Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20889

encountering windshear conditions will be

delayed.

(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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Operations

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(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) This amendment becomes effective on

May 15, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10319 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–127–AD; Amendment

39–9207; AD 95–09–04]

Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland

Model DHC–8–100 and –300 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain de Havilland

Model DHC–8–100 and –300 series

airplanes, that requires an inspection to

verify the integrity of the shield grounds

for the cable harness of the electronic

engine control (EEC), and correction of

any discrepancy. This amendment also

requires measurement of the electrical

resistance of certain shield grounds, and

repair, if necessary. This amendment is

prompted by a report of an engine

flameout after a lightning strike, due to

several shields for the cable harness of

the EEC not being properly grounded to

the airframe. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent engine

flameout due to insufficient protection

of the EEC.

DATES: Effective May 30, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 30,

1995.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Bombardier Inc., Bombardier

Regional Aircraft Division, Garratt

Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario, Canada

M3K 1Y5. 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, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street,

Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York;

or at the Office of the Federal Register,

800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Fiesel, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANE–174, FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, 10

Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream,

New York 11581; telephone (516) 256–

7504; fax (516) 568–2716.

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 de

Havilland Model DHC–8–100 and –300

series airplanes, was published in the

Federal Register on September 21, 1994

(59 FR 48408). That action proposed to

require a visual inspection to verify the

integrity of the shield grounds for the

cable harness of the EEC, and correction

of any discrepancy. That action also

proposed to require measurement of the

electrical resistance of certain shield

grounds, 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.

One commenter requests that the

proposed 45-day compliance time in

paragraph (b) of the proposed AD be

extended to permit operators to

schedule the proposed actions

according to the size of their individual

fleets and, specifically, to allow up to

165 days for a fleet-wide inspection.

The commenter bases this request on

the following factors:

1. The commenter states that, to

accomplish the proposed measurement

requirement, the use of a low resistance

ohm meter (micro-ohm) is necessary.

The commenter has only one low

resistance ohm meter to perform the

measurement of all the airplanes in its

fleet. With only one micro-ohm meter

available, the commenter could inspect

only a limited number of its fleet of

airplanes during its regularly scheduled

maintenance visits, and would not be

able to accomplish the proposed

inspections within the proposed 45-day

compliance time. Further, the

commenter does not believe it should

have to purchase or otherwise obtain

additional units to satisfy the

requirements of the proposed AD.

2. The commenter states that the

actions specified in the service bulletin

could not be accomplished in less than

25 hours and, that based on the amount

of time available for a scheduled

maintenance visit, up to 4 visits may be

required to complete the inspection.

The commenter is concerned about

these additional expenses that would be

associated with this action.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to extend the

compliance time. In developing an

appropriate compliance time for this

action, the FAA considered not only the

degree of urgency associated with

addressing the subject unsafe condition,

but the normal maintenance schedules

for timely accomplishment of the

actions required by the final rule for all

affected airplanes to continue to operate

without compromising safety. In

consideration of these items, the FAA

has determined that the 45-day

compliance time represents an average

maintenance interval for the affected

fleet, during which time the required

inspections, measurement, repair, and

restoration can reasonably be

accomplished and an acceptable level of

safety can be maintained. However,

under the provisions of paragraph (e) of

the final rule, the FAA may approve

requests for adjustments to the

compliance time if data are submitted to

substantiate that such an adjustment

would provide an acceptable level of

safety.

As for the commenter’s concern

regarding the expenses associated with

accomplishing the requirements of this

AD, the FAA recognizes that the

obligation to maintain aircraft in an

airworthy condition is vital, but

sometimes expensive. Because AD’s

require specific actions (such as testing

with special equipment) to address

specific unsafe conditions as required in

this rule, they appear to impose costs

that would not otherwise be borne by

operators. Attributing those costs solely

to the issuance of this AD is unrealistic

because, in the interest of maintaining

safe aircraft, prudent operators would

accomplish the required actions in a

timely manner even if they were not

required to do so by the AD.

One commenter requests that a certain

procedure for repairing frayed or broken

harnesses be referenced in the proposed

rule as an acceptable means of repair.

The commenter states that
20890 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

accomplishment of this repair

procedure may be necessary in the

course of performing the required

inspections. The commenter notes that

this repair procedure is not included in

any service bulletin or manual.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA

does not consider it appropriate to

include various provisions in an AD

applicable to a single operator.

