14044 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and by adding in its place the words

‘‘the Arava Valley’. e. In newly designated paragraph

(b)(7), by removing the word ‘‘Paran’’

and by adding in its place the words

‘‘the Arava Valley’’. 9. Section 319.56–2w would be

revised to read as follows:

§ 319.56–2w Administrative instruction;

conditions governing the entry of papayas

from Brazil and Costa Rica.

The Solo type of papaya may be

imported into the continental United

States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.

Virgin Islands from the State of Espirito

Santo, Brazil, and the provinces of

Guanacaste, San Jose, and Puntarenas,

Costa Rica, only under the following

conditions:

(a) The papayas were grown and

packed for shipment to the United

States in the State of Espirito Santo,

Brazil, or in the provinces of

Guanacaste, San Jose, and Puntarenas,

Costa Rica.

(b) Beginning at least 30 days before

harvest began and continuing through

the completion of harvest, all trees in

the field where the papayas were grown

were kept free of papayas that were 1⁄2

or more ripe (more than 1⁄4 of the shell

surface yellow), and all culled and

fallen fruits were removed from the field

at least twice a week.

(c) When packed, the papayas were

less than 1⁄2 ripe (the shell surface was

no more than 1⁄4 yellow, surrounded by

light green), and appeared to be free of

all injurious insect pests. (d) The papayas were packaged so as

to prevent access by fruit flies and other

injurious insect pests, and the package

does not contain any other fruit,

including papayas not qualified for

importation into the United States. (e) All activities described in

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section

were carried out under the general

supervision and direction of plant

health officials of the national Ministry

of Agriculture. (f) Beginning at least 1 year before

harvest begins and continuing through

the completion of harvest, fruit fly traps

were maintained in the field where the

papayas were grown. The traps were

placed at a rate of 1 trap per hectare and

were checked for fruit flies at least once

weekly by plant health officials of the

national Ministry of Agriculture. Fifty

percent of the traps were of the McPhail

type, and fifty percent of the traps were

of the Jackson type. The national

Ministry of Agriculture kept records of

fruit fly finds for each trap, updated the

records each time the traps were

checked, and made the records available

to APHIS inspectors upon request. The

records were maintained for at least 1

year.

(g) All shipments must be

accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by the national

Ministry of Agriculture stating that the

papayas were grown, packed, and

shipped in accordance with the

provisions of this section.

Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of

March 1997.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–7455 Filed 3–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

9 CFR Parts 1 and 3

[Docket No. 97–018–1]

Animal Welfare; Petition for

Rulemaking

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of petition and request

for comments.

SUMMARY: We are notifying the public of

our receipt of a petition for rulemaking,

and we are soliciting public comment

on that petition. The petition, sponsored

by the Doris Day Animal League,

requests that we amend the Animal

Welfare regulations by redefining the

term ‘‘retail pet store’’ and by including

dealers of dogs intended for hunting,

security, and breeding in the

regulations.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before May

27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 97–018–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 97–018–1. Anyone wishing

to see copies of comments received, or

the petition, including appendices, may

do so by coming to USDA, room 1141,

South Building, 14th Street and

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Please call ahead on

(202) 690–2817 to facilitate entry into

the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Bettye Walters, Veterinary Medical

Officer, AC, APHIS, 4700 River Road

Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737–1234,

(301) 734–7833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under the Animal Welfare Act (the

Act) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the

Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to

promulgate standards and other

requirements governing the humane

handling, housing, care, treatment, and

transportation of certain animals by

dealers, research facilities, exhibitors,

and carriers and intermediate handlers.

Regulations established under the Act

are contained in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and

3. 9 CFR part 1 contains definitions for

terms used in 9 CFR parts 2 and 3.

Subpart A of 9 CFR part 3 contains

specific standards for the humane

handling, care, treatment, and

transportation of dogs and cats.

A petition for rulemaking, sponsored

by the Doris Day Animal League,

requests two changes to the regulations

at 9 CFR parts 1 and 3. The requested

changes are: (1) to redefine the term

‘‘retail pet store’’ in 9 CFR part 1; and

(2) to regulate dealers of dogs intended

for hunting, security, and breeding

under the provisions applicable to other

dealers of dogs in 9 CFR part 3. The

petition is printed below. A brief

description of the appendices referred to

in the petition appears at the end of the

petition.

