16664 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

inasmuch as the requirement found in 5

U.S.C. 553(d) that substantive rules be

published not less than 30 days prior to

their effective date is inapplicable.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5

U.S.C. 605(b)), the final regulatory

flexibility analysis otherwise required

under section 604 of the RFA (5 U.S.C.

604) is not required if the head of the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

and the agency publishes such

certification in the Federal Register

along with this general notice of

proposed rulemaking or at the time of

publication of the final rule.

The Board of Directors has concluded

after reviewing the final regulation that

it will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

institutions since the only change, if

any, may be the location in which the

institution will make filings and from

which the institution will be supervised

by the FDIC. The Board of Directors

therefore hereby certifies pursuant to

section 605 of the RFA that the

regulation will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities within the

meaning of the RFA.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

(SBREFA) (Public Law 104–121)

provides generally for agencies to report

rules to Congress and for Congress to

review rules. This final rule is not a rule

for purposes of SBREFA because it is a

rule of agency organization pursuant to

SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(c).

Paperwork Reduction Act

As these amendments neither alter

existing nor create new record keeping

or reporting requirements, the

Paperwork Reduction Act is

inapplicable.

Cost Benefit Analysis

This final rule is generally not

expected to result in material increases

in costs and burden to respondents.

Some filers, however, will be required

to file materials in a different location.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 303

Administrative practice and

procedure, Authority delegations

(Government agencies), Bank deposit

insurance, Banks, Banking, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Savings associations.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 12 CFR part 303 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 303—APPLICATIONS,

REQUESTS, SUBMITTALS,

DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY, AND

NOTICES REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY

STATUTE OR REGULATION

1. The authority citation for part 303

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 378, 1813, 1815, 1816,

1817(j), 1818, 1819 (Seventh and Tenth),

1828, 1831e, 1831o, 1831p–1; 15 U.S.C. 1607.

2. In § 303.0, paragraph (b)(12) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 303.0 Scope and definitions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(12) Appropriate FDIC region,

appropriate FDIC regional office,

appropriate regional director,

appropriate deputy regional director,

and appropriate regional counsel shall

refer to the FDIC region, and the FDIC

regional office, regional director, deputy

regional director, and regional counsel,

of the FDIC region, which the FDIC

designates as follows:

(i) When an institution or proposed

institution that is the subject of an

application, request, submittal, notice,

or administrative action is not or will

not be part of a group of related

institutions, the appropriate region for

the institution and any individual

associated with the institution is the

FDIC region in which the institution or

proposed institution is or will be

located; or

(ii) When an institution or proposed

institution that is the subject of an

application, request, submittal, notice,

or administrative action is or will be

part of a group of related institutions,

the appropriate region for the institution

and any individual associated with the

institution is the FDIC region in which

the group’s major policy and decision

makers are located, or any other region

the FDIC designates on a case-by-case

basis.

* * * * *

By Order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 25th day of

March, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Robert E. Feldman,

Deputy Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8827 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–234–AD; Amendment

39–9986; AD 97–07–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–11 and DC–10

Series Airplanes, and KC–10A

(Military) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–11 and DC–10

series airplanes, and KC–10A (military)

airplanes. That AD currently requires

functional testing to verify proper

installation of the electrical connectors

to the engine generator and fire bell

shutoff switches, and correction of the

installation, if necessary. This

amendment requires installation of a

modification that terminates the

requirement to perform repetitive

functional tests. This amendment is

prompted by the development of a

modification that minimizes the

possibility of improperly connecting

(crossing) the electrical connectors to

the fire extinguishing handles. The

actions specified by this amendment are

intended to prevent the wrong enginedriven generator from being shut down

unnecessarily in the event of an engine

fire warning.

DATES: Effective May 13, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 13,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from McDonnell Douglas Corporation,

3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Department C1-L51 (2–60). 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 FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16665

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Raymond Vakili, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,

Lakewood, California 90712; telephone

(310) 627–5262; fax (310) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 93–25–09 R1,

amendment 39–9070 (59 FR 56383,

November 14, 1994), which is

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–11 and DC–10

series airplanes, and KC–10A (military)

airplanes, was published in the Federal

Register as a supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on

November 12, 1996 (61 FR 58012). The

existing AD currently requires

functional testing to verify proper

installation of the electrical connectors

to the engine generator and fire bell

shutoff switches, and correction of the

installation, if necessary. The

supplemental NPRM proposed to

require the installation of a modification

that would terminate the requirement to

perform repetitive functional tests.

