252 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1 Information subject to the Privacy Act may

thereafter be disclosed when necessary in

accordance with the routine use provision. 12 CFR

261a.10(b)(3). See Board System of Records,

BGFRS–5, Federal Reserve Regulatory Service ¶ 8–

338. A federal criminal statute regarding the

unauthorized conversion of Board property may

restrict disclosure of confidential Board information

in certain cases unless authorization has been

specifically given. 18 U.S.C. 641.

Board may be included in a complaint

file. Accordingly, § 268.207(e) of the

Rules has been amended to provide that

the time period for completing an

investigation may be unilaterally

extended by the Board only where

classified national security information

must be sanitized. This amendment

conforms the Rules to the corresponding

provision in the complaint processing

regulation of the Commission.

In addition, a new paragraph

(§ 268.207(e)(2)) has been added to

§ 268.207(e) of the Board’s Rules that

expressly authorizes the placement by

the investigator, the EEO Programs

Director, or another appropriate officer

of the Board of relevant confidential

information in the investigative file that

is provided to a complainant and to his

or her personal representative.

The new paragraph contains a

provision making clear that those who

have access to an investigative file, such

as the complainant and the

complainant’s personal representative,

containing any confidential information

are subject to all applicable restrictions

in existing law governing the disclosure

of such information, in particular, the

Board’s Rules Regarding Availability of

Information (12 CFR Part 261) and,

where applicable, the Privacy Act. This

means that confidential information in

an investigatory file may be disclosed

further only to the extent permitted by

such restrictions.

The Board notes, in this regard, that

its restrictions on unauthorized

disclosure of confidential information

by persons in possession of such

information bind all such persons, not

merely those who are employees of the

Board. 12 CFR 261.8(c), 261.13(e),

261.14.

The Board’s Rules Regarding

Availability of Information (12 CFR 261

subpart C) provide a mechanism by

which a person having confidential

information of the Board may request

permission to disclose further such

information, however. Accordingly,

application may be made to the Board’s

General Counsel under 12 CFR 261.13

for approval of further production or

disclosure by a complainant or personal

representative of confidential

information.

In addition, aside from confidential

supervisory information, a particular

investigatory file may include

information that is subject to the Privacy

Act. Such information also may not be

disclosed to or by the complainant

unless disclosure is authorized

consistent with the requirements and/or

prohibitions of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C.

552a).1 Information subject to Executive

Order 12356 may not at any point be

included in the investigatory file and

would not be made available to the

complainant or to his/her personal

representative.

In addition, the Board has made a

technical correction to

§ 268.304(a)(3)(i)(A) by substituting a

reference to Executive Order No. 12356,

dealing with national security classified

information, for the former reference

(Executive Order No. 10450). The Board

has determined that this technical

correction is not subject to provisions of

the Administrative Procedure Act

regarding notice and public comment

because good cause exists to support the

conclusion that notice and public

procedure thereon are unnecessary. 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d).

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 268

Administrative practice and

procedure, Aged, Civil rights, Equal

employment opportunity, Federal

buildings and facilities, Federal Reserve

System, Government employees,

Individuals with disabilities, Religious

discrimination, Sex discrimination,

Wages.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR

part 268 as set forth below:

PART 268—RULES REGARDING

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

1. The authority citation for part 268

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 244 and 248(i), (k)

and (l).

2. In § 268.207, paragraph (e) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 268.207 Investigation of complaints.

* * * * *

(e)(1) The Board shall complete its

investigation within 180 days of the

date of the filing of an individual

complaint or within the time period

contained in the determination of the

Commission on review of a dismissal

pursuant to § 268.206 of this part. By

written agreement within those time

periods, the complainant and the Board

may voluntarily extend the time period

for not more than an additional 90 days.

The Board may unilaterally extend the

time period or any period of extension

for not more than 30 days where it must

sanitize an investigative file that may

contain information classified pursuant

to Executive Order No. 12356, or

successor orders, as secret in the interest

of national defense or foreign policy,

provided the Board notifies the

complainant of the extension.

(2) Confidential supervisory

information, as defined in 12 CFR

261.2(b), and other confidential

information of the Board may be

included in the investigative file by the

investigator, the EEO Programs Director,

or another appropriate officer of the

Board, where such information is

relevant to the complaint. Neither the

complainant nor the complainant’s

personal representative may make

further disclosure of such information,

however, except in compliance with the

Board’s Rules Regarding Availability of

Information, 12 CFR part 261, and

where applicable, the Board’s Rules

Regarding Access to and Review of

Personal Information in Systems of

Records, 12 CFR part 261a.