Comments are invited on the

proposed changes discussed in the

petition. In particular, we are soliciting

comments addressing the following

questions:

1. Should the definition of ‘‘retail pet

store’’ in 9 CFR part 1 be revised to read

‘‘a non-residential business

establishment used primarily for the

sale of pets to the ultimate customer’?

2. Should dealers of dogs intended for

hunting, security, and breeding be

subject to the applicable regulations at

9 CFR part 3, subchapter A’’?

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.2(g).

Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of

March 1997.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

Petition Before the U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Petition for Rulemaking and Collateral

Relief; Doris Day Animal League, 227

Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 100,

Washington, DC 20002

June 22, 1995.

I. Introduction

Pursuant to the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), the

Doris Day Animal League, a national

animal protection organization,

petitions the Department of Agriculture
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 14045

to: (1) change the department policy of

excluding from regulation hunting,

security and breeding dog dealers,

under the Animal Welfare Act (‘‘Act’’),

7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.; and, (2) amend

regulations under the Act, that currently

define the term ‘‘retail pet store’’ in the

Act as all retail pet ‘‘outlets.’’ Doris Day

Animal League proposes that the

definition of ‘‘retail pet store’’ under

USDA regulations be a ‘‘non-residential

business establishment used primarily

for the sale of pets to the ultimate

consumer.’’

II. Nature of Petitioner’s Interests

Petitioner, the Doris Day Animal

League (DDAL), is a non-profit,

charitable corporation with principal

offices in Washington, D.C. The DDAL

represents a membership and mailing

constituency of more than 298,000

persons nationwide. The primary goal of

DDAL is to promote humane care and

treatment of all animals, including

animals bred and raised in puppy mills

for pets or hunting dogs.

Petitioner DDAL has used substantial

resources in seeking to correct the

deficiencies in the Animal Welfare Act,1

regulations under the Act 2 and the

enforcement of regulations promulgated

pursuant to the Act. DDAL actively

participated in the promulgation of

regulations under the 1985 amendments

to the Act and in monitoring the

enforcement of the Act as it relates to

Class ‘‘A’’ dealers. DDAL played a

significant role in the development of

Canadian regulations limiting the

numbers of sick and diseased puppies

entering Canada from U.S. Class ‘‘A’’

and Class ‘‘B’’ dealer operations, and

has sent the Department of Agriculture

over 75,000 petitions and postcards

from our members requesting prompt

action to reduce the abuses prevalent in

the puppy breeding industry.

III. Statement of the Problem

A. Current USDA Regulations Defining

‘‘Retail Pet Store’’ as any ‘‘Outlet’’ are

Overly Broad and Violate Both the Clear

Language and the Spirit of the Animal

Welfare Act

When Congress first enacted the

Animal Welfare Act in 1966 it was

intended to regulate only those entities

that sold animals to laboratories and to

reduce the incidence of pet theft.3 The

1970 amendments expanded the

coverage to include dealers of animals

sold ‘‘for use as pets . . .’’ 4 The

Congressional amendment specifically

excluded ‘‘retail pet stores.’’ 5 The

Department of Agriculture promulgated

regulations interpreting the term ‘‘retail

pet store’’ to include any retail ‘‘outlet’’

under the 1970 Amendments.6 The

arbitrary expansion of the ‘‘retail pet

store’’ exemption called for in the

statute to include any ‘‘outlet’’ selling to

the consumer confounds any reasonable

definition of ‘‘store’’ in the English

language and undermines the clear

intent of the statute. This expanded

exclusion allows dozens if not hundreds

of dog breeders to keep animals in

inhumane conditions, without adequate

veterinary care and completely

protected from public view by simply

raising and selling pets directly to the

public.

Investigations have found some of

these facilities to be operated in a

manner that allows communicable

diseases such as parvo and distemper to

spread, and provides inadequate shelter

and unhealthy sanitary conditions

including fetid water, vermin infestation

and fecal material in and around cages.

For example, a ‘‘20/20’’ television

report highlighted a case in which a dog

purchased from one of these facilities

was found to have a staph infection, cot

cicada, diarrhea, skin fungus, pyoderma

parasites, tapeworms, hook worms,

whip worms, an eye infection, a weak

immune system and emodectic mange. 7

The facility involved was eventually

prosecuted and closed down by local

authorities.

A more recent case involves a breeder

in Glendale, West Virginia. This breeder

was given a six-month-old male ShihTzu as a co-owner in January of 1994.

