Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19867

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, FAA, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, Campus

Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, suite 2–

160, College Park, Georgia 30337–2748. The

request shall be forwarded through an

appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office.

(d) Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 93–25–08

(superseded by this action) are considered

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

(e) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to The New Piper

Aircraft, Inc., Attn: Customer Service, 2926

Piper Dr., Vero Beach, Florida, 32960; or may

examine this document at the FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

(f) This amendment supersedes AD 93–25–

08, Amendment 39–8774.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April

26, 1996.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11030 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–CE–56–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation) PA23, PA31,

PA31P, PA31T, and PA42 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede AD 86–17–07, which

currently requires replacing all

hydraulic hoses with hydraulic hoses of

an improved design on certain The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) PA23, PA31,

PA31P, PA31T, and PA42 series

airplanes. The proposed action would

require inspecting for improperly

manufactured hydraulic hoses replaced

during a specific time frame and

replacing all affected hydraulic hoses.

An incorrect designation of a Piper

Model PA31–310 and a Piper Model

PA23–150 airplane prompted the

proposed AD action. The action

specified by the proposed AD is

intended to prevent hydraulic hose

failure which could cause loss of

hydraulic capabilities resulting in a

gear-up landing and possible loss of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–CE–56–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from The

New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Attn: Customer

Service, 2926 Piper Dr., Vero Beach,

Florida, 32960. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia 30337–2748; telephone

(404) 305–7362; facsimile (404) 305–

7348.

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

should 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 that

summarizes 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 No. 95–CE–56–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, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 95–CE–56–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

It has been brought to the attention of

the FAA that AD 86–17–07, which is

applicable to Piper PA31 and PA23

series airplanes, should not have listed

a Piper Model PA31–310 and a Piper

Model PA23–150 airplane, respectively.

The Piper Model PA31–310 airplane is

not a recognized model on the Type

Certificate Data Sheet No. A20SO and

the airplane’s data plate will specify a

Model PA31 not a Model PA31–310.

Similarly, the Piper Model PA23–150

airplane is not a recognized model on

the Aircraft Specification No. 1A10 and

the airplane’s data plate will specify a

Model PA23, not a Model PA23–150.

The concern was raised that some

owners/operators of PA31 and PA23

series airplanes may not have complied

with AD 86–17–07, since the AD

currently specifies the airplanes as Piper

Models PA31–310 or PA23–150, even

though their serial number falls within

the serial number range in the current

AD. For this reason, the FAA is

proposing to supersede the current AD

to change the model designation from

Piper Models PA31–310 and PA23–150

airplanes to Piper Models PA31 and

PA23 airplanes, respectively.

Piper has issued service bulletin (SB),

No. 822, dated April 2, 1986, which

specifies procedures for inspecting for

improperly manufactured hydraulic

hoses, part number (P/N) 17766–02 or

465–138, and if found installed,

installing hydraulic hoses (P/N 17766–

02) to replace the improperly

manufactured hydraulic hoses currently

in place on the airplane.

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

the FAA has determined that AD action

should be taken to ensure that the

correct hydraulic hoses are installed and

if not installed, replacing the hydraulic

hoses with the correct hoses to avoid a

loss of hydraulic capabilities resulting

in a gear-up landing and possible loss of

the airplane.
19868 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Piper PA23, PA31,

PA31P, PA31T, and PA42 series

airplanes of the same type design, the

proposed AD would supersede AD 86–

17–07 with a new AD that would retain

the same requirements as AD 87–17–07

and change the model designation in the

Applicability section from Piper Model

PA31–310 and PA23–150 airplanes to

Piper Model PA31 and PA23 airplanes,

respectively.

The FAA estimates that 10,737

airplanes in the U.S. registry would be

affected by the proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 1 hour per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspection, and that the average labor

rate is approximately $60 an hour. The

FAA is only using the inspection

criteria (1 workhour) since there is no

way to determine the number of these

Piper airplanes already in compliance

with AD 86–17–07. Based on the figures

above, the initial cost of the proposed

AD upon U.S. operators of the affected

airplanes is estimated to be $644,220.

