or 

the regulations that implement such Act 

regardless of whether such violation 

caused the export of unprocessed timber 

originating from Federal lands, codified 

in 16 U.S.C. 620d(c)(2)(A)(i), has a 

maximum of $155,387 per violation. 

(iii) Civil penalty for a person that 

should have known that an action was 

a violation of the Forest Resources 

Conservation and Shortage Relief Act or 

the regulations that implement such Act 

regardless of whether such violation 

caused the export of unprocessed timber 

originating from Federal lands, codified 

at 16 U.S.C. 620d(c)(2)(A)(ii), has a 

maximum of $103,591 per violation. 

(iv) Civil penalty for a willful 

violation of the Forest Resources 

Conservation and Shortage Relief Act or 

the regulations that implement such Act 

regardless of whether such violation 

caused the export of unprocessed timber 

originating from Federal lands, codified 

in 16 U.S.C. 620d(c)(2)(A)(iii), has a 

maximum of $1,035,909. 

(v) Civil penalty for a violation 

involving protections of caves, codified 

at 16 U.S.C. 4307(a)(2), has a maximum 

of $22,640. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation. (i) Civil penalty for any 

person who willfully and intentionally 

provides any false or inaccurate 

information to the Federal Crop 

Insurance Corporation or to an approved 

insurance provider with respect to any 

insurance plan or policy that is offered 

under the authority of the Federal Crop 

Insurance Act, or who fails to comply 

with a requirement of the Federal Crop 

Insurance Corporation, codified in 7 

U.S.C. 1515(h)(3)(A), has a maximum of 

the greater of: The amount of the 

pecuniary gain obtained as a result of 

the false or inaccurate information or 

the noncompliance; or $13,437. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(8) Rural Housing Service. (i) Civil 

penalty for a violation of section 536 of 

Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, 

codified in 42 U.S.C. 1490p(e)(2), has a 

maximum of $220,212 in the case of an 

individual, and a maximum of 

$2,202,123 in the case of an applicant 

other than an individual. 

(ii) Civil penalty for equity skimming 

under section 543(a) of the Housing Act 

of 1949, codified in 42 U.S.C. 

1490s(a)(2), has a maximum of $39,740. 

(iii) Civil penalty under section 543b 

of the Housing Act of 1949 for a 

violation of regulations or agreements 

made in accordance with Title V of the 

Housing Act of 1949, by submitting false 

information, submitting false 

certifications, failing to timely submit 

information, failing to maintain real 

property in good repair and condition, 

failing to provide acceptable 

management for a project, or failing to 

comply with applicable civil rights laws 

and regulations, codified in 42 U.S.C. 

1490s(b)(3)(A), has a maximum of the 

greater of: Twice the damages USDA, 

guaranteed lender, or project that is 

secured for a loan under Title V suffered 

or would have suffered as a result of the 

violation; or $79,480 per violation. 

(9) [Reserved] 

(10) Commodity Credit Corporation. 

(i) Civil penalty for willful failure or 

refusal to furnish information, or willful 

furnishing of false information under of 

section 156 of the Federal Agricultural 

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 

codified at 7 U.S.C. 7272(g)(5), has a 

maximum of $17,472 for each violation. 

(ii) Civil penalty for willful failure or 

refusal to furnish information or willful 

furnishing of false data by a processor, 

refiner, or importer of sugar, syrup and 

molasses under section 156 of the 

Federal Agriculture Improvement and 

Reform Act of 1996, codified at 7 U.S.C. 

7272(g)(5), has a maximum of $17,472 

for each violation. 

(iii) Civil penalty for filing a false 

acreage report that exceeds tolerance 

under section 156 of the Federal 

Agriculture Improvement and Reform 

Act of 1996, codified at 7 U.S.C. 

7272(g)(5), has a maximum of $17,472 

for each violation. 

(iv) Civil penalty for knowingly 

violating any regulation of the Secretary 

of the Commodity Credit Corporation 

pertaining to flexible marketing 

allotments for sugar under section 

359h(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment 

Act of 1938, codified at 7 U.S.C. 

1359hh(b), has a maximum of $12,771 

for each violation. 

(v) Civil penalty for knowing violation 

of regulations promulgated by the 

Secretary pertaining to cotton insect 

eradication under section 104(d) of the 

Agricultural Act of 1949, codified at 7 

U.S.C. 1444a(d), has a maximum of 

$15,733 for each offense. 

