Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20013

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended to read as follows:

PART 620—DISCLOSURE TO

SHAREHOLDERS

1. The authority citation for part 620

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 5.17, 5.19, 8.11 of the

Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2252, 2254,

2279aa–11); sec. 424 of Pub. L. 100–233, 101

Stat. 1568, 1656.

Subpart D—Association Annual

Meeting Information Statement

2. Section 620.21 is amended by

revising the heading and paragraphs

(c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(3), (d)(5), and (d)(6) to

read as follows:

§ 620.21 Contents of the information

statement and other information to be

furnished in connection with the annual

meeting.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) If any director resigned or declined

to stand for reelection since the last

annual meeting because of a policy

disagreement with the board, and if the

director has furnished a letter requesting

disclosure of the nature of the

disagreement, state the date of the

director’s resignation and summarize

the director’s description of the

disagreement contained in the letter. If

the institution holds a different view of

the disagreement, the institution’s view

may be summarized.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) If directors are nominated by

region, describe the regions and state

the number of voting shareholders

entitled to vote in each region. Any

nominee from the floor must be an

eligible candidate for the director

position for which the person has been

nominated.

* * * * *

(3) State that nominations shall be

accepted from the floor.

(i) If the annual meeting is to be held

in more than one session and mail

balloting will be conducted upon the

conclusion of all sessions, state that

nominations from the floor may be

made at any session or, if the

association’s bylaws so provide, state

that nominations from the floor shall be

accepted only at the first session.

(ii) If shareholders will not vote solely

by mail ballot upon conclusion of all

sessions, state that nominations from

the floor may be made only at the first

session.

* * * * *

(5) For each nominee who is not an

incumbent director, except a nominee

from the floor, provide the information

referred to in § 620.5 (j) and (k) and

§ 620.21(d)(4). If shareholders will vote

by mail ballot upon conclusion of all

sessions, each floor nominee must

provide the information referred to in

§ 620.5 (j) and (k) and § 620.21(d)(4) in

writing to the association within the

time period prescribed by the

association’s bylaws. If the association’s

bylaws do not prescribe a time period,

state that each floor nominee must

provide the written disclosure to the

association within 5 business days of

the nomination. The association shall

ensure that the information is

distributed to the voting shareholders

with the mailing of the ballots for the

election of directors in the same format

as the comparable information

contained in the association’s annual

meeting information statement. If

shareholders will not vote by mail ballot

upon conclusion of all sessions, each

floor nominee must provide the

information referred to in § 620.5 (j) and

(k) and § 620.21(d)(4) in writing at the

first session at which voting is held.

(6) No person may be a nominee for

director who does not make the

disclosures required by this subpart.

* * * * *

Dated: April 13, 1995.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 95–10008 Filed 4–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–91–AD; Amendment

39–9200; AD 95–08–11]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 767 Series Airplanes Equipped

With Off-Wing Escape Slides

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 767

series airplanes, that requires

replacement of the currently installed

door opening actuators of the emergency

off-wing escape system with new,

improved actuators. This amendment is

prompted by reports indicating that the

requirements of a previously issued AD

do not adequately preclude leakage from

these actuators. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent failure

of the escape slide to deploy due to

failure of the door opening/snubbing

actuator, which could delay and

possibly jeopardize successful

emergency evacuation of an airplane.

DATES: Effective May 24, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

Boeing Service Bulletin 767–25–0216,

dated February 3, 1994, as listed in

regulations, is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 24,

1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain other publications listed in the

regulations was approved previously by

the Director of the Federal Register as of

November 25, 1992 (57 FR 47987,

October 21, 1992).

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from OEA Aerospace, Inc., P.O. Box KK,

Highway 12, Explosive Technology

Road, Fairfield, California 94533–0659;

and Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. 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 Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jayson Claar, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2784;

fax (206) 227–1181.

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 Boeing

Model 767 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

August 30, 1994 (59 FR 44672). That

action proposed to require replacement

of the currently installed door opening

actuators of the emergency off-wing

escape system on Model 767 series

airplanes with new, improved actuators.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Response to Comments

One commenter supports the

proposed rule.

