Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules 65663

Regulatory Procedures

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to

describe any significant economic

impact a proposed rule may have on a

substantial number of small credit

unions (those under one million dollars

in assets). The proposed rule only

clarifies that credit unions have

additional options and flexibility to

manage their employee benefit

obligations without imposing any

regulatory burden. The proposed rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

credit unions, and therefore, a

regulatory flexibility analysis is not

required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

NCUA has determined that the

proposed rule would not increase

paperwork requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and

regulations of the Office of Management

and Budget.

Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 encourages

independent regulatory agencies to

consider the impact of their actions on

state and local interests. In adherence to

fundamental federalism principles,

NCUA, an independent regulatory

agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5),

voluntarily complies with the executive

order. The proposed rule would not

have substantial direct effects on the

states, on the connection between the

national government and the states, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. NCUA has

determined that this proposed rule does

not constitute a policy that has

federalism implications for purposes of

the executive order.

The Treasury and General Government

Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment

of Federal Regulations and Policies on

Families

The NCUA has determined that this

proposed rule would not affect family

well-being within the meaning of

section 654 of the Treasury and General

Government Appropriations Act, 1999,

Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

Agency Regulatory Goal

NCUA’s goal is to promulgate clear

and understandable regulations that

impose minimal regulatory burden. We

request your comments on whether the

proposed rule is understandable and

minimally intrusive.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701

Credit unions.

By the National Credit Union

Administration Board on December 13, 2001.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

Accordingly, NCUA proposes to

amend 12 CFR part 701 as follows:

PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND

OPERATIONS OF FEDERAL CREDIT

UNIONS

1. The authority citation for part 701

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756,

1757, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782,

1784, 1787, 1789. Section 701.6 is also

authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31

is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.;

42 U.S.C. 1981 and 3601–3610. Section

701.35 is also authorized by 42 U.S.C. 4311–

4312.

2. Revise § 701.19 to read as follows:

§ 701.19 Benefits for employees of Federal

credit unions.

(a) General authority. A federal credit

union may provide employee benefits,

including retirement benefits, to its

employees and officers who are

compensated in conformance with the

Act and the bylaws, individually or

collectively with other credit unions.

The kind and value of these benefits

must be reasonable given the federal

credit union’s size and financial

condition. Where a federal credit union

is the benefit plan trustee or custodian,

the plan must be authorized and

maintained in accordance with the

provisions of part 724 of this chapter.

Where the benefit plan trustee or

custodian is a party other than a federal

credit union, the benefit plan must be

maintained in accordance with

applicable laws governing employee

benefit plans, including any applicable

rules and regulations issued by the

Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the

Treasury, or any other federal or state

authority exercising jurisdiction over

the plan.

(b) Investments. A federal credit

union investing to fund an employee

benefit plan obligation is not subject to

the investment provisions of the Act

and part 703 of this chapter and may

purchase an investment that would

otherwise be impermissible if:

(1) The investment is directly related

to the federal credit union’s obligation

or potential obligation under the

employee benefit plan; and

(2) The federal credit union holds the

investment only for as long as it has an

actual or potential obligation under the

employee benefit plan.

(c) Liability insurance. No federal

credit union may occupy the position of

a fiduciary, as defined in the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

and the rules and regulations issued by

the Secretary of Labor, unless it has

obtained appropriate liability insurance

as described and permitted by section

410(b) of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974.

[FR Doc. 01–31287 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–CE–17–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild

Aircraft Incorporated SA226 and SA227

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM);

Reopening of the comment period.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revise an earlier proposed airworthiness

directive (AD) that would apply to

certain Fairchild Aircraft Incorporated

(Fairchild Aircraft) SA226 and SA227

series airplanes equipped with

Skidmore-Wilheim Manufacturing Co.

(Skidmore-Wilheim) (formerly

Hydromotive) Model V1–15–1000 brake

master cylinders. The earlier NPRM

would have required you replace these

brake master cylinders with new or

overhauled units of the same design.

The earlier NPRM resulted from reports

of dragging brakes during taxi

operations. Additional airplane models

have been identified on which the

unsafe condition exists or could

develop. Since these actions impose an

additional burden over that proposed in

the NPRM, we are reopening the

comment period to allow the public the

chance to comment on these additional

actions.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this proposed rule on or

before February 22, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

2001–CE–17–AD, 901 Locust, Room

506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You

may view any comments at this location

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

You may get service information that

applies to this proposed AD from

65664 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Fairchild Aircraft Incorporated, P.O.

Box 790490, San Antonio, Texas 78279–

0490; telephone: (210) 824–9421;

facsimile: (210) 820–8609. You may also

view this information at the Rules

Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Werner Koch, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Airplane Certification Office, 2601

Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas

76193–0150; telephone: (817) 222–5133;

facsimile: (817) 222–5960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

How Do I Comment on This Proposed

AD?

The FAA invites comments on this

proposed rule. You may submit

whatever written data, views, or

arguments you choose. You need to

include the rule’s docket number and

submit your comments to the address

specified under the caption ADDRESSES.

