Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15033

identification requirement by including

a number or code on the receipt that

identifies the access device used to

initiate the transfer, the consumer

initiating the transaction, or the

consumer’s account(s). The Board

specified that the number or code

should be ‘‘unique’’ to ensure that the method used on the receipt adequately

identifies the consumer. Over the years, many financial

institutions met this requirement for unique identification by disclosing

consumers’ card or account numbers on

the receipt, and doing so did not appear

to represent a security risk. Recently, the requirement for a unique

identification has resulted in serious and widespread ATM fraud carried out by individuals who observe—and often

videotape—a consumer entering a personal identification number (PIN) on

the ATM keypad. These persons retrieve

terminal receipts that have been

discarded at ATM locations to obtain

the account or ATM card number. Using

the combination of PIN and number, they then manufacture a counterfeit ATM card and use the card to withdraw

funds from the consumer’s account. To help protect consumers and

financial institutions against this fraud, the Board adopted an interim rule

effective December 1, 1994. The interim

rule eliminated the requirement that an

electronic terminal receipt uniquely

identify the consumer’s account or card. This change has allowed institutions to

truncate the number printed on the

receipt so that it will not contain

enough information for a criminal to duplicate the card. The Board believes that the change does not substantially diminish

consumer protections. The purpose of

the receipt requirement is to allow

consumers to verify transactions. Under

the final rule, the receipt still provides

sufficient information to allow the

consumer to identify transfers: the date of the transfer; the amount of the

transfer; the type of transfer and type of account; the location of the terminal; and the identification of any third party

to or from which funds are transferred. Using this information, a consumer can match each transaction on the periodic

statement with the receipt received at

the time the transaction took place. In

addition, a consumer has the necessary

information to identify and resolve

errors in documentation. Commenters agreed, noting that the amendment would not adversely effect their ability

to comply with the error resolution

procedures of Regulation E.

Standards for Truncation Numerous commenters asked the Board to provide specific guidance to

establish truncation standards for card

number suppression. Several commenters requested that either the

regulation or the Official Staff Commentary should provide a ‘‘safe harbor’’ for institutions, allowing them

to truncate the identifying information

on terminal receipts to as few as four digits or letters. An industry trade

association, along with the major ATM

networks, has developed and proposed

a 4-digit standard for the industry. Although the account number printed

on the receipt would be truncated under

this standard, the necessary information

to support research and reconciliation would be retained in the system. Commenters believed that a 4-digit standard would deter fraud and still provide sufficient identification. Commenters strongly supported

establishing a standard at the network

level. They believed that this standard would assure that cardholders are provided the same level of account protection at any network ATM they use. In addition, commenters noted that a financial institution could provide the

same level of account protection to

cardholders from other institutions who use their ATMs. Other commenters, while not opposing the proposed

standard, asked the Board to provide

flexibility for financial institutions to develop their own receipt identification methodology. The Board is amending

the regulation to provide that

institutions are in compliance with the

terminal receipt account identification

requirement when account numbers are

truncated to four digits. This would

create a safe harbor for compliance, allow for the establishment of an

industry standard, and also allow an

institution to develop its own

requirements. The Board believes that the ATM

fraud addressed by the rule is a serious problem that, absent Board action, would have continued to the detriment of consumers and financial institutions. The final rule reduces fraud without compromising consumers’ ability to document their electronic fund transfers and provides specific guidance

concerning compliance. This amendment to Regulation E

supersedes a proposed change under the

regulatory review project that was published for comment earlier this year

(59 FR 10684, March 7, 1994).

III. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Board’s Office of the Secretary has prepared an economic impact

statement on the amendment to Regulation E. A copy of the analysis may be obtained from Publications Services, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, at (202) 452–3245.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507 of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. Ch. 35; 5 CFR 1320.13), the

information collection has been

reviewed by the Board under the

authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget after consideration of the comments received

during the public comment period. The

third party disclosure in this revision of Regulation E is in 12 CFR 205.9. Information is required as confirmation

of transactions consumers perform at electronic terminals. The revision

allows institutions to truncate the

identifying number or code on receipts, thus deterring fraud. The revision is not estimated to change the amount of annual burden associated with Regulation E for state member banks, which is 543,363 hours. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 205 Consumer protection, Electronic fund

transfers, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements. Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 12 CFR part 205 which was published at 59 FR 61787 (December 2, 1994) is adopted as a final rule with the

following changes: PART 205—ELECTRONIC FUND

TRANSFERS (REGULATION E) 1. The authority citation for part 205

continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1693. 2. Section 205.9 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(4), to read as

follows: § 205.9 Documentation of transfers. (a) * * *

(4) A number or code that identifies

the consumer initiating the transfer, the

consumer’s account(s), or the access device used to initiate the transfer. The number or code need not exceed four digits or letters to comply with the

requirements of this paragraph. * * * * * By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Dated: March 16, 1995. Jennifer J. Johnson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 95–6971 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–P
15034 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–149–AD; Amendment 39–9174; AD 95–06–04] Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–80 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–80 series airplanes, that requires

