Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19693

employee of a Federal credit union, may

receive, directly or indirectly, from an

outside party or the credit union, any

commission, fee, or other compensation

in connection with any loan made by

the credit union.

(ii) For the purposes of this section:

(A) Compensation includes non

monetary items.

(B) Employee includes an

independent contractor.

(C) Immediate family member means

a spouse or other family member living

in the same household.

(D) Loan includes line of credit and

workout loan.

(E) Official means any member of the

board of directors or a volunteer

committee.

(F) Senior management employee

means the credit union’s chief executive

officer (typically, this individual holds

the title of President or Treasurer/

Manager), any assistant chief executive

officers (e.g., Assistant President, Vice

President, or Assistant Treasurer/

Manager), the chief financial officer

(Comptroller), and any other employee

who sets policy for the credit union.

(G) Workout loan means a loan which

has had its original terms changed due

to nonperformance or anticipated

nonperformance.

(iii) This section does not prohibit a

Federal credit union from paying:

(A) Salary to employees;

(B) An incentive or bonus to an

employee based on the credit union’s

overall financial performance;

(C) An incentive or bonus to an

employee in connection with processing

loans, provided that no such incentive

or bonus is paid to a supervisor of the

employee, a senior management

employee, or an immediate family

member of a supervisor or senior

management employee;

(D) An incentive or bonus to an

employee in connection with making

recommended or final decisions to

approve or disapprove loans, provided

that:

(1) No such incentive or bonus is paid

to a supervisor of the employee, a senior

management employee, or an immediate

family member of a supervisor or senior

management employee; and

(2) The incentive or bonus may not be

based on the number or dollar amount

of loans approved and must be

structured in a manner that

demonstrably protects against an

increase in problem loans;

(E) An incentive or bonus to an

employee in connection with collecting

loans, provided that no such incentive

or bonus is paid to a supervisor of the

employee, a senior management

employee, or an immediate family

member of a supervisor or senior

management employee.

(iv) The board of directors of a Federal

credit union shall establish and

implement written policies, procedures,

and internal controls for any payment of

incentives or bonuses to employees in

connection with loans made by the

credit union. At least quarterly, the

board shall monitor compliance with

such policies, procedures, and controls.

Documentation of such monitoring shall

be made available to the supervisory

committee and NCUA.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–9616 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–131–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model BAe 146–100A,

–200A, and –300A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

British Aerospace Model BAe 146–

100A, –200A, and –300A airplanes. This

proposal would require repetitive

inspections for cracking of fuselage

frame 29, and repair, if necessary. This

proposal is prompted by testing that

revealed fatigue cracking in the web and

inboard flange of frame 29. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent reduced structural

integrity of the fuselage, due to fatigue

cracking in frame 29.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

131–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Avro International Aerospace, Inc.,

22111 Pacific Blvd., Sterling, Virginia

20166. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2148; fax (206) 227–1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 94–NM–131–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

94–NM–131–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the United Kingdom, recently notified

the FAA that an unsafe condition may

exist on all British Aerospace Model

BAe 146–100A, –200A, and –300A

airplanes. The CAA advises that, during

fatigue testing of the fuselage, cracking

was discovered in the web and inboard

flange of frame 29 between stringers 12
19694 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

and 18 on the left and right side of the

fuselage. The cracking emanated from

bolt holes in these areas. Such fatigue

cracking, if not detected and corrected

in a timely manner, could result in

reduced structural integrity of the

fuselage of the airplane.

Avro International Aerospace has

issued Inspection Service Bulletin S.B.

53–130, dated May 10, 1994, which

describes procedures for repetitive

visual inspections of frame 29 between

stringers 12 and 18 on the left and right

side of the fuselage. The Avro

International Aerospace inspection

service bulletin also references

procedures for accomplishing a

modification at each affected bolt

position that would eliminate the need

for the repetitive inspections when

those modifications are installed at the

time specified in the service bulletin.

(Specific procedures for this

modification are described in Repair

Instruction Leaflet HC536H9159.) The

CAA classified this inspection service

bulletin as mandatory.

This airplane model is manufactured

in the United Kingdom and is type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of § 21.29 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the CAA has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of the CAA,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

repetitive visual inspections to detect

cracking of the fuselage at frame 29. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

The proposed AD would also require

that all findings of cracking be repaired

in accordance with a method approved

by the FAA. Additionally, the proposed

AD would also provide for optional

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections. Terminating action would

consist of modification of each affected

bolt position in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously,

provided that the modification is

accomplished no later than the

applicable time specified in that service

bulletin.

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 included in this notice to clarify

this long standing requirement.

The FAA estimates that 43 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 9 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $23,220, or $540 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

The regulations proposed herein

would 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

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, 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 draft

regulatory 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.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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:

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Limited,

Avro International Aerospace Division

(Formerly British Aerospace, PLC,

British Aerospace Commercial Aircraft

Limited) Docket 94–NM–131–AD.