* * * * *

§ 268.304 [Amended]

3. In § 268.304(a)(3)(i)(A), remove the

words ‘‘Executive Order No. 10450 (3

CFR, 1949–1953 Comp., P. 936)’’ and

add in their place, the words ‘‘Executive

Order No. 12356 (3 CFR, 1982 Comp.; p.

166)’’.

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, December 28, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 96–90 Filed 1–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. 26344; Amendment No. 23–43]

RIN 2120–AD30

Small Airplane Airworthiness Review

Program Amendment No. 3; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Correction; final rule with

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This final rule contains

corrections to the final regulation

(Amendment 23–43), which was

published April 9, 1993 (58 FR 18958).

The regulation amended the powerplant

and equipment airworthiness standards

for normal, utility, acrobatic, and

commuter category airplanes. This
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 253

amendment replaces two paragraphs

that were inadvertently deleted by

Amendment No. 23–43.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective

January 4, 1996. Comments must be

submitted on or before April 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket

(AGC–200), Docket No. 26344, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591. Comments

delivered must be marked Docket No.

26344. Comments may be inspected in

Room 915G weekdays between 8:30 a.m.

and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal

holidays.

In addition, the FAA is maintaining a

duplicate information docket of

comments in the Office of the Assistant

Chief Counsel, ACE–7, Federal Aviation

Administration, Central Region, 601

East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106. Comments in the duplicate

information docket may be inspected in

the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:00

p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman Vetter, ACE–111, Small

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, 601 East 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone

(816) 426–5688.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting immediate flight safety and,

thus, was not preceded by notice and

opportunity to comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this 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

will be considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

determining whether additional

rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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

rule 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. 26344.’’ The postcard will be

date stamped and returned to the

commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

and that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and is not a significant regulatory action

under Executive Order 12866. It has

been determined further that this action

involves an emergency regulation under

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it

is determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket

(otherwise, an evaluation is not

required). A copy of it, if filed, may be

obtained from the Rules Docket.

Availability

Any person may obtain a copy of this

amendment by submitting a request to

the Federal Aviation Administration,

Office of Public Affairs, Attention:

Public Inquiry Center, APA–200, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267–3484. Communications must

identify the amendment number.

Persons interested in being placed on

the mailing list for future NPRM’s and

rules should request, from the above

office, a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Distribution System, which describes

the application procedure.

Background

The final regulations that are the

subject of this amendment, Amendment

23–43 (58 FR 18958, April 9, 1993),

inadvertently removed paragraphs

§ 23.965 (b)(4) and (b)(5). These

paragraphs were never intended to be

removed and their removal was not

proposed in the NPRM for Amendment

23–43.

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulations

contain inadvertently deleted

paragraphs 23.965 (b)(4) and (b)(5),

which contain substantive requirements

that were not intended to be removed

and are considered essential to aviation

safety.

Discussion of Amendments

Section 23.965

The FAA proposed to amend

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of

§ 23.965 in Amendment 23–43.

However, the amendatory language

removed paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5).

This amendment corrects the error by

reinserting those paragraphs into the

regulations.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and

symbols.

The Amendments

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 23 to read as

follows:

PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS

STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY,

ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER

CATEGORY AIRPLANES

1. The authority citation for part 23

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701; 49

U.S.C. 106(g).

2. Section 23.965, paragraph (b), is

amended by adding paragraphs (b)(4)

and (b)(5) to read as follows:

§ 23.965 Fuel tank tests.

(b) * * *

(4) Under paragraph (b)(3) (ii) and (iii)

of this section, the time of test must be

adjusted to accomplish the same

number of vibration cycles that would

be accomplished in 25 hours at the

frequency specified in paragraph

(b)(3)(i) of this section.

(5) During the test, the tank assembly

must be rocked at a rate of 16 to 20

complete cycles per minute, through an

angle of 15° on either side of the

horizontal (30° total), about an axis

parallel to the axis of the fuselage, for

25 hours.
254 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Washington, DC, on December

28, 1995.