inspection and replacement of certain

suspect horizontal stabilizer primary

trim motors. This amendment is prompted by an analysis which revealed

that certain incorrectly manufactured motor shafts could fail prematurely and, in turn, cause the primary trim motor to

fail. The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent such failures of the primary trim motor, which could

ultimately result in reduced

controllability of the airplane. DATES: Effective April 21, 1995. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 21, 1995. ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, P.O. Box 1771, Long Beach, California 90801–1771, Attention: Business Unit Manager, Technical Administrative

support, Dept. L51, M.C. 2–98. This

information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Eierman, Aerospace Engineer, Systems & Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; telephone (310) 627–5336; fax (310) 627–5210. 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 McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–80 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 18, 1994 (59 FR 52482). That action proposed to require inspecting

the horizontal stabilizer primary trim

motor to determine if the motor is one having a suspect serial number, and

replacing the suspect motors. 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 rule. As a result of recent communications with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect compliance with the AD, the owner or operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of compliance with the AD, in accordance with the paragraph of each AD that provides for such approvals. A note has been added to this final rule to clarify

this requirement. The FAA has recently reviewed the

figures it has used over the past several years in calculating the economic

impact of AD activity. In order to

account for various inflationary costs in

the airline industry, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to

increase the labor rate used in these

calculations from $55 per work hour to

$60 per work hour. The economic

impact information, below, has been

revised to reflect this increase in the

specified hourly labor rate. 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 changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. There are approximately 26 Model DC–9–80 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 13 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately .5 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 $390, or $30 per airplane. Replacement of suspect motors will require 4.5 work hours to accomplish, at an average labor charge of $60 per work hour. Required replacement parts will be provided by Sundstrand Electric Power Systems (the manufacturer of the horizontal stabilizer primary trim

motors) at no charge to operators. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact is estimated to be $3,510, or $270 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:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15035 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: 95–06–04 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39–9174. Docket 94–NM–149–AD. Applicability: Model DC–9–80 series airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Alert Service Bulletin A27–342, dated August 4, 1994; 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 failure of the horizontal stabilizer primary trim motor, accomplish the

following: (a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, conduct a visual inspection of the horizontal stabilizer primary trim motor to determine if the motor is identified with one of the suspect serial numbers listed in McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Alert Service Bulletin A27–342, dated August 4, 1994. Conduct this inspection in accordance with

the procedures specified in that service bulletin. (1) If the horizontal stabilizer primary trim

motor is not identified with a suspect serial number, no further action is required by this AD. (2) If the horizontal stabilizer primary trim

motor is identified with a suspect serial number, prior to further flight, replace the motor in accordance with the service bulletin. (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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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, Los Angeles ACO. Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(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 inspection and replacement shall be done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Alert Service Bulletin A27–

342, dated August 4, 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 McDonnell Douglas Corporation, P.O. Box

1771, Long Beach, California 90801–1771, Attention: Business Unit Manager, Technical Administrative Support, Dept. L51, M.C. 2–

98. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. (e) This amendment becomes effective on April 21, 1995. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 8, 1995. Darrell M. Pederson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 95–6238 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–172–AD; Amendment 39–9176; AD 95–06–06] Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–80, and C–

9 (Military) Series Airplanes and Model MD–88 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–80, and C–

9 (military) series airplanes and Model MD–88 airplanes, that requires a visual

inspection to verify proper installation

of the wire termination lugs on the

ignition selector switch, and removal and correct installation of any

improperly installed wire termination

lugs. This amendment also requires application of sealant to the wire

termination lugs and the attachment screws. This amendment is prompted by

a report that, during the manufacturer’s production flight testing, an abnormal engine start valve open annunciation for engine No. 2 occurred and resulted in

an uncontained failure of the engine

starter. The actions specified by this AD

are intended to prevent damage to the

engine cowling, damage to adjacent engine components, and possible fire in

the cowling, due to an uncontained

failure of the engine starter. DATES: Effective April 21, 1995. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 21, 1995. ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, P.O. Box 1771, Long Beach, California 90801–1771, Attention: Business Unit Manager, Technical Administrative Support, Dept. LS1, M.C. 2–98. 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 FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L , FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5245; fax (310) 627–5210. 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 McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–80, and–– C–9 (military) series airplanes and Model MD–88 airplanes, was published

in the Federal Register on November 22, 1994 (59 FR 60097). That action

proposed to require a visual inspection

to verify proper installation of the wire

termination lugs on the ignition selector switch, and removal and correct

installation of any improperly installed wire termination lugs. That action also proposed to require application of sealant to the wire termination lugs and

the attachment screws. 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 it plans to

incorporate the service bulletin

referenced in the proposed rule into its

‘‘heavy check’’ maintenance visits, which occur approximately every 18 months. The FAA infers from this comment that the commenter would