Paragraph (e) of this AD provides for the

approval of alternative methods of

compliance to address these types of

unique circumstances.

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 notice to clarify

this long-standing requirement.

The FAA has recently reviewed the

figures it has used over the past several

years in calculating the economic

impact of AD activity. In order to

account for various inflationary costs in

the airline industry, the FAA has

determined that it is necessary to

increase the labor rate used in these

calculations from $55 per work hour to

$60 per work hour. The economic

impact information, below, has been

revised to reflect this increase in the

specified hourly labor rate.

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.

The FAA estimates that 141 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 16

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $135,360, or $960 per

airplane.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is 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.

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. 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:

95–09–04 De Havilland, Inc.: Amendment

39–9207. Docket 94–NM–127–AD.

Applicability: Model DHC–8–102, –103,

and –106 series airplanes, serial numbers 3

through 369 inclusive; and Model DHC–8–

301, –311, and –314 series airplanes, serial

numbers 100 through 370 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 (e) 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 engine flameout following a

lightning strike, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 45 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform a visual inspection of the

mounting clamps and ‘‘breakout junctions’’

in the metal overbraid to verify the integrity

of the shield grounds for the cable harness of

the electronic engine control (EEC), in

accordance with de Havilland Service

Bulletin S.B. 8–73–18 (for Model DHC–8–100

series airplanes), or S.B. 8–73–19 (for Model

DHC–8–300 series airplanes), both dated

April 29, 1994, as applicable. If any

discrepancy is found, prior to further flight,

correct the discrepancy in accordance with

the applicable service bulletin.

(b) Within 45 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform an electrical resistance

measurement of Class A and Class B shield

grounds in accordance with de Havilland

Service Bulletin S.B. 8–73–18 (for Model

DHC–8–100 series airplanes), or S.B. 8–73–19

(for Model DHC–8–300 series airplanes), both

dated April 29, 1994, as applicable.

(1) For Class A shield grounds: If the

electrical resistance exceeds the value

specified in the service bulletin, within 50

flight hours after performing the resistance

measurement, repair in accordance with the

applicable service bulletin.

(2) For Class B shield grounds: If the

electrical resistance exceeds the value

specified in the service bulletin, within 180

days after performing the resistance

measurement, repair in accordance with the

applicable service bulletin.

(c) For Model DHC–8–102, –103, and –106

series airplanes on which an interim shield

ground is installed in accordance with

paragraphs 19 and 93 of the Accomplishment

Instructions of de Havilland Service Bulletin

S.B. 8–73–18, dated April 29, 1994: Within

one year after the effective date of this AD,

restore the airplane to the Post-Modification

8/0772 configuration in accordance with

paragraph 161 of the Accomplishment

Instructions of that service bulletin.

(d) For Model DHC–8–301, –311, and –314

series airplanes on which an interim shield

ground is installed in accordance with

paragraphs 19 and 112 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of de

Havilland Service Bulletin S.B. 8–73–19,

dated April 29, 1994: Within one year after

the effective date of this AD, restore the

airplane to the Post-Modification 8/0772

configuration in accordance with paragraph
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20891

1See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35323

(February 2, 1995), 60 FR 7718 (‘‘Proposing

Release’’).

2 15 U.S.C. 78l.

3 15 U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(1)(D).

4See letters from James F. Duffy, American Stock

Exchange, Inc., dated March 21, 1995 (‘‘Amex

letter’’), George W. Mann, Boston Stock Exchange,

Inc., dated March 6, 1995 (‘‘BSE letter’’), Lisa W.

Barry, CS First Boston, dated March 14, 1995 (‘‘CS

First Boston letter’’), J. Craig Long, Foley & Lardner,

dated March 20, 1995 (‘‘Chx letter’’), Richard T.

Chase, Lehman Brothers, dated March 10, 1995

(‘‘Lehman letter’’), James E. Buck, New York Stock

Exchange, Inc., dated March 15, 1995 (‘‘NYSE

letter’’), Leopold Korins, Pacific Stock Exchange,

Inc., dated March 14, 1995 (‘‘PSE letter’’), John C.

Katovich, Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc., dated March

29, 1995 (‘‘PSE response’’), and William Uchimoto,

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., dated March 29,

1995 (‘‘Phlx response’’), to Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary, SEC.