One commenter requests that the

name and address for obtaining service

information from OEA Aerospace, Inc.,

be corrected. The FAA concurs. Since

the issuance of the proposal, OEA has

changed its name from OEA, Inc., to
20014 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

OEA Aerospace, Inc., and has relocated

from Colorado to California. Therefore,

the ADDRESSES section and paragraph (g)

of the final rule have been revised

accordingly.

One commenter requests that all

references in the proposal to the escape

system for Model 747 series airplanes be

revised to ‘‘the door opening thrusters of

the two-piece off-wing escape ramp and

slide system.’’ The commenter notes

that this change in nomenclature would

clearly differentiate the escape system

installed on Model 747 series airplanes

from those installed on Model 767 series

airplanes. The FAA does not concur.

Since this rule is applicable only to

Model 767 series airplanes, the FAA

finds that the broad, generic references

to the escape systems cannot and has

not created confusion for the operators.

Therefore, no change to the final rule is

necessary.

One commenter requests that the

description of the unsafe condition be

edited to specify that the unsafe

condition would exist during certain

flight configurations or during certain

failure modes. The commenter states

that the description should include the

fact that only one door opening/

snubbing actuator is necessary to open

the door when the airplane is at a level

altitude, and that two door opening/

snubbing actuators are necessary to

open the slide compartment door on the

upward facing side when the airplane is

at an adverse roll. The FAA does not

concur that a revision to the description

is necessary. According to § 39.1

(‘‘Airworthiness Directives’’) of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

39.1), the issuance of an AD is based on

the finding that an unsafe condition

exists or is likely to develop in aircraft

of a particular type design. While the

FAA’s intent is to describe as

specifically as possible the addressed

unsafe condition that has prompted an

AD, the FAA considers that it would be

virtually impossible to list every

potential flight configuration or failure

mode for when the unsafe condition

may exist or occur. To do so would add

little value, and would make for an

especially long, complex, and

cumbersome regulation.

Two commenters request that the

proposed compliance time of 2 years to

accomplish the replacement of door

opening actuators with new, improved

actuators be extended to 4 years. One of

the commenters asserts that safety of the

fleet would be ensured in the interim

with the repetitive inspections

(weighing program) currently required

by AD 92–16–17, amendment 39–8327

(57 FR 47987, October 21, 1992), which

are restated in proposed paragraph (a).

The other commenter notes that the

suggested 4-year compliance time

would allow operators to amortize these

costs over a longer period of time,

which would significantly minimize the

economic impact of having to purchase

and install the new actuators. Two other

commenters point to a potential parts

availability problem due to the large

number of airplanes that will be affected

by the proposed rule.

The FAA does not concur with these

commenters’ request. In developing an

appropriate compliance time for this

action, the FAA considered not only the

degree of urgency associated with

addressing the subject unsafe condition,

but the manufacturer’s recommendation

as to an appropriate compliance time,

the availability of required parts, and

the practical aspect of replacing the

actuators within a maximum interval of

time allowable for all affected airplanes

to continue to operate without

compromising safety. The FAA has been

advised that replacement actuators are

readily available; therefore, obtaining

them within the proposed compliance

time should not pose a problem for any

affected operator. Further, the FAA took

into account the 2-year compliance time

recommended by the manufacturer, as

well as the number of days required for

the rulemaking process; in

consideration of these factors, the FAA

finds that 2 years after the effective date

of this final rule is consistent with the

time recommended by the

manufacturer. However, under the

provisions of paragraph (e) of the final

rule, the FAA may approve requests for

adjustments to the compliance time if

data are submitted to substantiate that

such an adjustment would provide an

acceptable level of safety.

Two commenters request that the

proposed requirement of paragraph (c)

to replace the actuators be optional

rather than mandatory. These

commenters state that safety of the fleet

could be ensured in the interim with the

repetitive inspections required by

paragraph (a) of the proposal. The FAA

does not concur. Paragraph (a) merely

restates the requirements of AD 92–16–

17, which proved to be unreliable in

accurately determining the fluid level in

the actuators. Therefore, the FAA has

determined that these fluid-filled

actuators must be replaced with new,

improved actuators that are gas-filled.

