7924 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Brussels Aircraft

Certification Office ACO, FAA, Europe,

Africa, and Middle East Office, c/o American

Embassy, B–1000 Brussels, Belgium. The

request should be forwarded through an

appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Brussels ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Brussels ACO.

(f) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the documents referred

to herein upon request to Jetstream Aircraft

Limited, Manager Product Support,

Prestwick Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW

Scotland; telephone (44–292) 79888; or

Jetstream Aircraft Inc., Librarian, P.O. Box

16029, Dulles International Airport,

Washington, DC 20041–6029; or may

examine these documents at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

(g) This amendment supersedes AD 90–13–

12, Amendment 39–6629.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

February 6, 1995.

Michael K. Dahl,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3361 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–70–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10 Series Airplanes

and Model KC–10A (Military) Airplanes

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 all

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10 series

airplanes and Model KC–10A (military)

airplanes. That action would have

required modification of the fuel

crossfeed dump shutoff system. Since

the issuance of the NPRM, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) has

determined that other means are in

place that adequately address the unsafe

condition. Accordingly, the proposed

rule is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray

Vakili, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion

Branch, ANM–141L, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5262; fax (310) 627–5210.

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 all McDonnell Douglas

Model DC–10 series airplanes and

Model KC–10A (military) airplanes, was

published in the Federal Register as a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

on July 27, 1994 (59 FR 38141). The

proposed rule would have required

modification of the fuel crossfeed dump

shutoff system. That action was

prompted by an FAA determination

that, in the event of a failure of the

number 2 bus tie relay and subsequent

loss of the electrical power source of the

number 2 engine, an all-engine flameout

event could occur due to fuel starvation

during or shortly after a fuel dumping

operation. The proposed actions were

intended to prevent loss of the fuel

crossfeed dump shutoff system due to a

failure of the number 2 DC bus electrical

relay and subsequent loss of the

electrical power source of the number 2

engine.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to comment on the

proposal. Due consideration has been

given to the comments received.

The majority of commenters request

that the proposed rule be withdrawn for

several reasons:

First, the commenters reference AD

92–22–06, amendment 39–8392 (57 FR

47570, October 19, 1992), applicable to

Model MD–11 and DC–10 series

airplanes and Model KC–10A (military)

airplanes, which was cited in the

preamble to the notice. That AD

requires revising the Airplane Flight

Manual (AFM) to include information to

specify that electrical malfunctions may

render the automatic fuel dump

termination feature inoperative. That

AD was prompted by an incident in

which the fuel crossfeed dump shutoff

system became inoperative, and fuel

was dumped below the minimum

allowable level. The commenters point

out that the event that prompted the

issuance of that AD occurred on a

Model MD–11 airplane, not a Model

DC–10 series airplane. Because the

design of the fuel shutoff system of the

Model DC–10 is similar to that of the

Model MD–11, the FAA concluded that

the potential unsafe condition could

exist with regard to those airplanes;

however, there was no service history

relevant to the Model DC–10.

Second, the commenters indicate that

the proposed modification of the fuel

crossfeed dump shutoff system, which

is described in McDonnell Douglas DC–

10 Service Bulletin 28–208, would do

nothing more than add a third level of

redundancy to the crossfeed low level

shutoff relay. In fact, the manufacturer,

in its comments to the proposal, calls

this modification merely ‘‘a design

enhancement’’ to the automatic shut-off

features of the fuel dump system; the

manufacturer does not consider that an

AD to mandate the modification is

justified.

Third, the commenters consider that

the Model DC–10 already has adequate

redundancy present by means of a third

crew member (the flight engineer), who

has specific required duties to monitor

fuel quantity and associated fault

indication systems during fuel dump

operations. The commenters consider

that, with this additional crew member

in the cockpit directly managing the fuel

dumping process, there is adequate

protection against dumping fuel below

the minimum level. The commenters

also point out that, even though AD 94–

07–07 [amendment 39–8865 (59 FR

15853, April 5, 1994)] mandated a

similar modification of the Model MD–

11, those airplanes are operated by a

two-man crew and, therefore, do not

have the same level of redundancy as

the Model DC–10 with its three-man

crew.

For these reasons, the commenters

contend that mandatory modification in

accordance with the requirements of the

proposed rule is not justified for Model

DC–10 series airplanes.

Upon further consideration, the FAA

concurs. The FAA has reviewed the

service history of Model DC–10 series

airplanes with regard to the fuel

crossfeed dump shutoff system and

finds that the unsafe condition

previously specified in the proposal is

addressed adequately by:

1. the current AFM revisions required

by AD 92–22–06, and

2. the flight engineer having specific

duties associated with monitoring

minimum fuel during dumping

operations.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 7925

1When the Commission recently adopted rules

concerning risk assessment for holding company

systems, 59 FR 66674 (Dec. 28, 1994), it added a

provision to Rule 1.12 requiring FCMs subject to the

risk assessment rules to provide notice of adjusted

net capital reductions in excess of 20 percent. The

proposal would extend that requirement to all

FCMs.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, the notice of proposed

rulemaking, Docket 94–NM–70–AD,

published in the Federal Register on

July 27, 1994 (59 FR 38141), is

withdrawn.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

6, 1995.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3358 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 1

Early Warning Reporting Requirements

for Futures Commission Merchants

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: On December 28, 1994, the

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (Commission) published in

the Federal Register a request for public

comment on proposed rules to amend

the early warning reporting

requirements for futures commission

merchants (FCMs) set forth in

Commission Rule 1.12. The original

comment period expired on January 27,

1995. 59 FR 66822.