(11) Office of the Secretary. (i) Civil 

penalty for making, presenting, 

submitting or causing to be made, 

presented or submitted, a false, 

fictitious, or fraudulent claim as defined 

under the Program Fraud Civil 

Remedies Act of 1986, codified at 31 

U.S.C. 3802(a)(1), has a maximum of 

$12,538. 

(ii) Civil penalty for making, 

presenting, submitting or causing to be 

made, presented or submitted, a false, 

fictitious, or fraudulent written 

statement as defined under the Program 

Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 

codified at 31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(2), has a 

maximum of $12,538. 

John Rapp, 

Director, Office of Budget and Program 

Analysis. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03163 Filed 2–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 946 

[Doc. No. AMS–SC–20–0095; SC21–946–1 

FR] 

Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; 

Termination of Marketing Order 946 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule; termination of order. 

SUMMARY: This final rule terminates the 

Federal marketing order regulating the 

handling of Irish potatoes grown in 

Washington, and the rules and 

regulations issued thereunder. The 

marketing order is administered locally 

by the State of Washington Potato 

Committee (Committee), which 

unanimously recommended its 

termination at a meeting held on June 

11, 2020. This recommendation is based 

on the Committee’s determination that 

the marketing order is no longer an 

effective marketing tool for the 

Washington potato industry and that 

termination best serves the current 

needs of the industry by eliminating the 

costs associated with its operation. 

DATES: Effective March 2, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory A. Breasher, Marketing 

Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional 

Director, Market Development Division, 

Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; 

Telephone: (503) 326–2054 or Email: 

Gregory.Breasher@usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Richard Lower, 

Market Development Division, Specialty 

Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
8400 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 

720–8938, or Email: Richard.Lower@

usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, 

finalizes the termination of regulations 

issued to carry out a marketing order as 

defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This final rule 

is issued under Marketing Order No. 

946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), 

regulating the handling of potatoes 

grown in Washington. Part 946 (referred 

to as the ‘‘Order’’) is effective under the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ This 

action is governed by § 608c(16)(A) of 

the Act. The Committee locally 

administers the Order and is comprised 

of producers and handlers operating 

within the production area. 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this final rule in 

conformance with Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563. Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 direct agencies to 

assess all costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation 

is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, reducing costs, 

harmonizing rules, and promoting 

flexibility. This action falls within a 

category of regulatory actions that the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) exempted from Executive Order 

12866 review. 

In addition, this final rule has been 

reviewed under Executive Order 

13175—Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, which 

requires agencies to consider whether 

their rulemaking actions would have 

tribal implications. Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) has 

determined this final rule is unlikely to 

have substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This final rule is not 

intended to have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to a marketing order 

may file with USDA a petition stating 

that the marketing order, any provision 

of the marketing order, or any obligation 

imposed in connection with the 

marketing order is not in accordance 

with law and request a modification of 

the marketing order or to be exempted 

therefrom. A handler is afforded the 

opportunity for a hearing on the 

petition. After the hearing, USDA would 

rule on the petition. The Act provides 

that the district court of the United 

States in any district in which the 

handler is an inhabitant, or has his or 

her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This final rule terminates the Order 

and the rules and regulations issued 

thereunder. The Order contains 

authority for the regulation of Irish 

potatoes grown in Washington. At a 

virtual meeting held on June 11, 2020, 

the Committee unanimously 

recommended termination of the Order. 

Section 946.63(b) of the Order 

provides that USDA terminates or 

suspends any or all provisions of the 

Order when a finding is made that the 

Order does not tend to effectuate the 

declared policy of the Act. In addition, 

section 608c(16)(A) of the Act provides 

that USDA terminates or suspends the 

operation of any order whenever the 

order or any provision thereof obstructs 

or does not tend to effectuate the 

declared policy of the Act. Additionally, 

USDA is required to notify Congress no 

later than 60 days before the date the 

Order would be terminated. 

Marketing Order No. 946 has been in 

effect since 1949 and has provided the 

potato industry in Washington with 

authority for grade, size, quality, 

maturity, pack, and container 

regulations, as well as authority for 

mandatory product inspection. The 

Committee has met regularly to evaluate 

the current status of the Washington 

potato industry and to consider 

recommendations for modification, 

suspension, or termination of the 

Order’s regulatory requirements, which 

have been issued on a continuing basis. 