One commenter requests that

proposed paragraph (d) be revised to

correct a typographical error in the

reference to the Boeing part number.

(The OEA part number was correctly

referenced in the proposal. The Boeing

part number was provided only for

purposes of cross-referencing the OEA

part number. It is only this crossreferenced Boeing part number that

contained a typographical error.) The

FAA concurs. Paragraph (d) of the final

rule has been revised accordingly to

correct this typographical error.

One commenter requests that the

reference to airplanes in proposed

paragraph (d) be revised to specify that

the old oil-filled actuators may not be

installed on Model 767 series airplanes

equipped with off-wing emergency

escape systems. The FAA does not

concur. Since the rule is applicable to

Boeing Model 767 series airplanes

equipped with off-wing escape slides,

the reference to airplanes clearly refers

to Boeing Model 767 series airplanes

equipped with off-wing escape slides.

Repeating the applicability statement for

this paragraph of the final rule would

only be redundant and would not add

to the clarity of the rule. Conversely,

repeating the applicability for this

paragraph may introduce confusion by

leading the reader to deduce that the

remaining paragraphs are applicable to

other models or configurations.

Two commenters request that the cost

of the proposed replacement action be

partially borne by Boeing and partially

by OEA. These commenters point to the

faulty design of the OEA actuators that

caused the initial problem (oil leakage

from the actuators). Therefore, these

commenters contend that OEA should

assume partial financial responsibility

for its faulty design, and that Boeing

should assume partial financial

responsibility for this problem since it

chose to use these actuators on its

airplanes.

The FAA cannot concur with this

request. According to § 39.1 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

39.1), the issuance of an AD is based on

the finding that an unsafe condition

exists or is likely to develop in aircraft

of a particular type design. The FAA has

the authority to issue an AD when it is

found that an unsafe condition is likely

to exist or develop on other products of

the same type design. In accordance

with § 39.3 (14 CFR 39.3), operators

whose products are subject to an AD

must operate those products in

accordance with the requirements of

that AD. While the subject of this AD

relates to a problem with the escape

slides, this AD eliminates the unsafe

condition by requiring replacement of

the door opening actuators with new,

improved actuators. The AD is the

appropriate vehicle for mandating such

actions. The FAA’s authority in part 39

does not extend to whether or how

those costs are negotiated. However,

operators may negotiate the costs
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20015

associated with accomplishing those

actions with manufacturer.

Other Changes to the Final Rule

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.

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 long-standing requirement.

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.

Economic Impact

There are approximately 460 Model

767 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 173 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD.

The inspections and modification

currently required by AD 92–16–17, and

retained in this AD, take approximately

12 work hours per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts will

cost approximately $510 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $212,790, or $1,230 per

airplane.

The replacement will take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane at an average labor rate of $60

per work hour. Required parts will cost

approximately $6,400 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the replacement on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $1,127,960,

or $6,520 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.

A full cost-benefit analysis has not

been accomplished for this proposed

AD. As a matter of law, in order to be

airworthy, an aircraft must conform to

its type design and be in a condition for

safe operation. The type design is

approved only after the FAA makes a

determination that it complies with all

applicable airworthiness requirements.

In adopting and maintaining those

requirements, the FAA has already

made the determination that they

establish a level of safety that is costbeneficial. When the FAA, as in this AD

action, makes a finding of an unsafe

condition, this means that this costbeneficial level of safety is no longer

being achieved and that the required

actions are necessary to restore that

level of safety. Because this level of

safety has already been determined to be

cost-beneficial, a full cost-benefit

analysis for this AD action would be

redundant and unnecessary.

Regulatory Impact

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:

95–08–11 Boeing: Amendment 39–9200.

Docket 94–NM–91–AD.

Applicability: Model 767 series airplanes

equipped with off-wing escape slides,

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 (e) 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 escape slide to

deploy, which could delay and possibly

jeopardize successful emergency evacuation

of an airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 18 months after November 25,

1992 (the effective date of AD 92–16–17,

amendment 39–8327), inspect the off-wing

escape slide door opening/snubbing actuators

in accordance with OEA Service Bulletin

3092100–25–002, dated July 26, 1991. Repeat

this inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 20 months until the replacement

required by paragraph (c) of this AD is

accomplished. For operators that have

previously accomplished this inspection in

accordance with AD 92–16–17: This

paragraph requires that the next scheduled

inspection be performed within 20 months

after the last inspection performed in
20016 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of AD 92–

16–17.

