14792 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

closing date, except as provided in section

15(e);

(b) The application for a written agreement

must contain all variable terms of the

contract between you and us that will be in

effect if the written agreement is not

approved;

(c) If approved, the written agreement will

include all variable terms of the contract,

including, but not limited to, crop type or

variety, and premium rate;

(d) Each written agreement will only be

valid for one year (If the written agreement

is not specifically renewed the following

year, insurance coverage for subsequent crop

years will be in accordance with the printed

policy); and

(e) An application for a written agreement

submitted after the sales closing date may be

approved if, after a physical inspection of the

acreage, it is determined that no loss has

occurred and the crop is insurable in

accordance with the policy and written

agreement provisions.

16. Minimum Value Option

(a) The provisions of this option are

continuous and will be attached to and made

a part of your insurance policy, if:

(1) You elect either Option I or Option II

of the Minimum Value Option on your

application, or on a form approved by us, on

or before the sales closing date for the initial

crop year in which you wish to insure fresh

market peppers under this option, and pay

the additional premium indicated in the

Actuarial Table for this optional coverage;

and

(2) You have not elected coverage under

the Catastrophic Risk Protection

Endorsement.

(b) In lieu of the provisions contained in

section 14(c)(3), the total value of harvested

production will be determined as follows:

(1) If you selected Option I of the

Minimum Value Option, the total value of

harvested production will be as follows:

(i) For sold production, the dollar amount

obtained by subtracting the allowable cost

contained in the Special Provisions from the

price received for each box of peppers (this

result may not be less than the minimum

value option price contained in the Special

Provisions for any box of peppers), and

multiplying this result by the number of

boxes of peppers sold; and

(ii) For marketable production that is not

sold, the dollar amount obtained by

multiplying the number of boxes of such

peppers on the unit by the minimum value

shown in the Special Provisions for the

planting period (harvested production that is

damaged or defective due to insurable causes

and is not marketable will not be counted as

production).

(2) If you selected Option II of the

Minimum Value Option, the total value of

harvested production will be as provided in

section 16(b)(1), except that the dollar

amount specified in section 16(b)(1)(i) may

not be less than zero.

(c) This option may be canceled by either

you or us for any succeeding crop year by

giving written notice on or before the

cancellation date preceding the crop year for

which the cancellation of this option is to be

effective.

Signed in Washington, DC, on March 24,

1997.

Kenneth D. Ackerman,

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance.

[FR Doc. 97–7941 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–FA–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 265

[Docket No. R–0968]

Rules Regarding Delegation of

Authority

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System (Board) is

delegating to an individual member the

Board’s authority to approve extensions

of the 180-day period for final Board

action on applications to establish

certain foreign bank offices in the

United States. This delegation of

authority is intended to aid in the

efficient processing of such foreign bank

office applications.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

A. Vogel, Senior Attorney (202/452–

3428), Sara M. Craig, Attorney (202/

452–2263), Legal Division, Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System. For the hearing impaired only,

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD), contact Dorthea Thompson (202/

452–3544), Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, 20th and C

Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

7(d) of the International Banking Act of

1978 (IBA), as amended by the

Economic Growth and Regulatory

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (Pub.

L. No. 104–208, 110 Stat. 26), permits

the Board to extend the 180-day period

within which the Board must take final

action on an application by a foreign

bank to establish a U.S. branch or

agency or to acquire ownership or

control of a commercial lending

company in the United States. The

Board may extend this period an

additional 180 days after providing

notice of, and the reasons for, the

extension to the applicant foreign bank

and to the State bank supervisor or the

Comptroller of the Currency, as

appropriate (12 U.S.C. 3105(d)(7)(A)).

The Board has delegated to an

individual Board member the authority

to approve such extensions pursuant to

section 7(d) of the IBA. Section 11(k) of

the Federal Reserve Act provides that

the Board is authorized and empowered

to delegate any of its functions, other

than those relating to rulemaking or

pertaining principally to monetary and

credit policies, to one or more

administrative law judges, members or

employees of the Board, or Federal

Reserve banks. 12 U.S.C. 248(k). This

delegation of authority is consistent

with previous Board practices with

respect to extensions of time periods

mandated by Regulation K.

