Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27005

law if the Administrator determines that

application of the requirement, or

provision, or failure to take action in the

case of an omission would adversely

affect the Government’s financial

interest. The Administrator will exercise

this authority upon request of the State

Director with the recommendation of

the Assistant Administrator for Housing.

Requests for exception must be made in

writing accompanied by the borrower’s

casefile in cases involving specific

borrowers and supported with

documentation to explain the adverse

effect, propose alternative courses of

action, and to show how the adverse

effect will be eliminated or minimized

if the exception is granted.

§ 1980.398 Unauthorized assistance and

other deficiencies.

(a) Unauthorized assistance.

Unauthorized assistance includes, but is

not limited to, issuance of a loan note

guarantee when the borrower was not

eligible for the loan or the borrower was

eligible but the loan was not made for

authorized purposes. Unauthorized

assistance in the form of interest

assistance is discussed in § 1980.390.

(b) Initial determination of

unauthorized assistance. The reasons

for unauthorized assistance being

received by the Lender may include:

(1) Submission of false or inaccurate

information by the Lender;

(2) Submission of false or inaccurate

information by the borrower;

(3) Error by RHCDS personnel; or

(4) Error by the Lender.

(c) [Reserved]

(d) [Reserved]

(e) Categories of unauthorized

assistance.

(1) Minor deficiency. A minor

deficiency is one that does not change

the eligibility of the borrower, the

eligibility of the property, or amount of

the loan. Such incidents will be brought

to the Lender’s attention in writing.

Examples of minor deficiencies include

improperly completed builder

certifications, use of an outdated credit

report, or use of an outdated income

verification. Minor deficiencies also

include those significant deficiencies

when the Lender is willing and able to

correct the problem such as obtaining

flood insurance for a dwelling located in

a flood hazard area and assuring the

escrow amount is sufficient.

(2) Significant deficiency. A

significant deficiency is one that creates

a significant risk of loss to the

Government, or involves acceptance of

a borrower or property not permitted by

Agency regulations. Such cases may

result in probation or withdrawal of the

Lender’s approval for program

participation. Examples of significant

deficiencies include gross

miscalculation of income, acceptance of

property that is severely deficient of the

required standards, missing builder

certifications, and construction changes

that materially affect value without

proper change orders.

(3) Fraud or misrepresentation. A

deficiency that involves an action by the

Lender to misrepresent either the

financial capacity of the borrower or the

condition of the property being financed

may, in addition to any criminal and

civil penalties, result in a withdrawal of

RHCDS approval, or debarment.

Examples of this type of deficiency

include falsified Verifications of

Employment, false certifications,

reporting a delinquent loan as being

current, and omitting conditions

relating to the health and safety of a

property.

(f) Borrower noncompliance. When

the borrower receives unauthorized

assistance due to an error or oversight,

the Lender may continue with the

guaranteed loan. More serious violations

will be viewed on a case-by-case basis

by the National office.

(g) RHCDS error oversight. When the

borrower receives unauthorized

assistance solely due to an error or

oversight by RHCDS, the Lender may

continue with the guaranteed loan.

§ 1980.399 Appeals.

The borrower and the Lender

respectively can appeal an RHCDS

administrative decision that directly

and adversely impacts them. Decisions

made by the Lender are not covered by

this paragraph even if RHCDS

concurrence is required before the

Lender can proceed. Appeals will be

conducted in accordance with the rules

of the National Appeals Division,

USDA.

(a) Appealable decisions. (1) The

borrower and the Lender must jointly

execute the written request for an

alleged adverse decision made by

RHCDS. The Lender need not be an

active participant in the appeal process.

(2) The Lender only may appeal cases

where RHCDS has denied or reduced

the amount of a loss payment to the

Lender.

(b) Nonappealable decisions. (1) The

Lender’s decision as to whether to make

a loan is not subject to appeal.

(2) The Lender’s decision to deny

servicing relief is not subject to appeal.

(3) The Lender’s decision to accelerate

the account is not subject to appeal.

§ 1980.400 [Reserved]

Dated: March 22, 1995.

Michael V. Dunn,

Acting Under Secretary for Rural Economic

and Community Development.

[FR Doc. 95–11943 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–07–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–193–AD; Amendment

39–9231; AD 95–10–14]

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300, A310, and A300–600 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Airbus Model A300,

A310, and A300–600 series airplanes,

that requires repetitive mechanical and

electrical inspections to detect chafing

of electrical wiring; and repair or

replacement of discrepant parts, and

repositioning the looms. This

amendment is prompted by reports of

wire chafing in the forward avionic

compartment. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent such

chafing, which may lead to a short in

the electrical circuits at the 104VU

panel; this condition could result in

unwanted depressurization, loss of wing

de-icing, and loss of in-flight engine

restart capability.

