Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 67321

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 78 is

amended as follows:

PART 78—BRUCELLOSIS

1. The authority citation for part 78

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111–114a–1, 114g,

115, 117, 120, 121, 123–126, 134b, and 134f;

7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 78.43 [Amended]

2. Section 78.43 is amended by

adding ‘‘Georgia,’’ immediately after

‘‘Delaware,’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of

December 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–31415 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 701

Organization and Operations of

Federal Credit Unions

AGENCY: National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Approval of Information

Collection Requirements.

SUMMARY: On June 3, 1994 (60 FR

29066), the National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA) published a

final Interpretive Ruling and Policy

Statement 94–1-Chartering and Field of

Membership Policy (IRPS 94–1) and a

final amendment updating the rules and

regulations on organizations and

operations of Federal Credit Unions. At

that time, Office of Management and

Budget approval for IRPS 94–1 was

pending and the preamble to the final

rule stated that it would be published in

the Federal Register upon receipt. The

information collection requirements in

the final rule have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget. The

control number assigned for this rule is

3133–0015, approved for use through

August 31, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 29, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Becky Baker, Secretary of

the Board, National Credit Union

Administration Board, 1775 Duke

Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael McKenna, Attorney, Office of

General Counsel (703) 518–6540, at the

above address.

By the National Credit Union

Administration Board on December 22, 1995.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–31514 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–CE–28–AD; Amendment 39–

9472; AD 95–26–13]

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation) PA28 and PA32

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 76–25–06,

which currently requires replacing oil

cooler hoses on The New Piper Aircraft,

Inc. (Piper) Model PA28–140 airplanes,

and inspecting for a minimum clearance

between the oil cooler hose assemblies

and the front exhaust stacks and

adjusting if proper clearance is not

obtained. This action maintains the

clearance inspection and oil cooler hose

replacements, requires this inspection

and these replacements to be repetitive,

and extends the applicability to include

PA32 series and other PA28 series

airplanes. It also provides the option of

installing approved TSO–C53a, Type D

oil cooler hose assemblies as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement. Numerous

incidents/accidents caused by oil cooler

hose rupture or failure on the affected

airplanes prompted this action. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent these oil cooler

hoses from failing or rupturing, which

could result in engine stoppage and

subsequent loss of control of the

airplane.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Information that relates to

this AD may be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 94–

CE–28–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Juanita Craft-Lloyd, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia 30337–2748; telephone

(404) 305–7373; facsimile (404) 305–

7348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an AD that would apply to

Piper Model PA28–140 airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

March 8, 1995 (60 FR 12714). The action

proposed to supersede AD 76–25–06,

Amendment 39–2788, with a new AD

that would retain the clearance

inspection and oil cooler hose

replacement for the Piper Model PA28–

140 airplanes, and make the inspection

and replacement repetitive for these

airplanes as well as other PA28 series

and the PA32 series airplanes. It would

also provide the option of installing

approved TSO–C53a, Type D oil cooler

hose assemblies as terminating action

for the repetitive inspection

requirement.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

One commenter states that the

proposal should take into account that

the affected airplanes could have oil

cooler hose assemblies installed other

than those manufactured from Piper.

The FAA concurs and has changed the

AD to reflect that the AD applies to

airplanes with oil cooler hose

assemblies that do not meet TSO–C53a,

Type D requirements.

This same commenter points out that

paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed AD

contains the words ‘‘oil cooler

assembly’’ when it should contain the

words ‘‘oil cooler hose assembly’’. The

FAA concurs and has changed

paragraph (b)(2) of the AD to reflect the

above-referenced language.

This commenter also believes that the

cost of the oil cooler hoses is too low

and that the FAA did not take into

account that each airplane has two oil

cooler hoses installed. The commenter

states that the price of an oil cooler hose

is between $122 and $279, and the FAA

estimates $110. The FAA will change

the economic paragraph of the final rule

to incorporate the upper end of the price

range for oil cooler hoses of $279 per

hose with two oil cooler hoses per

airplane ($558 per airplane for parts).

A commenter proposes that the FAA

clarify whether the date used to

determine the eight-year replacement
67322 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

interval is the installation date, rubber

cure date, or the pressure test date. The

FAA will specify in the AD that the date

used to determine the eight-year

replacement interval is the installation

date.

One commenter believes that the FAA

should withdraw the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) because a pilot can

inspect these oil cooler hoses and,

therefore, the action does not warrant

the expense and record keeping

required by AD action. Another

commenter does not request that the AD

be withdrawn, but requests that the

FAA include the provision of allowing

the pilot to inspect the oil cooler hoses.