The provisions of the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA)(5 U.S.C. 553)

relating to notice, public participation,

and deferred effective date have not

been followed in connection with the

adoption of this amendment because the

change to be effected is procedural in

nature and does not constitute a

substantive rule subject to the

requirements of that section. The APA

grants a specific exemption from its

requirements relating to notice and

public participation in this instance (12

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)), and good cause

exists to find that the nature of this

amendment makes a notice and public

comment procedure unnecessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Board

hereby certifies that this rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

In accordance with section 3506 of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. Ch. 35; 5 CFR part 1320

Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the

rule under the authority delegated to the

Board by the Office of Management and

Budget. No collections of information

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act are contained in the rule.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 265

Authority delegations (Government

agencies), Banks, banking, Federal

Reserve System.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR

part 265 as set forth below:

PART 265—RULES REGARDING

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

1. The authority citation for Part 265

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248 (i) and (k).

2. Section 265.4 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 265.4 Functions delegated to Board

members.

(a) * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14793

(4) Extension of time period for final

Board action. To extend for an

additional 180 days the 180-day period

within which final Board action is

required on an application pursuant to

section 7(d) of the International Banking

Act.

* * * * *

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, March 24, 1997.

William W. Wiles,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–7910 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–107–AD; Amendment

39–9975; AD 97–07–02]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A300 series airplanes. It requires a onetime template inspection of the rear

pressure bulkhead to detect dents;

repetitive eddy current inspections of

dents greater than a certain depth to

detect cracking; and repair, if necessary.

This amendment is prompted by a

report indicating that cracking has been

found in the vicinity of a dent in the

rear pressure bulkhead of one airplane.

The actions specified by this

amendment are intended to prevent

fatigue cracking resulting from a dent in

the rear pressure bulkhead; that

condition, if not corrected, could reduce

the structural integrity of the bulkhead

and, consequently, lead to rapid

depressurization of the airplane.

DATES: Effective May 2, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 2,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

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: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Airbus

Model A300 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

November 5, 1996 (61 FR 56923). That

action proposed to require a one-time

template inspection of the rear pressure

bulkhead to detect dents; repetitive

eddy current inspections of dented areas

greater than a certain depth to detect

fatigue cracking; and repair, if

necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

One commenter supports the

proposed AD.

Request to Explain Adequacy of OneTime Inspection

One commenter asks if a one-time

inspection, as would be required by the

AD, is adequate to address the subject

fatigue cracking. The commenter points

out that if the inspection finds no dents

of a depth greater than 2 mm, no further

action would be required; consequently,

any subsequent detection of dents/

cracking will depend upon the existing

level and frequency of inspections in

the operators’ existing maintenance

program, specifically the Maintenance

Planning Document (MPD). The

commenter questions whether the

inspections scheduled under the current

MPD are adequate to ensure that any

small dents are subsequently found and

corrected in a timely manner.

The FAA responds to this comment

by reiterating the circumstances relevant

to the cracking addressed by this AD

action. The subject cracks were detected

on the rear pressure bulkhead on one

airplane during a heavy maintenance

check. The cracks were found to initiate

from a dent in the bulkhead. Airbus

conducted analyses and calculations of

the dent and associated cracking, which

demonstrated that:

1. The force necessary to make a dent

of this sort in the rear pressure bulkhead

in the specific location could not have

been generated in service, and

2. The dent was unique to the

production process.

The purpose of the one-time

inspection required by this AD is to

detect dents as small as 2mm in depth

in the rear pressure bulkhead that may

have occurred during production. To

accomplish this, the inspection makes

use of a template in accordance with

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–302,

because the inspections conducted

under the MPD cannot detect small

dents of this type. The inspections that

are part of the MPD are visual

inspections, and are considered

adequate to detect defects of the rear

pressure bulkhead that may occur in

service.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 15 Airbus

Model A300 series airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately 5 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the required

inspection for denting, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $4,500, or $300 per airplane.

If subsequent eddy current

inspections to detect cracking are

necessary, they would require 46 work

hours per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of these inspections on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $2,760 per airplane per

inspection.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the 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 adopted herein will

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 final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.