61398 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Appearance of bias—whether the 

testimony and/or production of records 

could result in the public perception 

that Ex-Im Bank is favoring one party 

over another, or advocating the position 

of a party to the proceeding; 

(d) Furtherance of agency policy—

whether the testimony and/or 

production of records is consistent with 

the policy and mission of the Ex-Im 

Bank; 

(e) Prevention of fraud or injustice—

whether the disclosure of the 

information requested is necessary to 

prevent the perpetration of fraud or 

injustice; 

(f) Relevance to litigation—whether 

the testimony and/or production of 

records sought is relevant to the subject 

litigation; 

(g) Necessity—whether the testimony 

and/or production of records, including 

a release of such in camera, is 

appropriate or necessary as determined 

by either the procedural rules governing 

the legal proceeding, or according to the 

relevant laws concerning privilege; 

(h) Availability from another source—

whether the information sought through 

testimony or production of records is 

available from another source; 

(i) Violations of laws or regulations—

whether the testimony and/or 

production of records would violate a 

statute, regulation, executive order, or 

other official directive; 

(j) Classified information—whether 

the testimony and/or production of 

records would improperly reveal 

information classified pursuant to 

applicable statute or Executive Order; 

and 

(k) Compromise of rights and 

interests—whether the testimony and/or 

production of records would 

compromise any of the following: law 

enforcement interests, constitutional 

rights, national security interests,, 

foreign policy interests, or the 

confidentiality of commercial and/or 

financial information. 

§ 404.31 Procedure for declining to testify 

and/or produce records. 

Ex-Im Bank personnel receiving a 

demand to provide testimony and/or 

produce records regarding information 

acquired in the course of their 

performance of official duties, or due to 

their official status, and who have not 

received written authorization from the 

General Counsel to provide such 

information, shall: 

(a) Respectfully decline to answer or 

appear for examination on the grounds 

that such testimony is forbidden by this 

subpart; 

(b) Request the opportunity to consult 

with the General Counsel; 

(c) Explain that only upon 

consultation may they be granted 

approval to provide such testimony; 

(d) Explain that providing such 

testimony or records absent approval 

may subject the individual to criminal 

liability under 18 U.S.C. 641, as well as 

other applicable laws, and other 

disciplinary action; and 

(e) Request a stay of the request or 

demand pending a determination by the 

General Counsel. 

§ 404.32 Procedure in the event a decision 

concerning a demand is not made prior to 

the time a response to the demand is 

required. 

If response to a demand is required 

before a determination has been 

rendered by the General Counsel, the 

U.S. Attorney or such other attorney as 

may be designated for the purpose will 

appear with the Ex-Im Bank personnel 

upon whom the demand has been made, 

and will furnish the court or other 

authority with a copy of the regulations 

contained in this subpart and inform the 

court or other authority that the demand 

has been or is being, as the case may be, 

referred for prompt consideration of the 

General Counsel. The court or other 

authority shall be requested respectfully 

to stay the demand pending 

determination by the General Counsel. 

§ 404.33 Procedure in the event of an 

adverse ruling. 

If the court of other authority declines 

to stay the effect of the demand in 

response to a request made in 

accordance with § 404.32 pending a 

determination by the General Counsel, 

or if the court or other authority rules 

that the demand must be complied with 

irrespective of the instructions from the 

General Counsel not to produce the 

material or disclose the information 

sought, the Ex-Im Bank personnel upon 

whom the demand has been made shall 

respectfully decline to comply with the 

demand (United States ex rel. Touhy v. 

Ragen, 340 U.S. 462). 

§ 404.34 Procedure for demands for 

testimony or production of documents 

regarding confidential information. 

In addition to compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart, demands 

to provide testimony and/or produce 

records that concern information 

protected by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552a, or any other authority mandating 

confidentiality of certain classes of 

records or information, must also satisfy 

the requirements for disclosure imposed 

by such authority before records may be 

produced or testimony given. 

§ 404.35 Procedures for requests for Ex-Im 

Bank employees to provide expert or 

opinion testimony. 

No Ex-Im Bank personnel may, unless 

specifically authorized by the General 

Counsel, testify in any legal proceeding 

as an expert or opinion witness as to 

any matter related to his or her duties 

or the functions of the Ex-Im Bank, 

including the meaning of Ex-Im Bank 

documents. Any demand for expert or 

opinion testimony shall comply with 

the policies and procedures outlined in 

this subpart. 

