4074 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ratios can not be met by lenders in

possession of OREO property which is

financed under the development

company program if the lender/seller is

required to take a second lien. This rule

grants small businesses utilizing the

development company program equal

access to opportunities to acquire OREO

real estate at favorable rates and terms

from such lending institutions.

The existing rule was adopted to

insure that the combination of a seller’s

price and terms of financing reflected a

fair market transaction. Changes in

lender regulations resulting from the

FIRREA and the FDICIA and the

independent fair market appraisals will

protect small business borrowers and

the government against the risk of overvaluation of the OREO property.

Additionally, SBA field offices will be

provided guidance to insure that on a

case by case basis no conflict of interest

arises from the application of this rule.

Compliance With Executive Orders

12612, 12778, and 12866, the

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the

Paperwork Reduction Act

For purposes of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., SBA

certifies that this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

SBA certifies that this final rule will

not constitute a significant regulatory

action for purposes of Executive Order

12866, since the change will not result

in an annual economic effect of $100

million or more.

SBA certifies that this final rule will

not have Federalism implications

warranting the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment in accordance

with Executive Order 12612.

SBA certifies that this final rule will

not impose new reporting or

recordkeeping requirements which

would be subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35.

SBA certifies that this final rule is

drafted, to the extent practicable, in

accordance with the standards set forth

in Section 2 of Executive Order 12778.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

59.036 certified development company loans

(503 loans); 59.041 certified development

company loans (504 loans).

List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 108

Loan programs—business, Small

businesses.

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority contained in section 5(b)(6) of

the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.

634(b)(6)), SBA is amending Part 108 of

title 13 of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 108—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 108

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 687(c), 695, 696, 697a,

697b, 697c.

2. Section 108.503–8(b)(2) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 108.503–8 Third-party financing.

* * * * *

(b) Terms of third-party financing.

* * *

(2) Where the seller of property for the

project supplies any part of the

permanent financing of such project,

such financing shall be subordinate to

the 503 loan, provided that if the

property is classified as ‘‘other real

estate owned’’ by a national bank or

other Federally regulated lender, and an

independent appraisal prepared by or

under control of the SBA or the

participating 503 company

demonstrates that the property is of

sufficient value to support the 503 loan,

SBA may waive the requirement for a

subordinate position.

* * * * *

Dated: December 23, 1994.

Philip Lader,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–1502 Filed 1–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–100–AD; Amendment

39–9121; AD 95–02–02]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and DC–9–80

Series Airplanes, Model MD–88

Airplanes, and Model C–9 (Military)

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 and DC–9–80 series airplanes,

Model MD–88 airplanes, and Model C–

9 (military) airplanes, that requires

inspection of the tailcone release

locking cable fitting assembly, and

replacement or modification of the

assembly, if necessary. This amendment

is prompted by reports of the inability

of the tailcone to deploy because the

swaged ball on the cable had jammed

after passing into the release handle

hole. The actions specified by this AD

are intended to prevent the inability of

the tailcone to deploy, which could

impede the egress of passengers from

the airplane during an emergency

evacuation.

DATES: Effective February 21, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of February

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 the 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 90712–4137;

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 and DC–9–80 series

airplanes, Model MD–88 airplanes, and

Model C–9 (military) airplanes, was

published in the Federal Register on

October 18, 1994 (59 FR 52485). That

action proposed to require inspections

of the tailcone release locking cable

fitting assembly, replacing or modifying

fittings that do not operate properly, and

the eventual replacement or

modification of the fitting on all

airplanes.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Several commenters supports the

proposal.

One commenter regards the proposed

inspection for proper operation of the

fitting assembly as unnecessary and

requests that the proposed rule be

revised to delete this requirement. This

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4075

commenter points out that similar

inspections already are required by AD

91–26–09 (amendment 39–8122, (57 FR

789, January 9, 1992)) and AD 92–01–

03 (amendment 39–8126, (57 FR 1076,

January 10, 1992)). The commenter

considers that these previously required

actions already assure an adequate level

of safety. The FAA does not concur. The

previously issued AD’s cited by the

commenter require inspections for

cracks of the interior and exterior

tailcone release handles; replacement or

modification of the cable and handle

assemblies to terminate the inspections;

and repetitive functional tests of the

tailcone release system at certain

intervals. The functional testing

required by those AD’s is similar, but

not identical, to the inspection required

by this AD. Further, the FAA considers

that one or more successful functional

operations of the assembly does not

assure that the fitting is acceptable and

will not jam at the next activation. For

this reason, the FAA considers that the

one-time inspection required by this AD

is warranted prior to the eventual

replacement or modification action.

