25598 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules

hardship’’ that might be caused

otherwise. In the course of revising the

FDIC insurance regulations in 1990 (in

conjunction with FSLIC’s termination)

the FDIC decided against adopting the

FSLIC’s grace-period policy because of

the questionable underlying legal basis.

The argument is that insurance coverage

is based on the ownership of the

deposits. If under the applicable state

law the ownership of an account

changes immediately upon the account

owner’s death, then the FDIC should

recognize that change immediately.

The FDIC has limited flexibility to

amend its regulations on the insurance

of accounts upon an owner’s death. That

is because, as indicated above, deposit

insurance is statutorily based on deposit

ownership. If the ownership of a

particular deposit changes automatically

under the applicable state law upon the

owner’s death, then the insurance

coverage may change also. That is the

FDIC’s long-standing position on the

issue. Although the FDIC has concerns

about whether a sound legal basis exists

for providing a ‘‘grace period’’ (for

insurance purposes) on accounts owned

by a person who dies, the FDIC

welcomes comments on this issue.

6. Recommend that the FDI Act be

amended to change the way employee

benefit plans are insured. Under an

amendment to the FDI Act made by

FDICIA, pass-through insurance

coverage is not available to employee

benefit plan deposits that are accepted

by an insured bank or thrift when the

institution does not meet prescribed

capital requirements. 12 U.S.C.

1821(a)(1)(D). If an institution accepts

employee benefit plan deposits at a time

when it is not sufficiency capitalized,

such deposits are insured only up to

$100,000 per plan (as opposed to

$100,000 per participant or beneficiary).

The FDICIA-originated provision is the

only one in the FDI Act and regulations

to base insurance coverage on the

capital sufficiency of the insured

institution where the deposits are

placed. The statute is complex and very

difficult for the industry and the public

to understand. Moreover, if deposits are

made with an insured bank or thrift that

does not meet the prescribed capital

requirements, there is no disadvantage

to the institution. The depositor is the

disadvantaged party.

The FDIC believes Congress should

replace the employee benefit plan

provision with a general prohibition

against insured institutions accepting

employee benefit plan deposits when

they are not sufficiently capitalized.

This would be consistent with the

statute pertaining to brokered deposits

and, thus, would prevent the

disadvantage to depositors if an insured

institution provides incorrect

information about its capital condition.

Comments are requested on whether the

FDIC should recommend this statutory

amendment to the Congress.

7. Consider revising the rules on living

trust accounts. A ‘‘living trust’’ is a

formal trust in which the owner retains

control of the trust assets during his or

her lifetime and designates the

beneficiaries of the assets upon his or

her death. The owner may revoke or

change the terms of the trust during his

or her lifetime. In 1993 the FDIC Legal

Division prepared guidelines on the

insurance of revocable accounts, with

an emphasis on living trusts. The

guidelines are very detailed and

somewhat complex. At the same time

the Legal Division prepared the

guidelines on living trusts, the FDIC

also adopted an informal policy not to

review complex living trust documents

to determine POD coverage but, instead,

to recommend that persons inquiring

about such coverage consult with the

lawyer who drafted the living trust.

Despite the availability of the FDIC

guidelines on living trusts and the

existence of the FDIC’s current policy

not to review trust documents, the FDIC

still receives numerous questions about

the insurance of POD accounts held in

connection with living trusts.

One possibility in simplifying the

insurance rules on living trusts is to

limit the scope of the POD regulation to

accounts which name qualifying

beneficiaries without reference to any

underlying trust documents. The rule

would apply only to the traditional POD

account intended as a free-standing will

substitute and would not apply to any

other type of revocable trust extraneous

to the POD account itself. This

interpretation of the POD provision

would be consistent with the original

rationale for extending separate

insurance coverage for this category of

account and revise the coverage rules

for the formal type of revocable account

which has added unintended

complexity and caused expansion to

this category of coverage.

Request for Comment

The Board of Directors of the FDIC is

seeking comment on all of the abovementioned possible means of

simplifying the deposit insurance rules,

including the likely effect of such

changes on consumers and the banking

industry. The Board also is seeking

suggestions on any other ways that the

rules might be streamlined, simplified

and clarified.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 14th day of

May, 1996.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Deputy Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12780 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–158–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland

Model DHC–7 Series 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 de

Havilland Model DHC–7 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

certain structural inspections, and

repair, if necessary. This proposal is

prompted by a structural re-evaluation,

which identified certain significant

structural items to inspect for fatigue

cracking as these airplanes approach

and exceed the manufacturer’s original

design life. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

fatigue cracking in these areas which, if

not detected and corrected in a timely

manner, could reduce the structural

integrity of these airplanes.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

158–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

de Havilland, Inc., Garratt Boulevard,

Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sol

Maroof, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

and Propulsion Branch, ANE–171, FAA,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25599

New York Aircraft Certification Office,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 10

Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream,

New York 11581; telephone (516) 256–

7522; fax (516) 568–2716.