5See BSE letter, Chx letter, CS First Boston letter,

Lehman letter, NYSE letter, PSE letter, Phlx

response, and PSE response, id.

6See letter and report from William Uchimoto,

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., dated February

6, 1995 (‘‘Phlx Study’’). The Phlx Study was

submitted to the Commission on behalf of the

Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Stock

Exchange, Inc., the Philadelphia Stock Exchange,

Inc., and the Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc.

200 of the Accomplishment Instructions of

that service bulletin.

(e) 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, New York

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE–170,

FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, New York ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

(f) 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.

(g) The inspections, measurement, repair,

and restoration shall be done in accordance

with de Havilland Service Bulletin S.B. 8–

73–18 (for Model DHC–8–100 series

airplanes), or de Havilland S.B. 8–73–19 (for

Model DHC–8–300 series airplanes), both

dated April 29, 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 Bombardier Inc., Bombardier

Regional Aircraft Division, Garratt Boulevard,

Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5.

Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth

Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York;

or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

May 30, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 20,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10203 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 240 and 249

[Release No. 34–35637; File No. S7–4–95]

RIN 3235–AG28

Unlisted Trading Privileges

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is adopting

new rules and amendments to existing

rules concerning unlisted trading

privileges (‘‘UTP’’). The rules would

reduce the period that exchanges have

to wait before extending UTP to any

listed initial public offering, from the

third trading day in the security to the

second trading day in the security. The

rules also would require exchanges to

have rules and oversight mechanisms in

place to ensure fair and orderly markets

and the protection of investors with

respect to UTP in any security.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 21, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Betsy Prout, 202/942–0170, Attorney,

Office of Market Supervision, Division

of Market Regulation, Securities and

Exchange Commission (Mail Stop 5–1),

450 5th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

On February 2, 1995, the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) proposed for comment

rules 1 under Section 12(f) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Exchange Act’’),2 as recently amended

by the Unlisted Trading Privileges Act

of 1994 (‘‘UTP Act’’). The proposed

rules would have: (1) Required national

securities exchanges (‘‘exchanges’’), for

any security that is the subject of an

initial public offering (‘‘IPO’’) and is

listed on another exchange (‘‘listed

IPO’’), to wait until the listing exchange

reports the first trade in the security to

the Consolidated Tape before trading

the security pursuant to unlisted trading

privileges (‘‘UTP’’); (2) required each

national securities exchange to have in

effect a rule or rules providing for

transactions in the class or type of

security to which the exchange extends

UTP; and (3) amended certain existing

rules under Section 12(f) of the

Exchange Act to conform to the recent

statutory amendments effected by the

UTP Act. The Commission also

requested comments on alternatives to

the proposed rule concerning UTP in

listed IPOs from commenters who

believe that either no waiting period or

a longer waiting period would be

appropriate. In addition, the

Commission requested comment on

whether any Commission action is

necessary to carry out the congressional

objectives of linked markets as required

by Section 11A(a)(1)(D) of the Exchange

Act.3

The Commission received nine

comment letters on the proposed rules, 4

eight of which discuss the proposed rule

concerning UTP in listed IPOs.5 The

Commission also received, prior to

publication of the proposed rules in the

Federal Register, a report presenting

certain volume and price parameter

statistics of listed IPOs.6

The Commission is adopting the rules

as proposed, except for the rule that

would have required exchanges to wait,

before extending UTP to listed IPOs,

until the first trade is reported by the

listing exchange. Instead, that proposed

rule is being replaced with a

requirement that exchanges wait, before

trading a listed IPO pursuant to UTP,

until the opening of business on the day

following the initial public offering of

the security on the listing exchange.

II. Background

As stated above, the Commission is

adopting rules pursuant to the UTP Act,

which recently amended Section 12(f) of

the Exchange Act. The UTP Act became

effective on October 22, 1994. As

discussed more fully in the Proposing

Release and below, the UTP Act

amended Section 12(f) of the Exchange

Act to require the Commission to

prescribe rules concerning UTP in listed

IPOs. Rule 12f–2, as adopted, meets this

requirement. The UTP Act also

authorizes the Commission to prescribe

other rules pertaining to exchange

extensions of UTP, and specifically

authorizes the Commission to prescribe,

by rule or order, the procedures that

will apply to exchanges when they

apply to reinstate UTP in a security after

the Commission has suspended UTP in

the security on the applicant exchange.

Section 12(f) governs when an

exchange may trade a security that is