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

Several commenters support the

proposed AD.

Request to Extend Compliance Time

One commenter requests that the

compliance time for installation of the

modification be extended from the

proposed 24 months to 36 months. This

commenter, a U.S. operator of affected

airplanes, requests this extension so that

the modification can be installed during

one of this operator’s regularly

scheduled maintenance intervals.

Adoption of the proposed compliance

time of 24 months would require this

operator to schedule special times for

the accomplishment of the modification,

at additional expense and downtime.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to extend the

compliance time. The operator provided

no technical justification for revising

this interval as requested. Further, in

developing an appropriate compliance

time for this action, the FAA considered

the safety implications, parts

availability, and normal maintenance

schedules for timely accomplishment of

the modification. In consideration of

these items, the FAA has determined

that 24 months represents an

appropriate interval of time allowable in

which the modifications can be

accomplished during scheduled

maintenance intervals for the majority

of affected operators, and an acceptable

level of safety can be maintained.

However, paragraph (f) of the final rule

does provide affected operators the

opportunity to apply for an adjustment

of the compliance time if sufficient data

are presented to justify such an

adjustment.

Request to Delete System Functional

Test Prior to Modification

One commenter objects to the need to

verify the extinguishing system’s

integrity by accomplishing engine run

checks immediately prior to the

installation of the terminating

modification. This check procedure is

specified in the referenced McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC10–26–047

(both the original issue and Revision 1)

as the first step to be performed on

unmodified airplanes prior to installing

the tethers on the engine generator and

fire bell shutoff switches. This

commenter maintains that the integrity

of the system has already been

established if the operator has been

accomplishing the repetitive checks

after any system maintenance, as is

currently required by AD 93–25–09 R1.

The commenter considers that the need

to reconfirm the system’s integrity is not

justified.

The FAA concurs. The FAA has

determined that as long as a functional

test has been accomplished in

accordance with AD 93–25–09 R1, or in

accordance with paragraph (a), (b), or (c)

of this final rule, there is no need to

perform the additional test of the system

just prior to installing the modification.

A new paragraph (e) has been added to

this final rule to indicate this.

Request to Rely on Maintenance

Actions to Correct Unsafe Condition

One commenter has no technical

objection to the proposal, but suggests

that current maintenance practices are

sufficient to identify a discrepant

connection. The commenter points out

that maintenance tasks are now in place

in the revised maintenance manual that

will enable a cross connection condition

to be readily identified.

The FAA does not concur. Service

experience has demonstrated that

maintenance alone cannot be relied

upon to correct what has been

determined to be a design deficiency.

Reliance on maintenance to correct for

a design deficiency increases the risk of

introducing maintenance error and

defeats the purpose of what it was

meant to serve. Moreover, the

installation of the modification required

by this AD (at a one-time per-airplane

cost of only $180 to $210 per airplane)

will eliminate the need to rely on

numerous long term and costly

maintenance tasks.

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 with the change

previously described. The FAA has

determined that this change will neither

increase the economic burden on any

operator nor increase the scope of the

AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 100 Model

MD–11 airplanes, and 426 Model DC–10

series and KC–10A (military) airplanes,

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 30 Model

MD–11 airplanes, and 239 Model DC–10

series and KC–10A (military) airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

proposed AD.

For U.S.-registered Model MD–11

airplanes: The checks that are currently

required by AD 93–25–09 R1 (and

retained by this new AD action) take

approximately 0.5 work hour per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

actions currently required on U.S.

operators of Model MD–11 airplanes is

estimated to be $900, or $30 per

airplane, per check.

The terminating modification that is

required by this AD action will take

approximately 3 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. The

cost of required parts is expected to be

negligible. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the modification

requirements of this AD on U.S.

operators of Model MD–11 airplanes is

estimated to be $3,240, or $180 per

airplane.

For U.S.-registered Model DC–10

series and KC–10A (military) airplanes:

The checks that are currently required

by AD 93–25–09 R1 (and retained by

this new AD action) take approximately

0.5 work hour per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the actions

currently required on U.S. operators of

these models of airplanes is estimated to

be $7,170, or $30 per airplane, per

check.