The FAA does not concur with either of

these comments. Sections 43.3(g) and

43.7(f) of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 43.3 and 14 CFR

43.7) contain the provision to allow a

pilot to perform preventive maintenance

and return the airplane to service. Part

43, Appendix A of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR, part 43, Appendix

A) outlines what is considered

preventive maintenance. Inspections of

oil cooler hose assemblies are not

authorized as preventive maintenance

actions as detailed in the abovereferenced portion of the regulations.

The AD is unchanged as a result of these

comments.

A commenter believes the NPRM

should be withdrawn because the 20

reported incidents over a 19-year period

with no damage reported do not justify

repetitive 100-hour time-in-service (TIS)

inspections and 8-year (or 1,000 hours

TIS) repetitive oil cooler hose assembly

replacements. The FAA does not

concur. The FAA has received 26

incident/accident occurrences relating

to oil cooler hose failure since 1985. In

addition, 24 service difficulty reports

(SDR) have been filed on this subject

since 1987. The FAA has determined

that oil cooler hoses that fail or rupture

could result in engine stoppage and

subsequent loss of control of the

airplane. The AD is unchanged as a

result of this comment.

Another commenter requests that the

FAA withdraw the NPRM because the

actions are the same as what is listed in

the Piper service manuals. The

commenter quotes the following from

the FAA Airworthiness Directive

Manual, FAA–AIR–M–8040.1:

An AD should not be issued to assure the

use of normal maintenance practices on a

product where individual cases of improper

maintenance or lack of maintenance have

contributed to an unsafe condition.

Corrective action in those instances should

be taken through normal Flight Standards

maintenance communication channels, such

as General Alerts, Maintenance Bulletins,

and Notices.

The FAA does not consider inspecting

oil cooler hoses on the affected Piper

PA28 and PA32 series airplanes a

general maintenance action. The close

proximity of the oil cooler hose

assemblies to the exhaust stack causes

the oil cooler hoses to rupture instead

of developing leaks over time. A general

maintenance action on oil cooler hoses

would be to check for leaks; however,

the service history of the affected

airplanes is indicating ruptured oil

cooler hoses. For this reason, the FAA

has determined that the close proximity

of the oil cooler hose assemblies to the

exhaust stack require special

inspections for the oil cooler hoses

through AD action to prevent these

hoses from failing or rupturing. The AD

is unchanged as a result of this

comment.

One other commenter (an owner of a

Piper Model PA28R–201T airplane)

recommends that the NPRM be

withdrawn because no corrosion was

found on this commenter’s airplane oil

cooler hoses when the tanks were

removed and the hoses replaced. In

addition, this owner operates the

airplane away from seashores in a dry

climate. For these reasons, this

commenter believes the NPRM should

be withdrawn. The FAA does not

concur. AD’s are issued based on a

known ‘‘unsafe condition that could

exist or develop on airplanes of the

same type design.’’ In this instance, the

owner operates a Piper Model PA28R–

201T airplane, which is not affected by

this AD because this particular model

does not have external oil cooler hose

assemblies. The AD is unchanged as a

result of this comment.

One commenter feels that the FAA is

inferring that Piper airplane operators

are less competent than other operators

by only writing the AD against certain

Piper PA28 and PA32 series airplanes.

The commenter states that every

reciprocating engine-powered aircraft

has oil lines and hoses and that the AD

should be written against all such

aircraft. The FAA does not concur. As

stated in the NPRM, ‘‘other airplane

models have shown a history of oil

cooler hose problems; however, most of

these have been attributed to leaking oil

cooler hoses instead of ruptured hoses

or broken hoses as are detailed in the

incident/accident reports of the affected

PA28 and PA32 series airplanes. The

close proximity of the oil cooler hose

assemblies to the exhaust stacks in some

of the affected airplanes contributes to

the hazardous nature of these oil cooler

hose failures.’’ The AD is unchanged as

a result of this comment.

A commenter states that Type D oil

cooler hoses are less flexible than other

hoses and, therefore, cannot always be

interchanged. This commenter further

explains that this less-flexible hose

could kink during oil cooler hose

installation or during flight because of

in-service vibration. This could prevent

oil passage and result in engine

stoppage. The FAA concurs that these

Type D oil cooler hoses are less flexible

and could kink. The FAA is changing

the AD to require a minimum bend

radius of 6.5 inches on oil cooler hose

assemblies incorporating 0.75-inch

outer diameter hoses.

Another commenter requests that the

FAA either delete the repetitive

replacement requirement or have the

replacement intervals coincide with

every 10th annual inspection. The FAA

does not concur. The close proximity of

the oil cooler hose assemblies to the

exhaust stacks causes the heat from the

exhaust stacks to affect the life of the

hoses. This also causes the hoses to

rupture instead of leak. With this in

mind, the FAA believes that repetitively

inspecting the oil cooler hoses every 100

hours TIS and replacing all hoses every

8 years will accomplish the intent of

eliminating the unsafe condition

addressed in this action. The AD is

unchanged as a result of this comment.