§ 404.36 No private right of action. 

Nothing in this subpart shall be 

construed as creating any right, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable at 

law or equity by a party against Ex-Im 

Bank or the United States. 

Dated: October 18, 2005. 

Howard A. Schweitzer, 

General Counsel (Acting), Export Import Bank 

of the United States. 

[FR Doc. 05–21147 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6690—01—M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22055; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NE–31–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; General 

Electric Company Model CF6–80C2D1F 

Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

General Electric Company Model CF6–

80C2D1F turbofan engines. This 

proposed AD would require modifying 

the latching system of the fan reverser. 

This proposed AD results from 13 

reports of released thrust reverser 

hardware. We are proposing this AD to 

prevent release of the thrust reverser 

cascade on landing, which could result 

in runway debris and a possible hazard 

to other aircraft. 

DATES: We must receive any comments 

on this proposed AD by November 23, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61399 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You can get the service information 

identified in this proposed AD from 

Middle River Aircraft Systems, Mail 

Point 46, 103 Chesapeake Park Plaza, 

Baltimore, MD, 21220–4295, telephone: 

(410) 682–0094; fax: (410) 682–0100. 

You may examine the comments on 

this proposed AD in the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803–

5299; telephone (781) 238–7176; fax 

(781) 238–7199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send us any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposal. Send your 

comments to an address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–

2005–22055; Directorate Identifier 

2005–NE–31–AD’’ in the subject line of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of the proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend the 

proposed AD in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of the DOT 

docket Web site, anyone can find and 

read the comments in any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual who sent the comment (or 

signed the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the docket that 

contains the proposal, any comments 

received and, any final disposition in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility Docket Offices between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The Docket 

Office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is 

located on the plaza level of the 

Department of Transportation Nassif 

Building at the street address stated in 

ADDRESSES. Comments will be available 

in the AD docket shortly after the 

Docket Management Facility receives 

them. 

Discussion 

The FAA has received 13 reports of 

thrust reverser hardware released on 

landing. The first event occurred in 

January 1997. With the existing design 

for the forward lower latch, an operator 

can inadvertently close a fan reverser 

half with the lower latch handle in the 

closed position. When this happens, the 

barrel nut of the lower latch assembly 

can ride over the clevis, mounted on the 

engine fan case, without engaging the 

clevis. When it is in this position, the 

lower latch assembly appears engaged 

when it isn’t. Because the barrel nut 

assembly of the lower latch might be 

spring-loaded against the engine fan 

case, the fan cowl door can close 

without engaging the lower latch 

assembly. All of the incidents occurred 

on CF6–80C2D1F engines installed on 

McDonnell Douglas MD–11 airplanes. 

Investigations show the design of those 

applications contributes to the failures 

of the fan reversers. The Middle Rivers 

Aircraft Systems (MRAS) (a subsidiary 

of the General Electric Company) issued 

four service bulletins to address the 

problem. However, several operators of 

McDonnell Douglas MD–11 airplanes 

haven’t incorporated the 

recommendations of those service 

bulletins. As a result, three incidents 

occurred from March 2004 through 

October 2004. This condition, if not 

corrected, could result in release of the 

thrust reverser cascade on landing, 

which could result in runway debris 

and a possible hazard to other aircraft. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed and approved the 

technical contents of the following 

MRAS service bulletins (SBs): 

• CF6–80C2 S/B 78–1068, Revision 2, 

dated May 16, 2005, and CF6–80C2 S/ 

B 78–1077, Revision 1, dated May 16, 

2005, that describe procedures for 

modifying the latching system of the fan 

reverser. 

• SB CF6–80C2 S/B 78–1078, 

Revision 1, dated May 16, 2005, that 

describe procedures for replacing the 

existing L-shaped brackets or the upper 

and lower ends of the upper latch 

operating cable. 

