Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1859

94 7 U.S.C. § 192(a).

95 7 U.S.C. § 192(b).

about $62 million dollars to the packers.

See p. 13 above. While these studies do

not identify any specific practices that

cause the reduction in prices, they do

demonstrate that oligopsonistic packer

buying practices, in general, have the

effect of manipulating prices paid to

producers. These studies establish a

substantial factual basis for finding a

strong likelihood that general buying

practices of oligopsonistic packers will

result in producers receiving less than

the full value of their livestock. They

provide substantial evidence for finding

that oligopsonistic packers’ buying

practices should be restricted under

Section 202 of the Act.

Economic studies have also attempted

to isolate specific livestock procurement

practices to determine their effect on

producer prices. One study found that

packers’ feeding of their own cattle for

slaughter has a depressing effects on

prices other producers are paid for their

livestock. See, pp. 13–15 above. Other

studies have shown that packers’ use of

forward contracts also has depressing

effect on prices paid to producers for

their livestock. See pp. 15–19 above.

Concentration in the Red Meat Packing

Industry, issued by the Grain Inspection

and the Packers and Stockyards

Administration in February, 1996,

demonstrates that the use of captive

supply procurement methods in the

cattle industry is associated with a

decline in cash-market price for cattle.

It shows that packers increase their

captive supply inventories when cashmarket prices increase, and as they

increase captive supply deliveries from

these inventories, cash-market prices

decline. See p. 18 above. These studies

provide sufficient evidentiary support

for a finding that packer feeding of their

own slaughter supplies and their use of

forward contracts are likely to have the

effect of manipulating prices paid to

producers in violation of Section 202(e)

of the Act. Such practices should, thus,

be restricted by regulation.

Section 202(a) of the Act prohibits

packers from engaging in any ‘‘unjustly

discriminatory’’ practice or device.94

Section 202(b) prohibits packers from

giving any person an ‘‘undue or

unreasonable preference or advantage’’

‘‘in any respect whatsoever.’’95

When considering whether packers’

feeding of their own slaughter supplies

and use of forward contracts constitute

undue preferences or unjust

discrimination in violation of Section

202 (a) and (b) of the Act, the effect of

these practices on competition between

livestock producers must be considered.

See pp. 39–40 above. Packer feeding of

their own slaughter supplies and use of

forward contracts are very likely to

injure competition between livestock

producers. By definition, packers that

own and feed cattle for their

slaughtering plants provide preferential

treatment for their stockholders over

other livestock producers. Packerowned cattle enjoy preferential access to

the slaughtering facility; thus the

packer-owned cattle are guaranteed a

market. This type of activity does injure

competition between, the packers and

their shareholders on the one hand, and

other livestock producers on the other.

Similarly, forward contracts which are

not traded publicly but offered to

certain livestock producers selectively

also provide preferential access to

slaughter plants for those who enter into

them. Livestock producers who are not

offered the forward contracts are at a

significant competitive disadvantage.

That these practices may make the

packers more competitive with each

other does not control the determination

of whether they violate the ‘‘undue and

unreasonable preference’’ or ‘‘unjustly

discriminatory’’ language of the Act.

Packer feeding of its own cattle for

slaughter and forward contracts as they

are used today are likely to result in

undue preferences and unjust

discrimination in violation of Sections

202 (a) and (b) of the Act. Their use

should thus be restricted through

regulation.

This discussion demonstrates that

there is substantial factual and legal

basis for issuing rules under Section 202

of the Act restricting the use of forward

contracts and packer feeding of its own

slaughter supplies. The rules proposed

in this petition offer the least intrusive

form of restriction on these practices

that will ensure compliance with the

purposes of the Act. These proposed

rules do not prohibit the use of forward

contracts, but merely require that the

contracts contain a firm-base price and

be traded in an open public market. The

proposed rules also do not prohibit

packers from owning and feeding cattle.

The proposed rule only requires that

packer-owned cattle be traded in a

public market.

These restrictions are designed to

protect producers’ interests by

encouraging open, competitive markets

for livestock. They are designed to take

advantage of what economic studies

suggest encourage competitive markets

for livestock—that more bidders for

livestock mean higher prices to

producers and that electronic or

telemarkets markets also increase prices

paid for livestock. See pp. 18–20 above.

They are designed to provide equitable

access to markets for all livestock

producers preventing unjust

discrimination between livestock

producers by packers.

For these reasons WORC requests that

Secretary Glickman issue the rule set

out above at pp. 2–4.

Attorneys for Western Organization of

Resource Councils.

Lynn A. Hayes,

Attorney at Law. Farmers’ Legal Action

Group, Inc., 1301 Minnesota Building, 46 East

Fourth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101–

1109, (612) 223–5400, (612) 223–5335 (fax).