When he was returned to the other

owners on October 19, 1994 he was

emaciated and dehydrated and had

severe flea infections, worms, was

extremely matted, and needed stitches

to close a wound. The co-owners had

tried to solicit help from the local police

to investigate complaints regarding

odors emanating from the yard, but the

police stated that they did not have the

authority to act.8 If the kennel were

licensed under the Act, it would be

open to inspections and the kennel

would be mandated to correct

deficiencies.

The agency’s interpretation that the

term ‘‘store’’ includes all ‘‘outlets’’ has

allowed these and other equally

deficient establishments to operate

unchecked and for the dogs involved to

suffer from inadequate housing, food

and veterinary care. A ‘‘store’’ simply

cannot be interpreted to encompass

operations that breed, raise or sell

puppies from a backyard, living room or

barn. Therefore this interpretation by

the agency constitutes an unreasonable

and arbitrary interpretation of the clear

and plain meaning of the statute and is

therefore contrary to the law.

The agency may have been influenced

in promulgating the regulation by the

legislative history accompanying the

1970 amendments which states that the

bill’s purpose is to regulate ‘‘more

people who handle animals. It will, for

example, bring into the regulatory

framework of the Act for the first time

. . . wholesale pet dealers (emphasis

added).’’ 9 This explanation of the

expansion of the coverage of the Act is

clearly intended as an overview and not

as a limit on the potential for regulation.

The section states that it is intended as

an ‘‘example’’ of the expansion of

coverage and not a description of the

universe of coverage.10 It is reasonable

for the author of the legislative history,

in seeking to generally characterize a

section that excludes retail dealers to

state that the section includes wholesale

dealers. It is not reasonable, however,

for the agency to use this general

description to limit coverage only to

those entities clearly given as

‘‘examples’’ of intended coverage under

the Act.

While it is true that a dealer operating

as a breeder but selling to the public

directly is not a wholesaler, it is also

clear that he or she in most, if not all,

cases is not a ‘‘store.’’ The Act does not

exclude ‘‘retail outlets’’, it does not

exclude ‘‘all dealers except

wholesalers.’’ It only excludes

establishments that are both (1) retail

and (2) stores. Clearly, had Congress

intended to limit coverage either to only

include wholesalers or to expand the

exclusion of retailers to all ‘‘outlets,’’ it

could have done so. It did not.

It is not the intent of the petitioner to

seek amendment of the statute to

include the casual breeder who sells

directly to the public; these breeders are

excluded from coverage under the Act

by the specific exclusion of individuals

who derive no more that $500 gross

income from the sale of animals each

year.11 Rather it is the intention of the

petitioner to seek regulations that

clearly include individuals making a

substantial income from the sales of

dozens of puppies each year for whom

no protection currently exists by selling

directly to the ultimate consumer.

B. The Current Policy of U.S.D.A. To

Exclude the Dealers of ‘‘Hunting,

Breeding and Security Dogs’’ From the

Provisions of the Act Is in Direct

Contravention of the Explicit Language

of the Statute

The U.S.D.A. has repeatedly stated its

‘‘policy’’ of not regulating hunting dog

dealers under the Animal Welfare Act.12

However, this policy is in conflict with

the clear language of the Animal

Welfare Act and its supporting
14046 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

legislative history. Just as the 1970

amendments expanded coverage of the

Act to include animals sold for pets,

Congress also intended to include under

this category dogs sold for hunting,

security or breeding purposes. The Department did not include these

animals under the Act’s protection

when implementing the 1970

amendments. Therefore, when Congress

revisited the Act in 1976 to expand

coverage to the transportation of

animals by air and to ban animal

fighting ventures, it also clarified its

intention in the previous bill by

including the following language: (f) The term ‘‘dealer’’ means any

person who, in commerce, for

compensation or profit . . . buys or

sells . . . (2) any dog for hunting,

security, or breeding purposes . . . 13

(g) The term ‘‘animal’’ means any live

or dead dog . . . With respect to a dog

the term means all dogs including those

used for hunting, security, or breeding

purposes.’’ 14

The agency cites two sources for the

basis of its exclusion of some dogs from

the provisions of the Act. 15 The first is

the legislative history related to the

1966 bill (referenced in letter as H.R.

