Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3

considered the economic impact of this

rule on small entities.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit

regulatory actions to the scale of

business subject to such actions in order

that small businesses will not be unduly

or disproportionately burdened.

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are

unique in that they are brought about

through group action of essentially

small entities acting on their own

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small

orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 250

producers of Florida tomatoes under

this marketing order, and approximately

50 handlers. Small agricultural

producers have been defined by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.601) as those having annual receipts

of less than $500,000, and small

agricultural service firms are defined as

those whose annual receipts are less

than $5,000,000. The majority of Florida

tomato producers and handlers may be

classified as small entities.

The budget of expenses for the 1994–

95 fiscal period was prepared by the

Florida Tomato Committee, the agency

responsible for local administration of

the marketing order, and submitted to

the Department for approval. The

members of the Committee are

producers of Florida tomatoes. They are

familiar with the Committee’s needs and

with the costs of goods and services in

their local area and are thus in a

position to formulate an appropriate

budget. The budget was formulated and

discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all

directly affected persons have had an

opportunity to participate and provide

input.

The assessment rate recommended by

the Committee was derived by dividing

anticipated expenses by expected

shipments of Florida tomatoes. Because

that rate will be applied to actual

shipments, it must be established at a

rate that will provide sufficient income

to pay the Committee’s expenses.

The Committee met September 8,

1994, and unanimously recommended a

1994–95 budget of $2,215,000, $467,000

less than the previous year. Budget

items for 1994–95 which have increased

compared to those budgeted for 1993–94

(in parentheses) are: Office salaries,

$297,300 ($276,000); depreciation,

$18,200 ($16,200); communications,

$12,000 ($10,000); employee’s

retirement program, $46,600 ($37,300);

insurance and bonds, $7,000 ($5,000);

office rent, $24,700 ($22,600); social

security tax, $20,000 ($19,000); supplies

and printing, $7,500 ($6,500); and audit,

$2,500 ($2,300); Items which have

decreased compared to those budgeted

for 1993–94 (in parentheses) are:

Research expense, $192,100 ($200,000);

and education and promotion expense,

$1,500,000 ($2,000,000). All other items

are budgeted at last year’s amounts.

The Committee also unanimously

recommended an assessment rate of

$0.04 per 25-pound container, the same

as last year. This rate, when applied to

anticipated shipments of 55,000,000 25-

pound containers, will yield $2,200,000

in assessment income. This, along with

$15,000 in interest and other income,

will be adequate to cover budgeted

expenses.

An interim final rule was published

in the Federal Register on November 3,

1994 (59 FR 55020). That interim final

rule added § 966.232 to authorize

expenses and establish an assessment

rate for the Committee. That rule

provided that interested persons could

file comments through December 5,

1994. No comments were received.

While this action will impose some

additional costs on handlers, the costs

are in the form of uniform assessments

on handlers. Some of the additional

costs may be passed on to producers.

However, these costs will be offset by

the benefits derived by the operation of

the marketing order. Therefore, the

Administrator of the AMS has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendations

submitted by the Committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

It is further found that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this action until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register (5

U.S.C. 553) because the Committee

needs to have sufficient funds to pay its

expenses which are incurred on a

continuous basis. The 1994–95 fiscal

period began on August 1, 1994. The

marketing order requires that the rate of

assessment for the fiscal period apply to

all assessable tomatoes handled during

the fiscal period. In addition, handlers

are aware of this action which was

unanimously recommended by the

Committee at a public meeting and

published in the Federal Register as an

interim final rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 966

Marketing agreements, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is amended as

follows:

PART 966—TOMATOES GROWN IN

FLORIDA

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending 7 CFR part 966 which was

published at 59 FR 55020 on November

3, 1994, is adopted as a final rule

without change.

Dated: December 27, 1994.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 94–32288 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–227–AD; Amendment

39–9114; AD 95–01–03]

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault

Aviation Model Mystere-Falcon 50

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Dassault Aviation

Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series

airplanes. This action requires

measurement of the clearance between

the electrical bundles in the left-hand

cabinet of the electrical panel and the

counterbalancing actuator of the

passenger door, and rerouting and

clamping the wire bundles, if necessary.

This amendment is prompted by a

report of damage of the wire bundles

between the actuator of the passenger

door and the left-hand cabinet of the

electrical panel. The actions specified in

this AD are intended to prevent an

electrical fire due to damage of the

electrical wire bundles.

DATES: Effective on January 18, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of January 18,

1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

March 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

227–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.
4 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Falcon Jet

Corporation, P.O. Box 967, Little Rock,

Arkansas 72203–0967. This information

may be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 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:

Stephen Slotte, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2797; fax (206) 227–1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC), which is the airworthiness

authority for France, recently notified

the FAA that an unsafe condition may

exist on certain Dassault Aviation

Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that it has

received a report of damage of the wire

bundles between the actuator of the

passenger door and the left-hand cabinet

of the electrical panel. Investigation

revealed that the cause of this damage

may be attributed to insufficient

clearance between the left-hand cabinet

and the counterbalancing actuator of the

passenger door. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in the potential

for an electrical fire due to damage of

the electrical wire bundles.