Applicability: All Model BAe 146–100A,

–200A, and –300A airplanes, 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 (d) 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

reduced structural integrity of the fuselage of

the airplane, due to fatigue cracking in frame

29, accomplish the following:

(a) Perform a detailed visual inspection for

cracking of frame 29 between stringers 12

and 18 on the left and right side of the

fuselage, in accordance with Avro

International Aerospace Inspection Service

Bulletin S.B. 53–130, dated May 10, 1994. If

the polymer coating on frame 29 prevents a

detailed visual inspection, perform a surface

eddy current inspection for cracking in

accordance with the service bulletin. Perform

the inspections at the time specified in

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD,

as applicable.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19695

(1) For Model BAe 146–100A airplanes:

Perform the inspection within 6 months after

the effective date of this AD, or prior to the

accumulation of 30,000 total landings,

whichever occurs later. Repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000

landings.

(2) For Model BAe 146–200A airplanes,

and for Model BAe 146–300A airplanes other

than those airplanes identified in paragraph

(a)(3) of this AD: Perform the inspection

within 6 months after the effective date of

this AD, or prior to the accumulation of

24,000 total landings, whichever occurs later.

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 6,000 landings.

(3) For Model BAe 146–300A airplanes

having serial numbers E3207, E3212, E3214,

E3216, E3218, E3219, and E3222: Perform the

inspection within 6 months after the effective

date of this AD, or prior to the accumulation

of 13,000 total landings, whichever occurs

later. Repeat the inspection thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 4,000 landings.

(b) If any cracking is found during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

(c) Accomplishment of the modification of

each affected bolt position in accordance

with Avro International Aerospace

Inspection Service Bulletin S.B. 53–130,

dated May 10, 1994, prior to the embodiment

times shown in Table ’A’ of that service

bulletin, constitutes terminating action for

the repetitive inspections required by

paragraph (a) of this AD.

Note 2: Repair Instruction Leaflet (RIL)

HC536H9159 provides detailed instructions

for modification of all bolt positions in the

affected areas of frame 29.

(d) 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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 14,

1995.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9770 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Housing-Federal Housing

Commissioner

24 CFR Part 811

[Docket No. R–95–1779; FR–3692–P–01]

RIN 2502–AG33

Refunding of Tax-Exempt Obligations

Issued to Finance Section 8 Housing

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing

Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

amend the Department’s regulations to

provide the policy and procedural

guidelines for Section 8 bond

refundings under which local agency

issuers of Section 11(b) tax-exempt

bonds are encouraged to refinance

projects at lower interest rates.

DATES: Comments due date June 19,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments regarding

this proposed rule to the Office of

General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk,

room 10276, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC, 20410. Facsimile

(FAX) are not acceptable. A copy of

each communication submitted will be

available for public inspection and

copying on weekdays between 7:30 a.m.

and 5:30 p.m. at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James B. Mitchell, Director, Financial

Services Division, Department of

Housing and Urban Development, 470

L’Enfant Plaza East, room 3120,

Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202)

755–7450, ext. 125 (TDD number for the

hearing- and speech-impaired (202)

708–4594).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Since May 1989, the Department has

conducted on an ad hoc basis a program

of Section 8 assisted housing bond

refundings, under which local agency

issuers of Section 11(b) tax-exempt

bonds (24 CFR part 811, subpart A) are

encouraged to refinance projects at

lower interest rates to reduce Section 8

subsidy. To date, over 400 bond

refunding transactions have closed in

which bonds issued during the interest

rate peak years of 1980–1983 are

prepaid by a new bond issue at

substantially lower interest cost,

resulting in subsidy recapture of over

$500 million.

The Section 11(b) regulations under

which HUD issues its Notification of

Tax Exemption were designed for the

original financing of new construction

or substantial rehabilitation of 100

percent or partially subsidized Section 8

rental housing. These rules do not in all

particulars fit a refinancing transaction

where construction funding is not an

element. Therefore, each refunding

closing transaction has required that

bond counsel for the issuing agency

obtain from the Assistant Secretary for

Housing-FHA Commissioner a

Notification of Tax Exemption that

waives several sections of 24 CFR part

811, subpart A. This waiver process

elevates to the Assistant Secretary level

a programmatic approval that has

become routine and perfunctory in

recent years. In addition, an Office of

Inspector General finding (Interim Audit

Report 93–HQ–119–0004) has criticized

the excessive reliance on regulatory

waivers to accomplish bond refundings.

In view of the relatively low interest

rate environment that has prevailed

since 1987, HUD has determined that

bond refundings should be treated as an

operational program, rather than a

temporary market intervention

dependent upon the economic cycle.

The proposed rule would codify the

policy and procedural guidelines that

have governed Section 8 bond

refundings since 1989, and would

provide a self-contained refunding

regulation intended to dispense with the

need for most waivers.

II. Other Matters

A. Environmental Impact

In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of

the regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality and 24 50.20(k)

of the HUD regulations, the policies and

procedures contained in this proposed

rule relate only to HUD administrative

procedures and, therefore, are

categorically excluded from the

requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act.

B. Executive Order 12612, Federalism

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under section 6(a) of

Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has

determined that the policies contained

in this proposed rule will not have

federalism implications and, thus, are

not subject to review under that order.

C. Executive Order 12606, The Family

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under Executive

Order 12606, The Family, has