Committee meetings are open to the 

public and interested persons may 

express their views at these meetings. 

The USDA reviews Committee 

recommendations, including 

information provided by the Committee 

and from other available sources, and 

determines whether modification, 

suspension, or termination of the 

Order’s regulatory requirements would 

tend to effectuate the declared policy of 

the Act. 

Handling regulations requiring 

potatoes to be inspected and meet 

mandatory minimum grade, size, 

maturity, quality, pack, and container 

requirements were in effect for all types 

of potatoes until 2010. USDA 

temporarily suspended the handling 

regulations for Russet type potatoes for 

one year, effective July 24, 2010 (75 FR 

43042), and subsequently extended that 

suspension indefinitely, effective July 1, 

2011 (76 FR 27850). Further, USDA 

temporarily suspended the handling 

regulations for yellow fleshed and white 

type potatoes effective October 24, 2013 

(78 FR 62967), also extending that 

suspension indefinitely, effective July 1, 

2014 (79 FR 26109). Lastly, USDA 

indefinitely suspended the handling 

regulations for all red types of potatoes, 

effective February 15, 2014 (79 FR 

8253). The cumulative effect of the 

various suspensions was the total 

suspension of handling regulations for 

all fresh potatoes under the Order after 

July 1, 2014. All of the suspensions 

listed above were enacted upon the 

Committee’s recommendation. 

Following these regulatory 

suspensions, the Committee continued 

to levy assessments in order to maintain 

its functionality. The Committee felt 

that it should continue to fund its full 

operational capability in order to collect 

handler reports, track industry data, and 

preserve the authority to regulate 

handling, should that become relevant 

to the industry again sometime in the 

future. 

The Committee met on January 22 and 

June 11, 2020, to discuss the current 

marketing environment of the 

Washington potato industry and the 

status of the Order. The Committee 

determined that the suspension of the 

Order’s handling regulations has not 

negatively impacted the industry and 

that there is no longer a need for the 

Order. In addition, the Committee 

concluded that the data collection and 

reporting functions of the Order are 

duplicative of the services provided to 

the industry by the Washington State 

Potato Commission and that termination 

of the Order will not materially impact 

the collection and dissemination of 

essential industry data. 

At the meeting held via conference 

call on June 11, 2020, the Committee 

unanimously voted in favor of 

recommending that USDA terminate the 

Order. In addition, the Committee 

recommended the Order’s reporting and 

assessment requirements—the only 

regulatory activities still in effect—be 

suspended while USDA processes 

termination of the Order. The 

recommendation to suspend all 

remaining Order activities was a 

separate regulatory action from this rule. 

A final rule suspending the Order’s 

reporting and assessment requirements 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 8401 

was published in the Federal Register 

February 24, 2021 (86 FR 11091). 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601–612), AMS has considered 

the economic impact of this final rule 

on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has 

prepared this final regulatory flexibility 

analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to such actions in 

order that small businesses will not be 

unduly or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 26 handlers 

of Washington potatoes and 

approximately 250 potato producers in 

the production area subject to regulation 

by the Order. 

Small agricultural service firms are 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$30,000,000, and small agricultural 

producers are defined as those having 

annual receipts of less than $1,000,000. 

According to USDA Market News, the 

average shipping point price for fresh 

Washington potatoes during the 2019 

shipping season was approximately 

$15.79 per hundredweight. The 

Committee reported that 2019–2020 

marketing year fresh potato shipments 

were 9,687,170 hundredweight. Using 

the average price and shipment 

information, the number of handlers, 

and assuming a normal distribution, 

most handlers had average annual 

receipts of less than $30,000,000 ($15.79 

times 9,687,170 hundredweight equals 

$152,960,414, divided by 26 handlers 

equals $5,883,093 per handler). Thus, 

AMS concludes that the majority of 

handlers would meet the SBA definition 

of a small business. 