This figure only includes the cost for the

initial inspection and does not include

replacement costs of the hydraulic

hoses. Parts cost approximately $53 per

hydraulic hose. Piper installed on newly

manufactured aircraft and distributed

approximately 93 defective hoses,

which could affect 93 airplanes. The

FAA has no way of determining which

Piper airplanes may have these

improperly manufactured hydraulic

hoses installed. Labor costs for the

installation of one hose is estimated to

be 2 hours at approximately $60 per

hour. Based on these figures, the total

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $660,309.

The only difference between the

proposed AD and AD 87–17–07 is the

change in model designation from

PA31–310 and PA23–150 airplanes to

PA31 and PA23 airplanes, respectively.

With this in mind, the proposed action

would not provide any additional cost

impact upon U.S. operators over that

already required by AD 87–17–07.

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 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) 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 has been placed 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 14

CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2.Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)

86–17–07, Amendment 39–5400, and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. 95–

CE–56–AD; Supersedes AD 86–17–07,

Amendment 39–5400.

Applicability: The following models and

serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Models Serial numbers

PA23 and PA23–160 .......................................... 23–1 through 23–2046.

PA23–235 ........................................................... 27–505 through 27–622.

PA23–250 ........................................................... 27–1 through 27–8154030.

PA31, PA31–300, and PA31–325 ...................... 31–2 through 31–8312019.

PA31–350 ........................................................... 31–5001 through 31–8553002.

PA31P ................................................................. 31P–1 through 31P–7730012.

PA31P–350 ......................................................... 31P–8414001 through 31P–8414050.

PA31T ................................................................. 31T–7400002 through 31T–8120104.

PA31T1 ............................................................... 31T–7804001 through 31T–8304003, and 31T–1104004 through 31T–1104017.

PA31T2 ............................................................... 31T–8166001 through 31T–8166076 and, 31T–1166001 through 31T–1166008.

PA31T3 ............................................................... 31T–8275001 through 31T–8475001 and, 31T–5575001.

PA42 ................................................................... 42–7800001, 42–7800002, 42–7801003, 42–7801004, 42–8001001 through 42–8001106, 42–

8301001, 42–8301002, 42–5501003 through 42–5501023, and 42–5501025.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required within 25 hours

time-in-service (TIS) after September 2, 1986

(the effective date of AD 86–17–07) or within

10 hours TIS after the effective date of this

AD, whichever occurs later, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent hydraulic hose failure which

could cause loss of hydraulic capabilities

resulting in a gear-up landing and possible

loss of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Inspect and replace all hydraulic hoses

identified as Piper part number (P/N) 17766–

02 or 465–138 and having a smooth rubber

surface and a blue colored end nut, with

hoses of the same part number having a

woven outer covering and black colored end

nut, in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS

section of Piper Service Bulletin (SB) No.

822, dated April 2, 1986.

Note 2: These hoses were available for

installation starting February 1, 1985, and

may have been installed in newly

manufactured airplanes or as spares at any

subsequent time.

(b) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199

to operate the airplane to a location where
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19869

1Pub. L. No. 102–546, sec. 217, 106 Stat. 3590

(1992).

2For the purposes of this release, the term

‘‘committee’’ will generally be used to include

governing boards, disciplinary committees and

oversight committees unless otherwise specified.

3The Commission notes that proposed Regulation

1.69 would be the latest in an ongoing series of

recent Commission rulemakings aimed at

enhancing the fairness and impartiality of the SRO

committee decisionmaking process. In 1990, the

Commission adopted Regulation 1.63 prohibiting

persons with histories of disciplinary violations

from serving on various SRO committees. Prompted

by the FTPA, in 1993, the Commission adopted

three separate rulemakings dealing with SRO

committee procedures and service. First, the

Continued

the requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the initial compliance time

that provides an equivalent level of safety

may be approved by the Manager, FAA,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Campus

Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, suite 2–

160, College Park, Georgia 30337–2748. The

request shall be forwarded through an

appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office.