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed except for the

wording change to limit the

applicability to oil cooler hose

assemblies that do not meet TSO–C53a,

Type D requirements; the rewording of

‘‘oil cooler assembly’’ to ‘‘oil cooler hose

assembly’’ in paragraph (b)(2) of the AD;

the change in the economic paragraph to

reflect more accurate oil cooler hose

price information; the clarification that

the replacement interval is based on the

installation date; the addition of

requiring a minimum bend radius of 6.5

inches on oil cooler hose assemblies

requiring a 0.75-inch outer diameter

hose; and minor editorial corrections.

The FAA has determined that the minor

addition, changes, corrections, and

clarification will not change the

meaning of the AD and will not add any

additional burden upon the public than

was already proposed.

The replacement compliance time for

this AD is presented in both hours TIS

and calendar time with the prevalent

compliance time being that which

occurs first. Deterioration or failure of

the oil cooler hose assemblies could
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 67323

occur as a result of normal flight

operation or as a result of time.

Therefore, the FAA has determined that

this dual replacement compliance time

is needed to assure that the oil cooler

hose assemblies are replaced before they

deteriorate and rupture or fail.

The FAA estimates that 25,000

airplanes in the U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 2 workhours (1 workhour

per inspection and 1 workhour per

replacement) per airplane to accomplish

the required action, and that the average

labor rate is approximately $60 an hour.

Parts cost approximately $558 per

airplane ($279 per oil cooler hose with

two hoses per airplane). Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$16,950,000 or $678 per airplane. This

figure does not take into the account the

cost of repetitive inspections or

repetitive replacements. The FAA has

no way of determining the number of

repetitive inspections or replacements

each owner/operator would incur over

the life of the airplane.

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 copy of the final

evaluation prepared for this action is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained by contacting the

Rules Docket at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, 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 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113,

44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)

76–25–06, Amendment 39–2788, and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

95–26–13 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.:

Amendment 39–9472; Docket No. 94–

CE–28–AD; Supersedes AD 76–25–06,

Amendment 39–2788.

Applicability: The following airplane

models (all serial numbers), certificated in

any category, that are equipped with oil

cooler hose assemblies that do not meet TSOC53a, Type D requirements:

PA28–140

PA28–180

PA28R–201

PA28–235

PA32S–300

PA32R–301(SP)

PA32–301T

PA28–150

PA28S–180

PA28–151

PA28–236

PA32–301

PA32R–301(HP)

PA28–160

PA28R–180

PA28–161

PA32–260

PA32R–300

PA32RT–300T

PA28S–160

PA28R–200

PA28–181

PA32–300

PA32RT–300

PA32R–301T

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 request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD. The

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the modification, alteration, or repair

on the unsafe condition addressed by this

AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been

eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent oil cooler hoses from failing or

rupturing, which could result in engine

stoppage and subsequent loss of control of

the airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this

AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed

100 hours TIS, inspect the oil cooler hoses

to ensure that the hoses meet the criteria

presented in the paragraphs below.

(1) For airplanes that have any oil cooler

hose assembly mounted at the front or back

of the airplane, or both, the fire sleeve of the

hose should not be soaked with oil or have

a brownish or whitish color, and there

should be no evidence of deterioration as a

result of heat, brittleness, or oil seepage. Prior

to further flight, replace any hose that is

soaked with oil, has a brownish or whitish

color, or has evidence of deterioration.

(2) On airplanes that have any oil cooler

hose assembly mounted in the front of the

airplane, ensure that the following exists,

and, prior to further flight, adjust

accordingly:

(i) The hose passes underneath and behind

the electrical ground cable and in front of the

lower of the two engine mount struts when

the hose is routed to the rear of the engine;

and

(ii) The hose is tied to the engine mount

strut and a clearance of at least 2 inches

exists between the oil hose and exhaust

stack.

Note 2: Figure 1 of this AD relates to the

conditions specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)

and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD.

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U
67324 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 67325

(b) Upon the accumulation of 8 years or

1,000 hours TIS after installation of each oil

cooler assembly, whichever occurs first, and

thereafter every 8 years or 1,000 hours TIS

(whichever occurs first), accomplish one of

the following:

(1) Replace each oil cooler hose assembly

with a part number specified in the

APPLICABILITY section of this AD, and

reinspect in accordance with paragraph (a) of

this AD at intervals not to exceed 100 hours

TIS; or

(2) Replace each oil cooler hose assembly

with an approved TSO–C53a, Type D, hose

assembly ensuring that there is a minimum

of 2 inches between the oil cooler hoses and

exhaust stacks (as applicable) upon

installation. Ensure that there is a minimum

bend radius of 6.5 inches on oil cooler

assemblies incorporating 0.75-inch outer

diameter hoses.