• SB CF6–80C2 S/B 78–1088, 

Revision 5, dated May 16, 2005, that 

describe procedures for installing the 

new improved fan reverser upper latch. 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Manufacturer’s Service 

Information 

Middle River Aircraft Systems SB’s 

CF6–80C2 S/B 78–1068, Revision 2, 

dated May 16, 2005; CF6–80C2 S/B 78–

1077, Revision 1, dated May 16, 2005; 

and CF6–80C2 S/B 78–1078, Revision 1, 

dated May 16, 2005; apply to CF6–80C2 

series engines. This proposed AD 

applies to the CF6–80C2D1F engine 

installed on the McDonnell Douglas 

MD–11 airplanes only. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of this same 

type design. We are proposing this AD, 

which would require: 

• Modifying the latching system of 

the fan reverser at the next normally 

scheduled maintenance period, or 

within 1,200 flight hours time-in-service 

(TIS) after the effective date of the 

proposed AD, whichever occurs first; 

and 

• Replacing the existing L-shaped 

support brackets of the upper and lower 

ends of the upper latch operating cable 

at the next normally scheduled 

maintenance period, or within 6,000 

flight hours TIS after the effective date 

of the proposed AD, whichever occurs 

first; and 

• Installing the new improved fan 

reverser upper latch at the next 

normally scheduled maintenance 

period, or within 6,000 flight hours TIS 

after the effective date of the proposed 

AD, whichever occurs first. 

The proposed AD would require you 

to use the service information described 

previously to perform these actions. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 339 General Electric 

Company CF6–80C2D1F2 turbofan 

engines of the affected design in the 

worldwide fleet. We estimate that this 

proposed AD would affect 138 engines 

installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

61400 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

approximately 19 work hours per engine 

to perform the proposed actions, and 

that the average labor rate is $65 per 

work hour. Required parts would cost 

approximately $6,644 per engine. Based 

on these figures, we estimate the total 

cost of the proposed AD to U.S. 

operators to be $1,087,302. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in subtitle VII, 

part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Would not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES

section for a location to examine the 

regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Under the authority delegated to me 

by the Administrator, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 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. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

General Electric Corporation: Docket No. 

FAA–2005–22055; Directorate Identifier 

2005–NE–31–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) action by 

November 23, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to General Electric 

Company Model CF6–80C2D1F turbofan 

engines. These engines are installed on, but 

not limited to, McDonnell Douglas 

Corporation MD–11 airplanes. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from 13 reports of 

released thrust reverser hardware. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent release of the 

thrust reverser cascade on landing, which 

could result in runway debris and a possible 

hazard to other aircraft. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Modifying the Latching System of the Fan 

Reverser 

(f) At the next normally scheduled 

maintenance period or within 1,200 flight 

hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs first, 

modify the latching system of the fan 

reverser. Use the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Middle River Aircraft Systems 

(MRAS) service bulletins (SBs) CF6–80C2 S/ 

B 78–1068, Revision 2, or CF6–80C2 S/B 78–

1077, Revision 1, both dated May 16, 2005 

to modify the latch assembly. 

Replacing the L-Shaped Support Brackets 

(g) At the next normally scheduled 

maintenance period or within 6,000 flight 

hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs first, replace the existing Lshaped support brackets of the upper and 

lower ends of the upper latch operating cable 

with improved T-shaped support brackets. 

Use the Accomplishment Instructions of 

MRAS SB CF6–80C2 S/B 78–1078, Revision 

1, dated May 16, 2005 to replace the support 

brackets. 

Installing the Improved Upper Latch of the 

Fan Reverser 

(h) At the next normally scheduled 

maintenance period or within 6,000 flight 

hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs first, install the improved 

upper latch of the fan reverser. Use the 

Accomplishment Instructions of MRAS SB 

CF6–80C2 S/B 78–1088, Revision 5, dated 

May 16, 2005 to install the upper latch. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(i) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, has the authority to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(j) None. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

October 13, 2005. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–21174 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of Labor-Management 

Standards 

29 CFR Part 404 

RIN 1215–AB49 

Labor Organization Officer and 

Employee Reports 

AGENCY: Office of Labor-Management 

Standards, Employment Standards 

Administration, United States 

Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document extends the 

period for comments on the proposed 

rule published on August 29, 2005. The 

proposed rule would revise the financial 

reports (Form LM–30) required to be 

filed by union officers and employees 

under the Labor-Management Reporting 

and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended 

(LMRDA). The comment period, which 

was to expire on October 28, 2005, is 

extended ninety days to January 26, 

2006. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

published on August 29, 2005 (70 FR 

51166) must be received on or before 

January 26, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1215–AB49, by any of 

the following methods: 

E-mail: OLMS-REG-1215- 

AB49@dol.gov