13881). However, the 1966 bill only

dealt with the sale of animals to medical

research and not to any facet of the pet

industry. Therefore, this provides no

justification for this exclusion. The

second source is the exclusion of ‘‘retail

pet store’’ from the Act in the 1970

Amendments. Clearly Congress did not

intend to exclude any retail operation,

but rather retail stores. This is

evidenced by Congress’ attempts to

correct the Department’s

misinterpretation of the exclusions

under the 1970 amendments. Had

Congress agreed with the agency’s

interpretation of the Act to expand the

term ‘‘store’’ to include an ‘‘outlet’’ it

would have been silent on the issue in

the 1976 Amendments.

With regard to dogs used for hunting,

security, or breeding, Congress made its

intent extremely clear in 1976. In the

legislative history related to the 1976

amendments, the House report

recognized the Department’s flawed

interpretation of the 1970 Amendments

which were intended to cover hunting,

security and breeding dogs by stating

that ‘‘Contrary to the interpretation

presently held by the Secretary of

Agriculture, all dogs, including dogs

used for hunting, security or breeding

purposes, do fall within the protection

of the Act.’’ 16

The Department’s later analysis that

these dogs are not covered ‘‘since

hunting dogs are usually sold at the

retail level’’ flies in the face of the

express wishes of Congress. Because

hunting, security and breeding dogs are

rarely if ever sold at a retail pet store

but, even according to the agency, are

sold at the retail level, 17 and, because

Congress clearly indicated that the

agency’s interpretation that hunting

dogs are to be excluded is wrong, the

only logical interpretation of the Act is

that ‘‘retail level’’ sales are intended to

be included at least as they relate to

hunting, security and breeding dogs.

Also, because the exemption relates to

dogs sold ‘‘as pets’’ and not to dogs used

for hunting, breeding or security, it

should have no application to

establishments dealing in these

animals.18

Because ‘‘breeding dogs’’ are included

in Congress’ clarification, and because

no Class ‘‘A’’ dealer can operate without

buying or selling breeding dogs, all

Class ‘‘A’’ dealers should be covered

under the provisions of the Act unless

they are breeding in a ‘‘retail store.’’

IV. Petitioner’s Request For

Rulemaking

Petitioner requests that USDA change

current policies that exclude dealers

handling dogs used for hunting,

security, or breeding purposes from the

provisions of the Act and promulgate

regulations that would change the

definition of ‘‘retail pet store’’ to ‘‘nonresidential business establishment used

primarily for the sale of pets to the

ultimate consumer.’’

V. The Regulatory Changes Sought Are

Supported by the Clear Language of the

Statute

In order to be valid, regulations must

be consistent with the statute under

which they are promulgated. United

States v. Larinoff, 431 U.S. 864, 873

(1971).19 The starting point for

interpreting a statute is the language of

the statute itself and, absent a clearly

expressed legislative intent to the

contrary, that language must ordinarily

be regarded as conclusive. Consumer

Product Safety Comm. v. G.T.E.

Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102 (1980).

Furthermore, an agency’s

interpretation of a statute is not entitled

to deference when it goes beyond the

meaning that the statute can bear. MCI

Telecommunications v. American

Telephone and Telegraph Company,

114 S. Ct. 2223, 2231 (1994).

The Animal Welfare Act calls for the

exemption of ‘‘retail pet stores’’ from the

provisions of the Act. The expansion of

this exclusion to include any ‘‘outlet’’ is

inconsistent with the plain language of

the statute. Nothing suggests that

Congress intended to limit coverage to

wholesalers. Therefore, the exclusion

from coverage for ‘‘retail pet stores’’

should be limited to those entities that

clearly fall within this exemption. All

other entities, including retail pet

dealers, not operating as stores, should

be covered and regulated.

The policy of the Department to

exclude breeders of dogs for hunting,

breeding or security purposes has an

even shakier foundation. The statute

expressly calls for the inclusion of these

dealers. Yet, inexplicably, the

Department has based its exclusion of

these animals on its own flawed

interpretation of the Act to exclude all

retail outlets. In fact, the exclusion of

dogs bred for hunting, breeding or

security purposes is not only

inconsistent with the statute, it is

contrary to its express language. Dogs

bred for hunting, security and breeding

purposes fall within the clearly

expressed legislative intent and

therefore should be covered.

VI. The Regulatory Change Sought

Would Further the Purpose of the Act

The purpose of the Animal Welfare

Act is to establish humane treatment of

dogs by animal dealers.20 The Act

establishes by law the humane ethic that

animals should be accorded the basic

creature comforts of adequate housing,

ample food and water, reasonable

handling, decent sanitation, sufficient

ventilation, shelter from extremes of

weather and temperature and adequate

veterinary care.21 The inclusion of all

dealers who breed dogs, including those

sold for hunting, breeding or security

purposes, and with the limited

exception of retail stores, will assure

protection under the Act for more

animals, and therefore, will further its

purpose.