(c) The replacement specified in paragraph

(b)(2) of this AD may be accomplished at any

time prior to the 8-year or 1,000-hour

compliance time as terminating action for the

100-hour TIS repetitive inspection

requirement of this AD.

(d) After adjusting or installing oil cooler

hoses, prior to further flight, run the engine

for 5 minutes to ensure that there are no oil

leaks and that the 2-inch clearance is

maintained (as applicable) when the engine

is warm. Prior to further flight, replace any

leaking oil cooler hoses and adjust the

clearance accordingly.

Note 3: Although not required by this AD,

the FAA recommends that an oil cooler hose

flexibility test be accomplished at each 100-

hour TIS inspection interval. Oil cooler hose

flexibility may be determined by gently

lifting the hose in several places from the

bottom of its downward arc to the oil cooler.

If the oil cooler hose moves slightly either

from side-to-side or upward with the hand at

the center of an even arc, then some

flexibility remains. If the oil cooler hose

appears hardened or inflexible, replacement

is recommended.

(e) 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.

(f) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the initial or repetitive

compliance times that provides an equivalent

level of safety may be approved by the

Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO), Campus Building, 1701 Columbia

Avenue, suite 2–160, College Park, Georgia

30337–2748. The request shall be forwarded

through an appropriate FAA Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

Note 5: Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 76–25–06

(superseded by this action) are not

considered approved as alternative methods

of compliance with this AD.

(g) Figure 1 of this AD may be obtained

from the Atlanta ACO at the address

specified in paragraph (f) of this AD. This

document or any other information that

relates to this AD may be inspected at the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant

Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri.

(h) This amendment (39–9472) supersedes

AD 76–25–06, Amendment 39–2788.

(i) This amendment (39–9472) becomes

effective on February 5, 1996.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 19, 1995.

Dwight A. Young,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–31351 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4

Rules of Practice Amendments;

Correction

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the final regulations,

which were published Friday, July 21,

1995 (60 FR 37746).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald S. Clark, Secretary, Federal

Trade Commission, Washington, DC

20580, 202–326–2514.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Federal Trade Commission

amended its Rules of Practice to adapt

them to the Federal Trade Commission

Act Amendments of 1994. This action

conformed the Commission’s Rules of

Practice to certain statutory changes and

provided guidance to the public.

Need for Correction

A correction to the final regulations

published on July 21, 1995 is needed in

order to ensure that the Code of Federal

Regulations correctly sets forth the

amended version of Section 4.7(f) of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice.

Correction of Publication

Therefore, the final rule published on

July 21, 1995 (60 FR 37746) is corrected

as follows:

On page 37748, third column, the first

sentence of paragraph (f) in section 4.7

is corrected to read as follows:

§ 4.7 Ex parte communications.

* * * * *

(f) The prohibitions of paragraph (b)

of this section do not apply to a

communication occasioned by and

concerning a nonadjudicative function

of the Commission, including such

functions as the initiation, conduct, or

disposition of a separate investigation,

the issuance of a complaint, or the

initiation of a rulemaking or other

proceeding, whether or not it involves a

party already in an adjudicative

proceeding; preparations for judicial

review of a Commission order; a

proceeding outside the scope of § 3.2,

including a matter in state or federal

court or before another governmental

agency; a nonadjudicative function of

the Commission, including but not

limited to an obligation under § 4.11 or

a communication with Congress; or the

disposition of a consent settlement

under § 3.25 concerning some or all of

the charges involved in a complaint and

executed by some or all respondents.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31489 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the General Counsel,

Requirements Governing the Lobbying

of HUD Personnel; Repeal of Section

13 of the Department of Housing and

Urban Development Act

24 CFR Part 86

[Docket No. FR–4006–N–01]

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel,

HUD.

ACTION: Notification of status of

regulations following repeal of statutory

authority.

SUMMARY: This document advises the

public that the Lobbying Disclosure Act

of 1995 repealed section 13 of the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development Act. Section 13

established recordkeeping, reporting,

and registration requirements governing

attempts to influence HUD programs. It

also placed limitations on the fees paid

to consultants who are engaged to

influence the award or allocation of the

Department’s financial assistance.

Beginning on January 1, 1996, the

public is no longer required to comply

with section 13 and the HUD

regulations in 24 CFR part 86 which

implement section 13. Among other

things, the public need not submit the

annual reports due by January 10, 1996

under sections 13 (b)(1) and (c)(1). The

public should be aware, however, that

the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

may impose new requirements on those