USDA National Agricultural Statistics 

Service reported an average producer 

price of $8.20 per hundredweight for the 

2019 crop. Given the number of 

Washington potato producers, and 

assuming a normal distribution, average 

annual producer revenue is below 

$1,000,000 ($8.20 times 9,687,170 

hundredweight equals $79,434,794, 

divided by 250 producers equals 

$317,739 per producer). Therefore, most 

producers of fresh Washington potatoes 

may be classified as small businesses 

under the SBA definition. 

This rule terminates the Federal 

marketing order for Irish potatoes grown 

in Washington, and the rules and 

regulations issued thereunder. The 

Order contains authority to regulate the 

handling of Irish potatoes grown in 

Washington. The Committee determined 

that regulating the handling of potatoes 

under the Order is no longer an effective 

marketing tool for the Washington 

potato industry. Evidence from the past 

several years of operating with 

suspended handling regulations showed 

that potatoes can be shipped from the 

production area in the absence of the 

Order’s minimum requirements without 

a negative economic impact on the 

industry. 

Secondly, the Committee determined 

that the data collection and reporting 

function of the Order is duplicative of 

the services provided to the industry by 

the Washington State Potato 

Commission. The termination of the 

Order will not materially impact the 

collection and dissemination of 

essential industry data to Washington 

state potato growers. 

As such, the Committee concluded 

that the costs associated with the 

administration of the Order outweigh 

the benefits of continuing the Order. 

This conclusion is based on the 

Committee’s analysis of the 6-year 

period of regulatory suspension and 

findings that termination is not 

expected to negatively impact the 

marketing of fresh Washington potatoes 

because this action reduces the costs to 

both handlers and producers. Therefore, 

in an action taken on June 11, 2020, the 

Committee unanimously recommended 

that USDA terminates the Order. 

Section 946.63(b) of the Order 

provides that USDA terminates or 

suspends any or all provisions of the 

Order when a finding is made that the 

Order does not tend to effectuate the 

declared policy of the Act. Furthermore, 

§ 608c(16)(A) of the Act provides that 

USDA shall terminate or suspend the 

operation of any order whenever the 

order or provision thereof obstructs or 

does not tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. An additional 

provision requires that Congress be 

notified no later than 60 days before the 

date the order would be terminated. 

The Committee considered 

alternatives to this rule, including 

taking no action (which would keep the 

Order active but with the handling 

regulations suspended) and suspending 

all of the Order’s remaining regulatory 

provisions but not terminating the 

Order. The Committee determined that 

neither option was a viable long-term 

solution and subsequently 

recommended that the Order be 

terminated. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the Order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by OMB and 

contained in OMB No. 0581–0178 

Vegetable and Specialty Crops. 

Termination of the Order, and the 

reporting requirements prescribed 

therein, will eliminate the reporting 

burden on Washington potato handlers. 

Handlers will no longer file forms with 

the Committee, which will reduce 

industry expenses and save an 

estimated 9.7 hours per handler per 

year. This rule will not impose any 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

potato handlers. As with all Federal 

marketing order programs, reports and 

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. In addition, USDA has 

not identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap or conflict with 

this rule. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

The Committee’s meetings are widely 

publicized throughout the Washington 

potato industry, and all interested 

persons are invited to attend the 

meetings and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the January 22 and 

June 11, 2020, meetings were public 

meetings, and all entities, both large and 

small, were able to express their views 

on these issues. Interested persons were 

invited to submit comments on a 

proposed rule, including the regulatory 

and information collection impacts of 

this action on small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: https://

www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/ 

moa/small-businesses. Any questions 

about the compliance guide should be 

sent to Richard Lower at the previously 

mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

A proposed rule inviting comments 

regarding termination of the Order was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 7, 2021 (86 FR 49930). AMS 

distributed the proposed rule to State of 

Washington potato industry members. 

In addition, the rule was made available 

on the internet by AMS and the Office 

of the Federal Register. The proposed 

rule provided a 60-day comment period 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
8402 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

for the interested parties to comment, 

which ended on November 8, 2021. Two 

comments were received in support of 

the termination. 

Based on the foregoing, and pursuant 

to § 608c(16)(A) of the Act and § 946.63 

of the Order, it is hereby found that the 

Federal marketing Order 946 regulating 

the handling of Irish potatoes grown in 

Washington does not tend to effectuate 

the declared policy of the Act and is 

therefore terminated. 