The terminating modification that is

required by this AD action will take an

average of 3.5 work hours per airplane

to accomplish, at an average labor rate
16666 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

of $60 per work hour. The cost of

required parts is expected to be

negligible. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the modification

requirements of this AD on U.S.

operators of these models of airplanes is

estimated to be $50,190, or $210 per

airplane.

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.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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

removing amendment 39–9070 (59 FR

56383, November 14, 1994), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), amendment 39–9986, to read as

follows:

97–07–12 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment

39–9986. Docket 95–NM–234–AD.

Supersedes AD 93–25–09 R1,

Amendment 39–9070.

Applicability: Model MD–11 series

airplanes as listed in McDonnell Douglas

MD–11 Alert Service Bulletin A26–16, dated

November 22, 1993; and Model DC–10 series

airplanes and KC–10A (military) airplanes as

listed in McDonnell Douglas DC–10/KC–10A

Alert Service Bulletin A26–46, dated

December 6, 1993; 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 (f) 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 the wrong engine-driven

generator from being shut down

unnecessarily in the event of an engine fire

warning, accomplish the following:

(a) As of January 7, 1994 (the effective date

of AD 93–25–09, amendment 39–8775), prior

to further flight following any maintenance

performed on the fire extinguishing handle

system, perform a functional test to verify

proper installation of the electrical

connectors to the engine generator and fire

bell shutoff switches in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell

Douglas MD–11 Alert Service Bulletin A26–

16, dated November 22, 1993 (for Model MD–

11 series airplanes); or McDonnell Douglas

DC–10/KC–10A Alert Service Bulletin A26–

46, dated December 6, 1993 [for Model DC–

10 series airplanes, and KC–10A (military)

airplanes]; as applicable.

(b) If the electrical connectors are found to

be properly installed, repeat the functional

test thereafter prior to further flight following

any maintenance performed on the fire

extinguishing handle system, until the

requirements of paragraph (d) of this AD are

accomplished.

(c) If the electrical connectors are found to

be improperly installed, prior to further

flight, correct the wiring installation and

repeat the functional test, in accordance with

the Accomplishment Instructions of

McDonnell Douglas MD–11 Alert Service

Bulletin A26–16, dated November 22, 1993

(for Model MD–11 series airplanes); or

McDonnell Douglas DC–10/KC–10A Alert

Service Bulletin A26–46, dated December 6,

1993 [for Model DC–10 series airplanes, and

KC–10A (military) airplanes]; as applicable.

Thereafter, repeat the functional test prior to

further flight following any maintenance

performed on the fire extinguishing handle

system, until the requirements of paragraph

(d) of this AD are accomplished.

(d) Except as provided by paragraph (e) of

this AD: Within 24 months after the effective

date of this AD, install tethers on the engine

generator and fire bell shutoff system and

firex bottle electrical connectors, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD11–26–018, dated August 24,

1995 (for Model MD–11 series airplanes); or

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10–

26–047, Revision 1, dated August 22, 1996

[for Model DC–10 series airplanes and KC–

10A (military) airplanes]; as applicable.

Accomplishment of this installation

constitutes terminating action for the

functional tests required by this AD.

(e) For those airplanes on which a

functional test has been accomplished in

accordance with either AD 93–25–09 R1,

amendment 39–9070; or paragraph (a), (b), or

(c) of this AD: The functional test specified

in the ‘‘Test’’ procedures in paragraph 3.B. of

the Accomplishment Instructions of

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD11–

26–018, dated August 24, 1995 (for Model

MD–11 series airplanes); or McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC10–26–047,

Revision 1, dated August 22, 1996 [for Model

DC–10 series airplanes and KC–10A

(military) airplanes] need not be performed.

(f) 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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

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, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(g) 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.