DATES: Effective June 21, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 21,

1995.

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:

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.
27006 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 all Airbus Model

A300, A310, and A300–600 series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on January 4, 1995 (60 FR 384).

That action proposed to require

repetitive mechanical and electrical

inspections to detect discrepancies; and

repair or replacement of discrepant

parts, and repositioning the looms.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Two commenters support the

proposed rule.

One commenter requests that the

proposal be revised to include removal

of the avionics bay ladder as an optional

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections. The commenter states that

removing the avionics bay ladder will

prevent future chafing. The commenter

states that it has removed the avionics

bay ladder in accordance with the

Airplane Maintenance Manual and will

request an alternative method of

compliance. The FAA does not concur

with the commenter’s request to revise

the final rule. The FAA does not

consider it appropriate to include

various provisions in an AD applicable

to a single operator’s unique

configuration of an affected airplane.

Paragraph (b) of this AD provides for the

approval of an alternative method of

compliance to address these types of

unique configurations.

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.

This is considered to be interim

action. The manufacturer has advised

that it currently is developing a

modification that will positively address

the unsafe condition addressed by this

AD. Once this modification is

developed, approved, and available, the

FAA may consider additional

rulemaking.

The FAA estimates that 69 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 1

work hour 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 $4,140, or $60 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

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:

95–10–14 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–9231. Docket 94–NM–193–AD.

Applicability: All Model A300, A310, and

A300–600 series airplanes, 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 unwanted depressurization,

loss of wing de-icing, and loss of in-flight

engine restart capability, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 600 flight hours or 6 months

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1) and

(a)(2) of this AD.

(1) Perform mechanical inspections to

detect discrepancies, in accordance with

paragraph 4.2.1. of Airbus All Operators

Telex AOT 24–05, Revision 1, dated June 7,

1994. Repeat the inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 1,050 flight hours. If

any discrepancy is detected, prior to further

flight, repair or replace discrepant parts, and

perform an electrical inspection in

accordance with the AOT.

(2) Perform an electrical inspection to

detect discrepancies, in accordance with

paragraph 4.2.2. of Airbus All Operators

Telex AOT 24–05, Revision 1, dated June 7,

1994. Repeat the inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 18 months. If any

discrepancy is detected, prior to further

flight, repair or replace discrepant parts, and

reposition the looms, in accordance with the

AOT.

(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 inspections, repair, and

replacement shall be done in accordance

with Airbus All Operators Telex AOT 24–05,

Revision 1, dated June 7, 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 Airbus
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27007

Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. 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

June 21, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–11907 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–146–AD; Amendment

39–9229; AD 95–10–12]

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320–111, –211, and –212 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A320–111, –211, and –212 series

airplanes, that requires modification of

the junction box and connector

backshells of a certain electrical harness

assembly. This amendment is prompted

by a report indicating that traces of

fungus and corrosion have been found

on the electrical harness junction box of

the thrust reverser. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent such corrosion, which could

result in multiple faults in the thrust

reverser position indication, and

subsequent uncontrolled reduction of

engine power.

DATES: Effective June 21, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 21,

1995.

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:

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: 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 A320–111, –211, and –212 series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on December 27, 1994 (59 FR

66493). That action proposed to require

modification of the junction box and

connector backshells of the electrical

harness assembly of the thrust reverser.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the two

comments received.

Both commenters support the

proposed rule.

Since issuance of the notice, Airbus

has issued Service Bulletin A320–71–

1011, Revision 1, dated June 27, 1994.

This service bulletin is essentially

identical to the original issue, but

contains certain editoral changes. The

FAA has revised the final rule to

include reference to this revision of the

service bulletin as an alternative source

of service information.

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.

The FAA estimates that 50 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 24

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will be supplied by

ROHR, Inc. (the manufacturer of the

junction box, connector backshells, and

the electrical harness assembly) at no

cost to the operators. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$72,000, or $1,440 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:

95–10–12 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–9229. Docket 94–NM–146–AD.

Applicability: Model A320–111, –211, and

–212 series airplanes powered by CFM 56–

5A engines equipped with an electrical

harness assembly having part number (P/N)

238W0908–513; on which Airbus

Modification 23693 (reference Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–71–1011) has not been

installed; 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