Following termination, trustees will 

be appointed to conclude and liquidate 

the Committee affairs and will continue 

in that capacity until discharged by 

USDA. Section 608c(16)(A) of the Act 

requires USDA to notify Congress 60 

days in advance of termination of a 

Federal marketing order. USDA notified 

Congress on December 2, 2021. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 946 

Marketing agreements, Potatoes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

PART 946—[REMOVED] 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, and under the authority of 7 

U.S.C. 601–674, 7 CFR part 946 is 

removed. 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03177 Filed 2–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–0259; Project 

Identifier AD–2020–01128–E; Amendment 

39–21900; AD 2022–02–03] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; CFM 

International, S.A. Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013–26– 

01 for all CFM International, S.A. (CFM) 

CFM56–3 and CFM56–7B model 

turbofan engines with a certain 

accessory gearbox assembly (AGB) not 

equipped with a dynamic oil seal 

assembly in the handcranking pad. AD 

2013–26–01 required an independent 

inspection to verify re-installation of the 

handcranking pad cover after removal of 

the pad cover for maintenance. This AD 

was prompted by a dual engine loss of 

oil event and 42 prior events of total 

loss of engine oil during flight. This AD 

requires independent inspection to 

verify re-installation of the AGB 

handcranking pad cover after 

maintenance. This AD also requires the 

replacement of the affected AGB as a 

terminating action to the inspection 

requirement. The FAA is issuing this 

AD to address the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective March 22, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact CFM 

International, S.A., Aviation Operations 

Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 

285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: (877) 

432–3272; email: fleetsupport@ge.com. 

You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Airworthiness Products 

Section, Operational Safety Branch, 

1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 

01803. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (817) 222–5110. It is also available 

at https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2021–0259. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2021–0259; or in person at Docket 

Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

final rule, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for 

Docket Operations is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Clark, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District 

Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 

(781) 238–7088; fax: (781) 238–7199; 

email: kevin.m.clark@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2013–26–01, 

Amendment 39–17710 (78 FR 79295, 

December 30, 2013), (AD 2013–26–01). 

AD 2013–26–01 applied to all CFM 

CFM56–3 and CFM56–7B series 

turbofan engines with certain AGBs not 

equipped with a dynamic oil seal in the 

handcranking pad assembly. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 3, 2021 (86 FR 23301). The NPRM 

was prompted by a dual engine loss of 

oil event and 42 prior events of total 

loss of engine oil during flight. In the 

NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain 

certain requirements of AD 2013–26–01. 

The NPRM proposed to require the 

performance of an independent 

inspection to verify re-installation of the 

AGB handcranking pad cover after 

maintenance. Alternatively, the NPRM 

proposed to require the insertion of an 

independent inspection as a required 

inspection item in the approved 

continuous airworthiness maintenance 

program for the aircraft not later than 

the next time the AGB handcranking 

pad cover is removed for maintenance. 

The NPRM also proposed to remove 

the optional terminating action in AD 

2013–26–01 and add a mandatory 

terminating action for certain model 

turbofan engines, requiring the removal 

and replacement of an affected AGB 

with an AGB that incorporates the 

dynamic oil seal in the handcranking 

pad cover assembly. For all CFM56–3 

and the majority of CFM56–7B turbofan 

engine models, the NPRM proposed to 

require replacement of the AGB as a 

mandatory terminating action to the 

inspection requirement. The NPRM 

does not require this terminating action 

for CFM56–7B27A, CFM56–7B27A/3 

and CFM56–7B27AE model turbofan 

engines because these model engines, 

which are installed only in military 

airplanes, do not have a replacement 

AGB eligible for installation. The FAA 

is issuing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

Discussion of Final Airworthiness 

Directive 

Comments 

The FAA received comments from 

seven commenters. The commenters 

were Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska), 

American Airlines (American), Air Line 

Pilot Association, International (ALPA), 

CFM, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta), Jet 

Engine Technology Corporation (Jet 

Engine Technology), and United 

Airlines (United). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

NPRM and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. 

Request To Revise Service Bulletin (SB) 

References To Allow On-Wing 

Procedure 

Alaska requested that the FAA revise 

the definition in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of 

this AD to include an affected AGB that 

has been reworked and reidentified to a 

part number (P/N) eligible for 

installation, as applicable to the 

removed P/N, in accordance with an 

FAA approved CFM International SB. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1