27058 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12441 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 93–ANE–57]

Airworthiness Directives; International

Aero Engines AG Model V2500–A1

Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

that proposed a new airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to

International Aero Engines AG Model

V2500–A1 engines. That action would

have required the installation of

damping wires and anti-fret coating on

high pressure compressor disks and

blades. Since the issuance of the NPRM,

the FAA has determined that the

probability of an unsafe condition is

extremely remote, and that all affected

engines in service have been modified

as proposed. Accordingly, the proposed

rule is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marc Bouthillier, Aerospace Engineer,

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine

and Propeller Directorate, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299; telephone (617) 238–7135,

fax (617) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

add a new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to International Aero Engines

AG (IAE) Model V2500–A1 engines, was

published in the Federal Register on

December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63307). The

proposed rule would have required the

installation of damping wires and an

anti-fret coating to high pressure

compressor (HPC) disks and blades.

That action was prompted by seven

occurrences of HPC stage 7 and 8 blade

failures. The proposed actions were

intended to prevent HPC blade failures,

which could result in engine inflight

shutdowns.

Since the issuance of that notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the FAA

has conducted additional airworthiness

assessment of the described problem,

and has determined that the probability

of a hazardous or unsafe condition is

extremely remote. This assessment was

conducted in accordance with the

guidelines of a continued airworthiness

assessment methodology process

currently in use.

In addition, the FAA has determined

that all affected engines have been

modified as proposed. Accordingly, the

proposed rule is hereby withdrawn.

Withdrawal of this notice of proposed

rulemaking constitutes only such action,

and does not preclude the agency from

issuing another notice in the future, nor

does it commit the agency to any course

of action in the future.

Since this action only withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking, it is

neither a proposed nor a final rule and

therefore, is not covered under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, the notice of proposed

rulemaking, Docket 93–ANE–57,

published in the Federal Register on

December 1, 1993, (58 FR 63307), is

withdrawn.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

May 15, 1995.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12439 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Secretary

24 CFR Parts 10 and 966

[Docket No. R–95–1772; FR–3819–P–01]

RIN 2501–AB92

Public Housing Lease and Grievance

Procedures

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: HUD is proposing to amend

its regulations governing eviction from

public and Indian housing. If HUD

determines that local law requires a preeviction due process hearing in court

(known as a ‘‘due process

determination’’), a tenant is not entitled

to a hearing by the housing authority

before eviction for drug-related or other

criminal activity. This proposed rule

would clarify that HUD is not required

to use notice and comment rulemaking

procedures for issuance of a due process

determination.

DATES: Comments due date: July 21,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments regarding

this proposed rule to the Office of

General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk,

Room 10276, Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410–

0500. Communications should refer to

the above docket number and title and

to the specific sections in the regulation.

Facsimile (FAX) comments are not

acceptable. A copy of each

communication submitted will be

available for public inspection and

copying during regular business hours

at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sherone Ivey, Acting Director,

Occupancy Division, Room 4206,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20410; Telephone

numbers (202) 708–0744; (202) 708–

0850 (TDD). (These are not toll-free

numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Issuance of Due Process

Determination

This proposed rule would clarify that

HUD is not required to use HUD’s notice

and comment rulemaking procedures

when HUD determines that the law of

a jurisdiction requires a due process

court hearing before eviction of a public

housing tenant.

Under 42 U.S.C. 1437d(k), a housing

authority is generally required to

provide a tenant with the opportunity

for an administrative hearing before the

commencement of eviction proceedings

in the local landlord-tenant courts.

However, the statute and the

implementing HUD regulations at 24

CFR part 966 permit the housing

authority to bypass the administrative

hearing for evictions involving a tenant

engaged in certain criminal activity.

Specifically, 24 CFR 966.51 requires

that the eviction involve ‘‘any drugrelated criminal activity’’ or ‘‘[a]ny

criminal activity that threatens the

health, safety or right to peaceful

enjoyment of the premises’’ of the

public housing residents and

employees. Furthermore, HUD must

first determine that the law of the

jurisdiction requires a pre-eviction court

hearing that provides the basic elements

of due process as further defined by 24

CFR 966.53(c). This determination is

known as a ‘‘due process

determination.’’ (24 CFR 966.51(2)(i)).