VII. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, Petitioner

requests that the U.S.D.A. make the

requested changes in its rules and

administrative policies.

Respectfully Submitted,

Holly E. Hazard,

Executive Director, Doris Day Animal League.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Letter from Dayne E. Vendal

concerning purchase of a dog

Appendix 2: Statement and other documents

from Stephen and Peggy Waltman

concerning the care of a dog

Appendix 3: Letter to Holly Hazard, DDAL,

from P.L. Allen, APHIS

Appendix 4: Letter to Sara Amundsen,

DDAL, from Cheryl A. Oswalt, APHIS

Appendix 5: Letter to Holly Hazard, DDAL,

and William Long, HSUS, from the law

firm of Davis, Graham, and Stubbs

Endnotes

1. 7 U.S.C.A. 2131 et seq.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 14047

2. 9 CFR Sec. 1.1 et seq.

3. 2 U.S. Cong. & Admin. News ’66, at

2636.

4. P.L. 91–579.

5. 7 U.S.C.A. 2132(f).

6. 9 CFR at 1.1.

7. See Appendix 1.

8. See Appendix 2.

9. 3 Cong. & Admin. News ’70 , at 5104.

10. Id.

11. 7 U.S.C.A. 2132(f)(ii).

12. See letter to Ms. Holly Hazard from P.L.

Allen, February 2, 1989 at Appendix 3. See

also, letter to Ms. Sara Amundson from

Cheryl Oswalt, October 14, 1992 at Appendix

4.

13. 7 U.S.C.A. 2132(f). 

14. 7 U.S.C.A. 2132(g).

15. See letter to Holly Hazard from P.L.

Allen, February 2, 1989 at Appendix 3.

16. 2 U.S. Cong. & Admin News ’76, at

758–759.

17. See letter to Amundson at Appendix 4.

18. For a further analysis of this argument

see letter to Ms. Holly Hazard and Mr.

William Long from Mark D. Colley, Esq.,

Davis, Graham & Stubbs, L.L.C., June 9, 1995,

at page 3 at Appendix 5 which is herein

incorporated by reference.

19. Id. at page 1–2 at Appendix 5 which

is herein incorporated by reference.

20. 2 U.S. Cong. & Admin. News ’66, at

2635.

21. 3 U.S. Cong. & Admin. News ’70, at

5104.

[FR Doc. 97–7454 Filed 3–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–193–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model BAC 1–11 200 and

400 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 British Aerospace Model BAC 1–

11 200 and 400 series airplanes. This

proposal would require inspections of

the main landing gear (MLG) A-frame

attachment fittings to detect corrosion or

cracking, and repair or replacement of

cracked or corroded components with

new components. This proposal is

prompted by findings of corroded and

cracked A-frame components of the

MLG. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

corrosion and cracking of MLG A-frame

components, which could result in

collapse of the MLG.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

193–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.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

British Aerospace, Airbus Limited, P.O.

Box 77, Bristol BS99 7AR, England. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Backman, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2797; fax (206) 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.

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 96–NM–193–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–NM–193–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the United Kingdom, recently notified

the FAA that an unsafe condition may

exist on certain British Aerospace

Model BAC 1–11 200 and 400 series

airplanes. The CAA advises that, during

regular inspections for corrosion,

several cases of cracks were found in the

main landing gear (MLG) A-frame

attachment fittings of airplanes that had

accumulated between 32,000 and 43,000

landings. Laboratory investigation of

cracked components revealed that

cracks occurred as a result of stress

corrosion. The cracks initiated in the

bores of the lugs and propagated to the

outside radii. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in collapse of the

MLG.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

British Aerospace has issued Alert

Service Bulletin 53–A–PM6036, Issue 1,

dated November 24, 1995, which

describes procedures for repetitive

detailed visual inspections of MLG Aframe attachment fittings to detect

corrosion or cracking. The alert service

bulletin also provides procedures for

either repair or replacement of cracked

or corroded components with new

components. The CAA classified the

alert service bulletin as mandatory in

order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in the

United Kingdom.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in the United Kingdom

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 CAA has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the CAA,

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.