(h) The functional tests shall be done in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas MD–11

Alert Service Bulletin A26–16, dated

November 22, 1993 (for Model MD–11 series

airplanes); or McDonnell Douglas DC–10/

KC–10A Alert Service Bulletin A26–46,

dated December 6, 1993 [for Model DC–10

series airplanes, and KC–10A (military)

airplanes]; as applicable. This incorporation

by reference was approved previously by the

Director of the Federal Register, in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51, as of November 29, 1994 (59 FR

56383, November 14, 1994). The installation

shall be done in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD11–26–018,

dated August 24, 1995 (for Model MD–11

series airplanes); or McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC10–26–047, Revision 1,

dated August 22, 1996 [for Model DC–10

series airplanes and KC–10A (military)

airplanes]; as applicable. This incorporation
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16667

by reference was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may

be obtained from McDonnell Douglas

Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,

Long Beach, California 90846, Attention:

Technical Publications Business

Administration, Department C1-L51 (2–60).

Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California;

or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(i) This amendment becomes effective on

May 13, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March

27, 1997.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–8424 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–CE–19–AD; Amendment 39–

9990; AD 97–08–02]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SchemppHirth K.G. Models Standard-Cirrus,

Nimbus-2, Nimbus-2B, Mini-Nimbus

HS–7, Mini-Nimbus B, Discus a, and

Discus b Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to certain Schempp-Hirth K.G.

(Schempp-Hirth) Models StandardCirrus, Nimbus-2, Nimbus-2B, MiniNimbus HS–7, Mini-Nimbus B, Discus

a, and Discus b sailplanes. This AD

requires accomplishing a load test of the

elevator control system, and replacing

the elevator vertical actuating tube

either immediately or at a certain time

period depending on the results of the

load test. This AD results from reported

incidents of corrosion found in the

elevator because of water entering the

elevator control rod. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent corrosion in the elevator caused

by water entering the elevator control

rod, which could result in elevator

failure and subsequent loss of control of

the sailplane.

DATES: Effective May 30, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 30,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH,

Krebenstrasse 25, Postfach 1443, D–

73230 Kircheim/Teck, Germany. This

information may also be examined at

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket 96–CE–19–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

J. Mike Kiesov, Project Officer, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, 1201

Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone (816) 426–6932;

facsimile (816) 426–2169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of This

AD

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to certain Schempp-Hirth Models

Standard-Cirrus, Nimbus-2, Nimbus-2B,

Mini-Nimbus HS–7, Mini-Nimbus B,

Discus a, and Discus b sailplanes was

published in the Federal Register as a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

on November 5, 1996 (61 FR 56921).

The NPRM proposed to require

accomplishing a load test of the elevator

control system, and replacing the

elevator vertical actuating tube either

immediately or at a certain time period

depending on the results of the load

test. Accomplishment of the proposed

actions as specified in the NPRM would

be in accordance with Schempp-Hirth

Technical Note No. 278–33, 286–28,

295-22, 328–10, 349–16, 360–9, 373–5,

dated November 19, 1992, and the

Appendix to this technical note.

The NPRM resulted from reported

incidents of corrosion found in the

elevator because of water entering the

elevator control rod.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposed AD or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA’s Determination

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the AD as proposed except for minor

editorial corrections. The FAA has

determined that these minor corrections

will not change the meaning of the AD

and will not add any additional burden

upon the public than was already

proposed.

Compliance Time of the AD

The compliance time of the

replacement required by this AD is

presented in calendar time instead of

hours time-in-service. The FAA has

determined that a calendar time for

compliance would be the most desirable

method because the unsafe condition of

the elevator control system is caused by

corrosion. Corrosion can occur in the

areas of the elevator control system of

the affected sailplanes, regardless of

whether the sailplane is in service.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 167 sailplanes

in the U.S. registry will be affected by

this AD, that it will take approximately

3 workhours per sailplane to

accomplish the required action, and that

the average labor rate is approximately

$60 an hour. Parts cost approximately

$40 per sailplane. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. sailplane

operators is estimated to be $36,740.

This figure is based on the presumption

that no owner/operator of the affected

sailplanes has accomplished the

required replacement.

Schempp-Hirth has informed the FAA

that parts have been distributed to equip

approximately 53 sailplanes. Presuming

that each set of parts is incorporated on

an affected sailplane, the cost impact

upon U.S. sailplane owners/operators is

reduced by $11,660 from $36,740 to

$25,080.

In addition, the above figure is based

only on the replacement costs; it does

not take into account the cost of the load

test. An owner/operator of an affected

sailplane is allowed to accomplish this

load test so the only cost involved is the

time it takes the owner/operator to

accomplish this test.

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.