33214 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

§ 701.14 Change in official or senior

executive officer in credit unions that are

newly chartered or are in troubled

condition.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Has been granted assistance as

outlined under sections 208 or 216 of

the Federal Credit Union Act.

(4) * * *

(ii) Has been granted assistance as

outlined under sections 208 or 216 of

the Federal Credit Union Act.

* * * * *

PART 712—CREDIT UNION SERVICE

ORGANIZATIONS (CUSOs)

6. The authority citation for part 712

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757(5)(d) and

(7)(I), 1766, 1782, 1784, 1785, and 1786.

7. Amend § 712.2 by revising

paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 712.2 How much can an FCU invest in or

loan to CUSOs, and what parties may

participate?

* * * * *

(d) Measurement for calculating

regulatory limitation. For purposes of

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:

(1) Paid-in and unimpaired capital

and surplus means shares plus postclosing, undivided earnings (this does

not include regular reserves or special

reserves required by law, regulation or

special agreement between the credit

union and its regulator or share insurer);

and

(2) Total investments in and total

loans to CUSOs will be measured

consistent with GAAP.

* * * * *

PART 715—SUPERVISORY

COMMITTEE AUDITS AND

VERIFICATIONS

8. Revise the authority citation for

part 715 to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1761(b), 1761d,

1782(a)(6).

9. Amend § 715.2(l) by revising the

first sentence to read as follows:

§ 715.2 Definitions used in this part.

* * * * *

(l) Supervisory committee refers to a

supervisory committee as defined in

Section 111(b) of the Federal Credit

Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1761(b). * * *

* * * * *

PART 723—MEMBER BUSINESS

LOANS

10. The authority citation for part 723

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757, 1757A,

1766, 1785, 1789.

11. Amend § 723.4 by revising the

second sentence to read as follows:

§ 723.4 What are the other applicable

regulations?

* * * Except as required by part 741

of this chapter, federally insured statechartered credit unions are not required

to comply with the provisions of

§ 701.21(a) through (g).

PART 725—NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL

LIQUIDITY FACILITY

12. The authority citation for part 725

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1795–1795f.

13. Amend § 725.2 by revising

paragraph (o) to read as follows:

§ 725.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

(o) Paid-in and unimpaired capital

and surplus means shares and deposits

plus post-closing, undivided earnings.

This does not include regular reserves

or special reserves required by law,

regulation or special agreement between

the credit union and its regulator or

share insurer.

* * * * *

PART 790—DESCRIPTION OF NCUA;

REQUESTS FOR AGENCY ACTION

14. The authority citation for part 790

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1766, 1789, 1795f.

15. Amend § 790.2(b)(13) by revising

the heading to read as follows:

§ 790.2 Central and regional office

organization.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(13) Office of Credit Union

Development. * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–15444 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 90–ANE–25–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; General

Electric Company (GE) CF6–45 and

CF6–50 Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

that proposed to revise an existing

airworthiness directive (AD), applicable

to GE CF6–45 and CF6–50 series

turbofan engines. That action would

have revised an existing AD to require

the same inspections on reworked high

pressure compressor (HPC) rear shafts as

those HPC rear shafts covered by the

current amendment. That proposal was

prompted by the need to ensure that the

additional reworked HPC rear shafts

receive the same inspections as part

numbers covered by the current

amendment. Since that NPRM was

issued, the FAA has determined that the

repetitive inspections of reworked HPC

rear shafts will instead be incorporated

into the final rule, AD 2001–12–20, for

a new design HPC air duct. Accordingly,

the proposed rule is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Curtis, Aerospace Engineer,

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine

and Propeller Directorate, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803; telephone (781) 238–7192; fax

(781) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

revise an existing AD, applicable to GE

CF6–45 and CF6–50 series turbofan

engines, was published in the Federal

Register on October 12, 2000 (65 FR

60597). The proposed rule would have

revised AD 91–10–03, R1, to add HPC

rear shaft rework P/N’s to the AD. That

action was prompted by the need to

ensure that the additional HPC rear

shafts receive the same inspections as

part numbers covered by the current

amendment. The proposed actions were

intended to detect and replace cracked

HPC rear shafts, which, if not replaced,

could lead to an uncontained engine

failure.

The FAA received a comment that

notes that a new effective date of the AD

revision could be misconstrued and

result in parts continuing in service

without the required inspections, for

longer than originally intended by the

current AD.

The FAA agrees. Upon further

consideration, the FAA has determined

that the proposed addition of repetitive

inspections of reworked HPC rear shafts

will instead be incorporated into the

final rule for a new design HPC air duct.