The proposed rules would require an

FCM to report in accordance with

Commission Rule 1.12 whenever: There

is a reduction in adjusted net capital in

excess of 20 percent of the amount

reported in the last financial report filed

with the Commission; 1 a margin call

that exceeds the FCM’s excess adjusted

net capital remains unanswered by the

close of business on the day following

the issuance of the call; or the FCM’s

excess adjusted net capital is less than

six percent of the maintenance margin

required to support proprietary and

noncustomer positions carried by the

FCM.

The Securities Industry Association

requested a thirty-day extension of the

comment period in order that its Capital

Committee may have sufficient

opportunity to consider these proposals.

In order to ensure that all interested

parties have an adequate opportunity to

submit meaningful comments, the

Commission has determined to extend

the comment period for an additional

thirty days.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Jean A. Webb, Secretary of the

Commission, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, 2033 K Street

NW., Washington, DC 20581.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

H. Bjarnason, Jr., Chief Accountant, or

Lawrence B. Patent, Associate Chief

Counsel, Division of Trading and

Markets, Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, 2033 K Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20581; telephone (202)

254–8955.

Issued in Washington, DC on February 6,

1995, by the Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–3362 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN

COMMISSION

18 CFR Parts 803, 804 and 805

Review and Approval of Projects;

Special Regulations and Standards;

Hearings/Enforcement Actions

AGENCY: Susquehanna River Basin

Commission.

ACTION: Public hearing on rulemaking

and addition to comprehensive plan.

SUMMARY: The Susquehanna River Basin

Commission published in the Federal

Register of June 8, 1994 (59 FR 29563)

proposed rules on procedures for review

of projects which also contained special

review and approval requirements for

consumptive uses of water, groundwater withdrawals and surface water

withdrawals. Rules were also proposed

setting special standards for water

conservation and water use registration,

and establishing hearing and

enforcement procedures. A series of

eight hearings were held during the

summer of 1994 at various locations.

This document announces: That the

consumptive use portion of the

proposed rulemaking action (§ 803.42)

will be deferred pending further

consultation with the regulated

community; and that a final informal

public hearing will be held on the nonconsumptive use portion of the

proposed rules.

DATES: The public hearing will be held

on March 9, 1995, beginning at 9:00 a.m.

Written comments on the nonconsumptive use portion of the

proposed rules should be submitted by

March 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be

held at the Radisson Penn Harris Hotel

and Convention Center, room Keystone

E, 1150 Camp Hill By-Pass, Camp Hill,

PA. Comments should be addressed to

Richard A. Cairo, General Counsel/

Secretary, Susquehanna River Basin

Commission, 1721 N. Front Street,

Harrisburg, PA 17102–2391.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard A. Cairo, General Counsel/

Secretary, SRBC, 717–238–0423.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Susquehanna River Basin Commission

will hold a final public hearing on the

non-consumptive use portion of a

proposed rulemaking action in

conjunction with its regular meeting on

March 9, 1995 at the Radisson Penn

Harris Hotel and Convention Center,

Room Keystone E, 1150 Camp Hill ByPass, Camp Hill, PA., beginning at 9:00

a.m. This hearing will also cover a

proposal to incorporate the proposed

rules into the SRBC Comprehensive

Plan. The proposed rules were

published in the Federal Register on

June 8, 1994 at p. 29563. Eight public

hearings were held during the summer

of 1994 at various locations throughout

the basin.

In response to the comments received

at these hearings, a number of changes

have been made in the proposed rules,

the most notable of which is the

withdrawal of proposed § 803.42 on the

consumptive use of water. In place of

the proposed § 803.42, the Commission

will substantially retain its present

consumptive use regulation found in the

Code of Federal Regulations at 18 CFR

§ 803.61. The Commission will continue

the suspension of the consumptive use

regulation with respect to agricultural

consumptive uses while it works with

representatives of the agricultural

community to develop an appropriate

approach to the management of

agricultural related water use. Public

water suppliers will also be consulted

on the issue of consumptive use within

their distribution systems.

The scope of this final public hearing

will be limited to the non-consumptive

use portion of the proposed rulemaking

action. This portion of the regulation

contains such items as a new surface

water regulation, water use registration,

approval durations, and new procedures

for processing project applications.

Procedures for notifying the public of

pending applications and for holding

public hearings are also strengthened.

The hearing will be informal in

nature. Comments should be limited to