This same commenter requests that

the proposed compliance time of 36

months for replacement or modification

of the fitting assembly be extended if

ample parts are not available to

accomplish these required actions.

Based on the data available to date, the

FAA does not consider such an

extension to be necessary. The FAA has

received no indication from the

manufacturer that parts availability will

be a problem. An ample number of

required parts is expected to be

available to modify the fleet within the

36-month compliance time. However,

should an operator encounter a problem

with obtaining required parts in a timely

manner, it may request an adjustment of

the compliance time under the

provisions of paragraph (c) of the final

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.

Additionally, 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 1,986 Model

DC–9 and DC–9–80 series airplanes,

Model MD–88 airplanes, and Model C–

9 airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

1,170 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD.

The required inspection will take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

this action on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $140,400, or $120 per

airplane.

The required replacement or

modification would take approximately

5 work hours per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $2,388 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of this proposed action

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$3,144,960, or $2,688 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:

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:

95–02–02 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment

39–9121. Docket 94–NM–100–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9 series airplanes,

Model DC–9–80 (MD–80) series airplanes,

Model MD–88 airplanes, and Model C–9

(military) airplanes; as listed in McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 53–269, dated

August 11, 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 (c) 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

4076 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 the inability of the tailcone to

deploy, which could impede the egress of

passengers from the airplane during an

emergency evacuation, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, inspect the tailcone release

locking cable fitting assembly for proper

operation in accordance with the procedures

specified in McDonnell Douglas DC–9

Service Bulletin 53–269, dated August 11,

1994. If the swaged ball on the cable can pass

into the handle hole, prior to further flight,

replace or modify the fitting assembly in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(b) Within 36 months after the effective

date of this AD, replace or modify the fitting

assembly in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 53–269, dated

August 11, 1994. Such replacement or

modification constitutes terminating action

for the requirements of this AD.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) The inspection, replacement, and

modification shall be done in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 53–269, dated August 11, 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 the

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.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

February 21, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

6, 1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–792 Filed 1–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–234–AD; Amendment

39–9120; AD 94–26–51]

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–11 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This document publishes in

the Federal Register an amendment

adopting Airworthiness Directive (AD)

T94–26–51 that was sent previously to

all known U.S. owners and operators of

all McDonnell Douglas Model MD–11

series airplanes by individual telegrams.

This AD requires a revision to the FAAapproved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to prohibit autoland operation

below 100 feet above ground level

(AGL), and the installation of certain

flight control computer software. This

AD provides for an optional terminating

action for the AFM revision. This

amendment is prompted by reports of a

loose nut on a coaxial connector on a

radio altimeter receiver/transmitter rack,

and the transmittal of erroneous altitude

data to the flight control computers

below 100 feet AGL, which resulted in

abnormal flare (pitch) control during

autoland operation. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent abnormal flare (pitch) control,

which could result in degradation of the

landing capability of the airplane.

DATES: Effective February 6, 1995, to all

persons except those persons to whom

it was made immediately effective by

telegraphic AD T94–26–51, issued

December 19, 1994, which contained

the requirements of this amendment.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of February 6,

1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

March 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

234–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The applicable service information

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 FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, Washington; 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:

Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

132L, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712;

telephone (310) 627–5347; fax (310)

627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 19, 1994, the FAA issued

telegraphic AD T94–26–51, which is

applicable to all McDonnell Douglas

Model MD–11 series airplanes.

That action was prompted by two

reports of abnormal flare (pitch) control

that occurred during autoland operation

on McDonnell Douglas Model MD–11

series airplanes. McDonnell Douglas

reported that, during one occurrence,

radio altimeter #1 transmitted erroneous

altitude data to the flight control

computers below 100 feet above ground

level (AGL). This condition caused the

airplane to flare prematurely during

landing. Following a subsequent

occurrence of abnormal autoland

operation, an operator noticed that a nut

on a coaxial connector on the back of

the radio altimeter receiver/transmitter

rack was loose. After refastening the

connector, the airplane exhibited

normal flare during autoland operation.

Subsequent investigation of these

reports conducted by McDonnell

Douglas revealed that signals leaked

between the transmitter and receiver of

radio altimeter #1. The cause of this

leakage has not yet been determined. In

addition, the exact failure mode of the

radio altimeter coaxial cable that can

produce the leakage is unclear at this

time. The manufacturer is conducting

an investigation into the cause of this

leakage in order to develop a corrective

action.

Early and/or abnormal flare (pitch)

control during autoland operation, if not

corrected, could result in degradation of

the landing capability of the airplane.