(d) Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 87–17–07

(superseded by this action) are considered

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

(e) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain a copy of the document referred

to herein upon request to The New Piper

Aircraft, Inc., Attn: Customer Service, 2926

Piper Dr., Vero Beach, Florida, 32960; or may

examine this document at the FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

(f) This amendment supersedes AD 86–17–

07, Amendment 39–5400.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April

26, 1996.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11027 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 254

Extension of Comment Period; Guides

for Private Vocational Schools

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Extension of time for filing

public comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’), as

part of a systematic review of all of its

current regulations and guides,

requested public comments on April 3,

1996 about its Guides for Private

Vocational Schools. 61 FR 14685. The

Commission solicited comments until

May 3, 1996. In response to requests

from interested parties, the Commission

grants an extension of the time period

to file written comments.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until July 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph J. Koman, Jr., Federal Trade

Commission, Bureau of Consumer

Protection, Division of Enforcement,

Room S–4302, 601 Pennsylvania

Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20580,

(202) 326–3014, or Walter Gross III,

Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of

Consumer Protection, Division of

Service Industry Practices, Room H–

200, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania

Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20580,

(202) 326–3319.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 254

Advertising, Trade practices.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11037 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 1 and 156

Proposed Rulemaking Concerning

Voting by Interested Members of SelfRegulatory Organization Governing

Boards and Committees and

Concerning the Publicizing of Broker

Association Memberships

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is

proposing a rulemaking which would

implement the statutory directives of

Section 5a(a)(17) of the Commodity

Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) as it was

amended by Section 217 of the Futures

Trading Practices Act of 1992

(‘‘FTPA’’).1

The proposed rulemaking would

establish a new Commission Regulation

1.69 which would require selfregulatory organizations (‘‘SROs’’) to

adopt rules prohibiting governing board,

disciplinary committee and oversight

panel members from deliberating and

voting on certain matters where the

member has either a relationship with

the matter’s named party in interest or

a financial interest in the matter’s

outcome. The proposed rulemaking also

would amend existing Commission

Regulations 1.3, 1.41 and 1.63 to make

modifications made necessary by new

Commission Regulation 1.69. The

Commission also is proposing to add a

new Regulation 156.4 to require that

contract markets make more readily

available to the public the identity of

members of broker associations at their

respective exchanges.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rules

and proposed rule amendments must be

received by July 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should

submit their views and comments to

Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity

Futures Trading Commission, Three

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20581. Telephone:

(202) 418–5100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David P. Van Wagner, Special Counsel,

Division of Trading and Markets,

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,

1155 21st Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20581. Telephone: (202) 418–5481.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Section 217 of the FTPA amended

Section 5a(a)(17) of the CEA to provide

that each contract market must ‘‘provide

for the avoidance of conflict of interest

in deliberations by [its] governing board

and any disciplinary and oversight

committees.’’ 2 FTPA Section 217

further describes certain conflict

situations where committee members

must abstain from deliberations and

voting, while also requiring that the

Commission promulgate regulations in

this regard.

Consistent with Section 217 of the

FTPA, proposed Commission

Regulation 1.69 would generally bar an

SRO committee member from

deliberations and voting on a committee

decision where the member could

potentially be unduly influenced, due to

either financial or personal concerns, by

the outcome of the decision. The

Commission’s proposed rulemaking is

intended to ensure that SRO committee

actions are not infected by any conflict

of interest and are in the best interest of

the entire SRO. By furthering the

impartiality of the SRO decisionmaking

process, the Commission believes that

Regulation 1.69 should promote public

confidence in the integrity of the selfregulatory process.3