[FR Doc. 97–739 Filed 1–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–60–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus

Industrie Model 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 A310 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive inspections to detect

discrepancies or damage of the steady

bearing assemblies of the flap

transmission system, and replacement

of any discrepant or damaged assembly

with a new, like assembly. This

proposal also would require eventual

replacement of all the steady bearing

assemblies with new, improved

assemblies, which would terminate the

repetitive inspection requirement. This

proposal is prompted by reports of

cracking of the hardened steel inner

race, and broken or missing inner races

of the steady bearing assemblies. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent such

discrepancies and damage of the shafts

of the steady bearing assemblies, which

could cause the shafts to fail; failure of

the steady bearing shafts during a

subsequent asymmetric stop could

result in an uncommanded asymmetric

retraction of the flap, and subsequent

reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation
1860 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

60–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

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: Tom

Groves, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–1503; 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–60–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–60–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Ge ́ne ́ral de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

recently notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Model A310 series airplanes. The DGAC

advises that it has received reports

indicating that some steady bearings of

the flap transmission system on these

airplanes have been found with cracking

of the hardened steel inner race, or a

broken or missing inner race. The DGAC

also advises that it has received reports

indicating that the spherical part of a

steady bearing assembly was found to be

detached from its mounting flange. The

cause of these discrepancies is believed

to be a design deficiency in the bearing

seal that, in certain circumstances, may

result in the loss of grease from the

bearings.

Such discrepancies and damage of the

steady bearing assemblies could weaken

the shaft and lead to failure of the shaft

in the event of a subsequent asymmetric

flap drive failure. Failure of a steady

bearing in that situation could result in

an uncommanded asymmetric retraction

of the flap, and subsequent reduced

controllability of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A310–27–2067, Revision 1, dated

January 5, 1995, which describes

procedures for repetitive visual

inspections to detect damage or

discrepancies of the steady bearing

assemblies of the flap transmission

system. The service bulletin also

provides instructions for replacement of

damaged assemblies with new, like

assemblies. The DGAC classified this

service bulletin as mandatory and

issued French airworthiness directive

(CN) 95–073–178(B), dated April 26,

1995, in order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

Airbus also issued Service Bulletin

A310–27–2074, dated November 18,

1994, which describes procedures for

replacement of the steady bearing

assemblies with new, improved

assemblies. The improved assembly is

equipped with integral sealing for both

the ball bearing and the spherical

bearing, which will improve the service

life of the bearing assemblies. The

service bulletin also describes

procedures to install special spherical

spacers for steady bearing assembly

positions FIN 5486 and FIN 5529 in

order to keep the seal lips within the

flange. (This Airbus service bulletin

references Lucas Liebherr Service

Bulletin 551A–27–M551–03, Revision 1,

dated February 13, 1995, as an

additional source of service

information.) The DGAC has approved

the technical content of this service

bulletin.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in France and is 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

repetitive visual inspections to detect

any discrepancy or damage to the steady

bearing assemblies of the flap

transmission system, and replacement

of any damaged or discrepant assembly

with a new, like assembly. The

proposed AD also would require

eventual replacement of all steady

bearing assemblies with the new,

improved assemblies, which would

terminate the repetitive inspection

requirement. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletins

described previously.

Differences Between the Proposal and

the Related French CN

Operators should note that, this

proposal would differ from the parallel

French CN, referenced previously, in

that this proposed rule would require

the accomplishment of a terminating

action (replacement of the steady

bearing assemblies with new, like

assemblies) for the repetitive

inspections. The French CN provides for

that action only as optional.

Mandating the terminating action is

based on the FAA’s determination that

long term continued operational safety

will be better assured by design changes

to remove the source of the problem,

rather than by repetitive inspections.

Long term inspections may not be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1861

providing the degree of safety assurance

necessary for the transport airplane

fleet. This, coupled with a better

understanding of the human factors

associated with numerous continual

inspections, has led the FAA to consider

placing less emphasis on inspections

and more emphasis on design

improvements. The proposed

requirement to accomplish the

terminating action is in consonance

with these considerations.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 26 Airbus

Model A310 series airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 15 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspections, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed inspection on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $23,400, or $900 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

It would take approximately 8 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed replacement, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $16,872 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed replacement on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $451,152, or

$17,352 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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 substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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 96–NM–60–AD.

Applicability: Model A310 series airplanes,

on which Airbus Modification 10962 has not

been installed; certificated in any category.

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 failure of the flap transmission

shaft due to damaged steady bearing

assemblies, which could cause an

uncommanded asymmetric retraction of the

flap, and result in reduced controllability of

the airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 2,000 total

landings or within 500 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Perform a visual inspection to detect

damage or any discrepancy of the steady

bearing assemblies of the flap transmission

system, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A310–27–2067, Revision 1, dated

January 5, 1995.

(1) If no damage or discrepancy is detected:

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 2,000 landings, until the

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD are

accomplished.

(2) If any damage or discrepancy is

detected and the groove depth of the shaft is

less than 1 mm (.04 inch): Prior to the

accumulation of 50 landings after detection

of this discrepancy, replace the steady

bearing assembly with a new, like assembly

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A310–27–2067, Revision 1, dated January 5,

1995.

(3) If any damage or discrepancy is

detected and the groove depth on the shaft

is 1 mm or more: Prior to further flight,

replace the steady bearing assembly with a

new, like assembly, in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–27–2067,

Revision 1, dated January 5, 1995.

(b) Within 5 years after the effective date

of this AD, replace all steady bearing

assemblies of the flap transmission system

with new, improved assemblies, in

accordance with Airbus A310–27–2074,

dated November 18, 1994. Accomplishment

of the replacement constitutes terminating

action for the requirements of this AD.

Note 2: Airbus Service Bulletin A310–27–

2074 references Lucas Liebherr Service

Bulletin 551A–27–M551–03 as an additional

source of service information for replacement

of the steady bearing assemblies with the

new, improved assemblies.

(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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(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 January

7, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–813 Filed 1–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–92–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).