The final rule for the new design air

duct, AD 2001–12–20, requires that

existing HPC rear shafts be reworked for

compatibility with new design air ducts,

inspected at the time of rework, and

repetitively inspected at specified

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33215

intervals. As a result, revising the

existing AD is no longer required.

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 90–ANE–25–AD,

published in the Federal Register on

October 12, 2000, (65 FR 60597), is

withdrawn.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

June 14, 2001.

Robert J. Ganley,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–15574 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. 26112; Notice No. 90–2]

RIN 2120–AD26

Sole Radio Navigation System;

Minimum Standards for Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM); withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA or ‘‘we’’) is

withdrawing a previously published

ANPRM that sought information on the

minimum standards for certification of

a sole radio navigation system in aircraft

conducting flight under instrument

flight rules (IFR) en route, and in

terminal area operations including

nonprecision approach, in controlled

airspace in the United States. The

proposal was in response to a

requirement of the Airport and Airway

Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of

1987. We are withdrawing the

document because the navigation issues

set forth in the ANPRM have been

superseded by new technology, and

Flight Standards Service of the FAA is

drafting a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) which will

encompass those issues that remain

relevant and update the terminology of

our general operating and flight rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The advance notice of

proposed rulemaking published at 55

FR 2206 is withdrawn on June 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie Fritts, ARM–28, Office of

Rulemaking, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone (202) 267–7037.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

On January 22, 1990, the FAA

published ANPRM No. 90–2 (55 FR

2206) proposing amendments to 14 CFR

part 91, in response to Section 310(c) of

the Airport and Airway Safety and

Capacity Expansion Act of 1987 (Public

Law 100–223), which required that—

Not later than September 30, 1989, the

Administrator shall establish by

regulation minimum standards under

which a radio navigation system may be

certified as the sole radio navigation

system required in an aircraft for

operation in airspace in the United

States.

The ANPRM invited public comment

to aid the FAA in implementing the

provisions of the law. The comment

period closed on May 22, 1990.

Discussion of Comments

Aviation industry groups,

manufacturers of navigation systems,

and interested individuals responded to

the notice with a total of 19 comments.

Commenters agreed on the need for

minimum standards for certification of

navigation systems. While commenters

were generally supportive of our

proposed rulemaking, many requested

additional enhancements to the

proposal.

Air Transport Association (ATA) and

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA),

as well as individuals associated with

the aviation industry, expressed

concerns that satellite-based navigation

systems, and other viable non-radio

systems, be addressed by the standards.

The aviation community’s reliance on

ground-based navigation systems was

being encroached upon by new

technologies, such as the Global

Positioning Satellite (GPS) navigation

system, providing more efficient use of

airspace and an increase in flight safety.

Geostar Corporation and Litton Aero

Products, manufacturers of navigation

systems, also shared this concern that

FAA recognize new technologies and

not artifically limit technology growth

with overly rigid standards. Years have

passed since these comments were

made and growth in navigation systems

technology has continued to even

further surpass radio navigation

systems.

Several individual commenters

expressed their desire that any system

resulting from the minimum

certification standards be affordable for

individual pilots who are without the

financial support of large organizations.

National Business Aircraft

Association and ATA requested that

FAA task the Radio Technical

Commission for Aeronautics with

developing the necessary

documentation for the minimum

standards.

Air Line Pilots Association expressed

general support for the rulemaking

proposal.

Commenters from all categories stated

that definitions of terms in the ANPRM

were not clear, some suggesting

alternative definitions or the addition of

terms like ‘‘testability,’’ ‘‘sole means

navigation system,’’ and ‘‘precision

approach.’’ Aircraft Owners & Pilots

Association (AOPA), Air Traffic Control

Association, and AIA took issue, in

particular, with the phrase ‘‘near 100%’’

in relation to reliability and availability

measurement, requesting a more

specific measurement to avoid

confusion.

AIA and AOPA stated that results of

FAA studies should be shared with

readers and requested that those results

be included in the final rule.

One individual commented that a

particular proposed passage,

§ 91.205(g)(2)(i), was not necessary

because operations ‘‘are already far too

burdened by unjustified requirements.’’

The Illinois Department of

Transportation asserted the GPS and

Loran-C systems should be allowed to

be used in ‘‘fly-direct’’ configuration,

rather than ‘‘along the route to be

flown,’’ as the wording of § 91.33 (new

§ 91.205 (g)(2)(ii) states. While this

comment and the preceding comment

had relevance when originally

submitted, they now serve as another

illustration of justification for

withdrawal—the regulatory action that

has been superseded by events.

The ANPRM which we are

withdrawing identifies the pertinent

section of the Code of Federal

Regulations most commonly as § 91.33

(new § 91.205). From today’s

perspective, § 91.33 has not existed in