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 95–NM–158–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.

95–NM–158–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

Transport Canada Aviation, which is

the airworthiness authority for Canada,

recently notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on all de Havilland

Model DHC–7 series airplanes. Service

experience shows that transport

category aircraft of this type require

certain supplemental structural

inspections and maintenance to

compensate for the effects of prolonged

time-in-service. As a result, the

manufacturer has conducted a structural

reassessment of these airplanes and has

identified additional significant

structural items where fatigue damage is

likely to occur. The criteria for this

reassessment are contained in FAA

Advisory Circular (AC) 91–60,

‘‘Continued Airworthiness of Older

Airplanes.’’

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

De Havilland has issued Temporary

Revision (TR 5–84), dated June 15, 1994,

of the DHC–7 Maintenance Manual

(PSM 1–7–2), Chapter 5–60–00. TR 5–84

was developed based on service

experience with the purpose of

extending the Model DHC–7 series

airplanes’ life beyond 40,000 total

flights cycles. It describes procedures

for repetitive detailed visual inspections

to detect cracks, loose or broken

fasteners, and deformations of the

vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer,

and lower skin panels of the wing. That

document also indicates that operators

should submit the results of these

inspections to the manufacturer.

Transport Canada Aviation classified

this document as mandatory and issued

Canadian airworthiness directive CF–

94–19, dated October 6, 1994, in order

to assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in Canada.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in Canada and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

Transport Canada Aviation has kept the

FAA informed of the situation described

above. The FAA has examined the

findings of Transport Canada Aviation,

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.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design, the proposed AD would

require that operators incorporate, into

their FAA-approved maintenance

inspection program, the inspections

specified in DHC–7 Maintenance

Manual (PSM 1–7–2), Chapter 5–60–00,

Temporary Revision (TR 5–84), dated

June 15, 1994. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the document

described previously.

Additionally, the proposed AD would

require the repair of any findings of

cracks, loose or broken fasteners, or

deformations in accordance with either:

1. The DHC–7 Maintenance Manual;

or

2. The DHC–7 Structural Repair

Manual;

3. Other data meeting the certification

basis of the airplane which is approved

by the Manager, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate; or

4. Data meeting the certification basis

of the airplane which is approved by

Transport Canada Aviation.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 50 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 15 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 cost impact of the proposed

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$45,000, or $900 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

The 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.

Regulatory Impact

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.
25600 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

De Havilland, Inc.: Docket 95–NM–158–AD.

Applicability: All Model DHC–7 series

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

other 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 (d) 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 as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To ensure the continuing structural

integrity of these airplanes, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, incorporate into the FAAapproved maintenance inspection program

the inspections and inspection intervals

defined in DHC–7 Maintenance Manual

(PSM 1–7–2), Chapter 5–60–00, Temporary

Revision (TR 5–84), dated June 15, 1994; and

inspect the significant structural items prior

to the thresholds specified in TR 5–84 of

PSM 1–7–2. Repeat the inspections thereafter

at the intervals specified in TR 5–84 of PSM

1–7–2.

(b) Prior to further flight, repair any

discrepancies detected during any inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD in

accordance with one of the following:

(1) The DHC–7 Maintenance Manual; or

(2) The DHC–7 Structural Repair Manual;

or

(3) Other data meeting the certification

basis of the airplane which is approved by

the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), FAA, Engine and Propeller

Directorate; or

(4) Data meeting the certification basis of

the airplane which is approved by Transport

Canada Aviation.

(c) All inspection results, positive or

negative, must be reported to de Havilland in

accordance with ‘‘Introduction,’’ paragraph 5,

of DHC–7 Maintenance Manual (PSM 1–7–2),

Chapter 5–60–00, Temporary Revision (TR 5–

84), dated June 15, 1994. Information

collection requirements contained in this

regulation have been approved by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.

(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, New York

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, New York ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Manager, New York ACO.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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 May 15,

1996.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12728 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–ANM–22]

Proposed Establishment of Class E

Airspace, Colstrip, Montana

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

establish the Colstrip, Montana, Class E

airspace to accommodate a new Global

Positioning System (GPS) standard

instrument approach procedure (SIAP)

to the Colstrip Airport. The area would

be depicted on aeronautical charts for

pilot reference.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Manager,

Operations Branch, ANM–530, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

95–ANM–22, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The official docket may be examined

at the same address.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Frala, ANM–532.4, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

95–ANM–22, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone number: (206) 227–2535.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95–

ANM–22.’’ the postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this notice may be changed in the

light of comments received. All

comments submitted will be available

for examination at the address listed

above both before and after the closing

date for comments. A report

summarizing each substantive public

contact with FAA personnel concerned

with this rulemaking will be filed in the

docked.

Availability NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration,

Operations Branch, ANM–530, 1601

Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington

98055–4056. Communications must

identify the notice number of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future

NPRM’s should also request a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, which

describes the application procedure.