(b) Within 18 months after November 25,

1992 (the effective date of AD 92–16–17,

amendment 39–8327), inspect and modify

the escape slide compartment door latching

mechanism in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 767–25A0174, dated August

15, 1991. Accomplishment of the actions

required by this paragraph prior to the

effective date of this AD terminates the

actions required by paragraph (b)(2) of AD

92–16–17.

(c) Within 2 years after the effective date

of this AD, replace the currently installed

door opening actuator of the emergency offwing escape system with a new, improved

actuator, in accordance with Boeing Service

Bulletin 767–25–0216, dated February 3,

1994. Accomplishment of this replacement

terminates the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

(d) As of 2 years after the effective date of

this AD, only door opening actuators of the

emergency off-wing escape system having

OEA part number 5262100 (Boeing part

number S416T208–12) shall be installed on

any airplane.

(e) 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, Seattle

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, Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(f) 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.

(g) The replacement shall be done in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

767–25–0216, dated February 3, 1994. This

incorporation by reference is approved by the

Director of the Federal Register in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The

inspections and modification shall be done

in accordance with OEA Service Bulletin

3092100–25–002, dated July 26, 1991, and

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–25A0174,

dated August 15, 1991; as applicable. The

incorporation by reference of these

documents was approved previously by the

Director of the Federal Register in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of

November 25, 1992 (57 FR 47987, October

21, 1992). Copies may be obtained from OEA

Aerospace, Inc., P.O. Box KK, Highway 12,

Explosive Technology Road, Fairfield,

California 94533–0659; and Boeing

Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707,

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Copies may

be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

May 24, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10,

1995.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9341 Filed 4–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–CE–30–AD; Amendment 39–

9202; AD 95–08-13]

Airworthiness Directives; B. Grob

Flugzeugbau Model G109B Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to B. Grob Flugzeugbau (Grob)

Model G109B gliders. This action

requires replacing the elevator inner

hinges with hinges of improved design.

Two occurrences where the elevator

inner hinges separated from the elevator

prompted the required action. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent failure of these

hinges because of delamination or

corrosion, which, if not detected and

corrected, could lead to loss of control

of the glider.

DATES: Effective June 2, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 2,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

B. Grob Flugzeugbau, D–8939 Mattsies,

Germany. This information may also be

examined at the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Herman Belderok, Project Officer,

Gliders, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service, FAA,

1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 426-

6932; facsimile (816) 426–2169.

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 Grob

Model G109B gliders was published in

the Federal Register on January 10,

1995 (59 FR 2555). The action proposed

to require replacing the elevator inner

hinges with hinges of improved design.

Accomplishment of the proposed action

would be in accordance with Grob

Repair Instructions No. 817–25 for

Service Bulletin TM 817–25, dated

November 9, 1987.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposed rule or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

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 minor

editorial corrections. The FAA has

determined that these minor corrections

will not change the meaning of the AD

or add any additional burden upon the

public than was already proposed.

The unsafe condition referenced in

this AD is caused by both stress loads

and corrosion. Stress loads are a direct

result of glider usage. Corrosion can

then develop regardless of whether the

glider is utilized in flight or is on the

ground. With this in mind, the FAA has

determined that the compliance time of

this AD should be in both calendar time

and hours time-in-service (TIS).

The FAA estimates that 30 gliders in

the U.S. registry will be affected by this

proposed AD, that it will take

approximately 8 workhours per glider to

accomplish the required action, and that

the average labor rate is approximately

$60 an hour. Parts will be provided by

the manufacturer at no cost to the

operator. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $14,400.

This figure is based on the assumption

that no affected glider owner/operator

has accomplished the proposed

replacement of the elevator inner

hinges.

Grob has informed the FAA that

approximately 20 of the affected gliders

already have the required replacement

incorporated. With this in mind, the

cost impact upon the public of the

required action would be reduced from

$14,400 to $5,280.

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