Michael Gallagher,

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–135 Filed 1–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. 94–ANE–61; Special Condition

No. 35–ANE–03]

Special Conditions; Hamilton Standard

Model 568F Propeller

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

SUMMARY: These special conditions are

issued for Hamilton Standard Model

568F propeller. This propeller is

constructed using all composite blades,

a novel and unusual design feature. Part

35 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(FAR’s) currently does not address the

airworthiness considerations associated

with propellers constructed using all

composite blades. These special

conditions contain additional safety

standards which the Administrator

finds necessary to establish a level of

safety equivalent to that established by

the airworthiness standards of part 35 of

the FAR’s.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martin Buckman, Engine and Propeller

Standards Staff, ANE–110, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, FAA, New

England Region, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington,

Massachusetts 01803–5229; telephone

(617) 238–7112, fax (617) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 26, 1994, Hamilton

Standard applied for type certification

for a new Model 568F propeller. This

propeller is constructed using all

composite blades, a novel and unusual

design feature. A Notice of Proposed

Special Conditions was published in the

Federal Register on January 20, 1995

(60 FR 4116) for the Hamilton Standard

Model 568F propeller constructed with

composite material. Propellers

constructed entirely of composite

material have additional airworthiness

considerations not currently addressed

by part 35 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR). Those additional

airworthiness considerations associated

with propellers constructed using all

composite blades are propeller integrity

following a bird strike, propeller

integrity following a lightning strike,

and propeller fatigue strength when

exposed to the deteriorating effects of

in-service use and the environment.

Type Certificate Basis

Under the provisions of § 21.17 of the

FAR’s, Hamilton Standard must show

that the Model 568F propeller meets the

requirements of the applicable

regulations in effect on the date of the

application. Those FAR’s are § 21.21

and part 35, effective February 1, 1965,

as amended.

The Administrator finds that the

applicable airworthiness regulations in

part 35, as amended, do not contain

adequate or appropriate safety standards

for the Model 568F propeller because it

is constructed using composite material.

Therefore, the Administrator prescribes

special conditions under the provisions

of § 21.16 of the FAR’s to establish a

level of safety equivalent to that

established in the regulations.

Special conditions, as appropriate, are

issued in accordance with § 11.49 of the

FAR’s after public notice and

opportunity for comment, as required by

§§ 11.28 and 11.29(b), and become part

of the type certification basis in

accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

Hamilton Standard Model 568F

propeller incorporates propeller blades

constructed using composite material.

This material has fibers that are woven

or aligned in specific directions to give

the material directional strength

properties. These properties depend on

the type of fiber, the orientation and

concentration of fiber, and matrix

material. Composite materials could

exhibit multiple modes of failure.

Propellers constructed of composite

material must demonstrate

airworthiness when considering these

novel design features.

The requirements of part 35 of the

FAR’s were established to address the

airworthiness considerations associated

with wood and metal propellers used

primarily on reciprocating engines.

Propeller blades of this type are

generally thicker than composite blades,

and have demonstrated good service

experience following a bird strike.

Propeller blades constructed using

composite material are generally thinner

when used on turbine engines, and are

typically installed on high performance

aircraft. High performance aircraft

generally fly at high airspeeds with

correspondingly high impact forces

associated with a bird strike. Thus,

composite propellers must demonstrate

propeller integrity following a bird

strike.

In addition, part 35 of the FAR’s do

not currently require a demonstration of

propeller integrity following a lightning

strike. No safety considerations arise

from lightning strikes on propellers

constructed of metal because the

electrical current is safely conducted

through the metal blade without damage

to the propeller. Fixed pitched, wooden

propellers are generally used on engines

installed on small, general aviation

aircraft that typically do not encounter

flying conditions conducive to lightning

strikes. Composite propeller blades,

however, may be used on turbine

engines and high performance aircraft

which have an increased risk of

lightning strikes. Composite blades may

not safely conduct or dissipate the

electrical current from a lightning strike.

Severe damage can result if the

propellers are not properly protected.

Therefore, composite blades must

demonstrate propeller integrity

following a lightning strike. Information

on testing for lightning protection is set

out in SAE Report AE4L, entitled,

‘‘Lightning Test Waveforms and

Techniques for Aerospace Vehicles and

Hardware,’’ dated June 20, 1978.

Lastly, the current certification

requirements address fatigue evaluation

only of metal propeller blades or hubs,

and those metal components of nonmetallic blade assemblies. Allowable

design stress limits for composite blades

must consider the deteriorating effects

of the environment and in-service use,

particularly those effects from

temperature, moisture, erosion and

chemical attack. Composite blades also

present new and different

considerations for retention of the

blades in the propeller hub.

Discussion of Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

the opportunity to participate in the

making of these special conditions. Due

consideration has been given to

comments received.

One commenter is concerned that the

terms ‘‘reasonable and foreseeable’’ in

paragraph (3) FATIGUE EVALUATION

of the special condition is a vague

interpretation, and will result in large

variation in how this requirement is

applied.

The FAA disagrees. The special

conditions are written with the accepted

terminology from § 35.37, Fatigue limit

tests, of the FAR’s, which states that

‘‘The fatigue evaluation must include

consideration of all reasonably

foreseeable vibration load patterns.’’

This terminology has been established

because each propeller installation

presents a unique set of operating

conditions that must be incorporated