Dassault Aviation has issued Alert

Service Bulletin F50–A243 (F50–A39–

1), Revision 1, dated November 10,

1994, which describes procedures for

measuring the clearance between the

electrical bundles in the left-hand

cabinet and the counterbalancing

actuator of the passenger door, and

rerouting and clamping the wire

bundles if the clearance is outside the

limits specified in the alert service

bulletin. The French DGAC classified

this alert service bulletin as mandatory

and issued French airworthiness

directive 94–238–015(B), dated

November 9, 1994, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in France.

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 French DGAC has kept the FAA

informed of the situation described

above. The FAA has examined the

findings of the French 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.

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, this AD is being issued to

prevent an electrical fire due to damage

of the electrical wire bundles. This AD

requires measurement of the clearance

between the electrical bundles in the

left-hand cabinet and the

counterbalancing actuator of the

passenger door, and rerouting and

clamping of the wire bundles, if

necessary. The actions are required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

alert service bulletin described

previously.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this rule to clarify this

requirement.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this 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

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this rule must

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 94–NM–227–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 5

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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

95–01–03 Dassault Aviation: Amendment

39–9114. Docket 94–NM–227–AD.

Applicability: Model Mystere-Falcon 50

series airplanes having serial numbers 2

through 232 inclusive, certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (b) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent an electrical fire due to damage

of the electrical wire bundles, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 20 days after the effective date

of this AD, measure the clearance between

the electrical bundles in the left-hand cabinet

and the counterbalancing actuator of the

passenger door, in accordance with Dassault

Aviation Alert Service Bulletin F50–A243

(F50–A39–1), Revision 1, dated November

10, 1994.

(1) If the clearances are within the limits

specified in the alert service bulletin, no

further action is required by this AD.

(2) If the clearances are outside the limits

specified in the alert service bulletin, prior to

further flight, reroute and clamp the wire

bundles in accordance with the alert service

bulletin.

(b) 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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(c) 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.

(d) The measuring, rerouting, and clamping

shall be done in accordance with Dassault

Aviation Alert Service Bulletin F50–A243

(F50–A39–1), Revision 1, dated November

10, 1994. This incorporation 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 Falcon Jet Corporation, P.O. Box 967,

Little Rock, Arkansas 72203–0967. Copies

may be inspected at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

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

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

January 18, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 22, 1994.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 94–32036 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 200

[Release No. 34–35151]

Delegation of Authority

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is

amending Rule 30–3 of the Rules of

Practice and Investigations to delegate

to the Director of the Division of Market

Regulation (‘‘Division’’) certain

functions relating to proposed bylaw

and rule changes filed by the Securities

Investor Protection Corporation

(‘‘SIPC’’). This amendment is intended

to conserve the Commission’s resources

and to relieve the Commission of the

burden of considering routine matters

relating to SIPC’s operation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael A. Macchiaroli, 202/942–0132,

Harry Melamed, 202/942–0134, or

Elizabeth K. King, 202/942–0140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Sections 3(e)(1) and 3(e)(2) of the

Securities Investor Protection Act of

1970 (‘‘SIPA’’) require SIPC to file

proposed bylaw and rule amendments

with the Commission, and require,

among other things, the Commission to

publish proposed rule amendments and

certain proposed bylaw amendments.

Because most proposed bylaw

amendments are routine and do not

merit the Commissions’s attention, and

because publication of proposed rule

changes, along with certain proposed

bylaw changes, is statutorily required,

the Commission is delegating certain of

the functions relating to the proposed

bylaw and rule change filings to the

Director of the Division.

II. Requirement Under SIPA Regarding

Bylaw and Rule Changes Proposed by

SIPC

Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA requires SIPC

to file any proposed bylaw change with

the Commission. Such a proposed

bylaw amendment becomes effective

thirty days after the date it is filed,

unless the Commission either notifies

SIPC that it disapproves the proposed

bylaw change as being contrary to the

public interest or to the purposes of

SIPA, or that it has found that the

proposed bylaw change involves matters

of significant public interest. The

Commission also has the authority to

designate an effective date earlier than

30 days after filing. In those instances in

which the Commission notifies SIPC

that the proposed bylaw amendment

involves matters of significant public

interest, the Commission may, in

accordance with the procedures set

forth in section 3(e)(2) of SIPA, publish

notice of the proposed bylaw

amendment and provide opportunity for

public comment. After public comment,

the proposed bylaw change becomes

effective only after it is approved by the

Commission, or otherwise is permitted

to become effective under section 3(e)(2)

of SIPA.

SIPC, under section 3(e)(2) of SIPA,

also must file proposed rule

amendments with the Commission. The

Commission is required to publish

notices of proposed rule amendments

and provide an opportunity for the

public to comment. The proposed rule

change may not take effect unless it is

approved by the Commission, or

otherwise is permitted to become

effective under section 3(e)(2) of SIPA.