We will consider all comments received

on or before the closing date. We may

amend this proposed rule in light of

comments received. Factual information

that supports your ideas and suggestions

is extremely helpful in evaluating the

effectiveness of this proposed AD action

and determining whether we need to

take additional rulemaking action.

Are There any Specific Portions of This

Proposed AD I Should Pay Attention to?

The FAA specifically invites

comments on the overall regulatory,

economic, environmental, and energy

aspects of this proposed rule that might

suggest a need to modify the rule. You

may view all comments we receive

before and after the closing date of the

proposed rule in the Rules Docket. We

will file a report in the Rules Docket

that summarizes each contact we have

with the public that concerns the

substantive parts of this proposed AD.

How Can I Be Sure FAA Receives My

Comment?

If you want FAA to acknowledge the

receipt of your comments, you must

include a self-addressed, stamped

postcard. On the postcard, write

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2001–CE–17–

AD.’’ We will date stamp and mail the

postcard back to you.

Discussion

What Events Have Caused This

Proposed AD?

The FAA received several reports of

dragging brakes on Fairchild SA226

series airplanes when the brake pedals

were operated during taxi operations.

After troubleshooting by maintenance

personnel, the problem was traced to

the master brake cylinder. Disassembly

of the malfunctioning master cylinders

revealed broken check valve spring

washers that, together with the action of

the shuttle valve, prevented the release

of brake pressure when the brake pedal

was released after a brake application.

Based on observed failures, FAA has

determined that the brake master

cylinders should be replaced at intervals

of 15,000 hours time-in-service.

What Are the Consequences if the

Condition is Not Corrected?

This condition, if not detected or

corrected, could cause dragging brakes,

which can result in overheated brakes

and cause an in-flight wheelwell fire if

the dragging takes place during takeoff

and the gear is later retracted.

Has FAA Taken Any Action to This

Point?

We issued a proposal to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that

would apply to certain Fairchild

Aircraft SA226 series airplanes

equipped with Skidmore-Wilheim

Model V1–15–1000 brake master

cylinders. This proposal was published

in the Federal Register as a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on

August 21, 2001 (66 FR 43814). The

NPRM proposed to require you to

replace these brake master cylinders

with new or overhauled units of the

same design.

You would have to accomplish the

proposed actions in accordance with the

applicable maintenance manual or

service bulletin.

Was the Public Invited To Comment?

The FAA encouraged interested

persons to participate in the making of

this amendment. The following presents

the comments received on the proposal

and FAA’s response to each comment:

Comment Issue No. 1: Expand the

applicability.

What Is the Commenter’s Concern?

The NPRM indicates that only series

SA226 aircraft are affected by this AD.

However, the commenter indicates that

some SA 227 series airplanes are also

affected and the unsafe condition

referenced in the NPRM exists or could

also develop on those SA227 series

airplanes.

What Is FAA’s Response to the Concern?

The commenter correctly identified

additional applicable SA227 aircraft

models. The FAA will include the

additional applicable models in the

proposed rule. Because this change

increases the burden upon the public,

we are reopening the comment period

for this action.

Comment Issue No. 2: Change the

manufacturer’s reference.

What Is the Commenter’s Concern?

The commenter requests that all

references in the NPRM to Fairchild

Aircraft, Inc. be changed to Fairchild

Aircraft Incorporated.

What Is FAA’s Response to the Concern?

The company name Fairchild Aircraft

Incorporated is correct on the type

certificates. The name Fairchild Aircraft

Incorporated will be used in the NPRM.

The FAA’s Determination

What Has FAA Decided?

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

we have determined that:

—The unsafe condition referenced in

this document exists or could develop

on other Fairchild SA226 and SA227

series airplanes of the same type

design equipped with SkidmoreWilheim Model V1–15–1000 brake

master cylinders;

—The NPRM should be expanded to

include these actions; and

—AD action should be taken in order to

correct this unsafe condition.

The Supplemental NPRM

How Will the Changes to the NPRM

Impact the Public?

Proposing that the NPRM apply to

certain Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and

SA227 series airplanes equipped with

Skidmore-Wilheim Model V1–15–1000

brake master cylinders presents actions

that go beyond the scope of what was

already proposed. Therefore, we are

issuing a supplemental NPRM and

reopening the comment period to allow

the public additional time to comment

on the proposed AD.

What Are the Provisions of the

Supplemental NPRM?

The proposed AD would require you

to replace or overhaul the brake master

cylinders. Procedures are in the

applicable Fairchild service bulletin.

Cost Impact

How Many Airplanes Would This

Proposed AD Impact?

We estimate that this proposed AD

affects 140 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What Would be the Cost Impact of This

Proposed AD on Owners/Operators of

the Affected Airplanes?

We estimate the following costs to do

any necessary replacements:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules 65665

Labor cost New or overhauled parts cost (4 parts for

each aircraft required

Total cost

per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators

8 hours × $60 for each hour = $480 ........ 4 parts × $200 = $800.00 ......................... $1,280 140 airplanes × $1,280 = $179,200.

Regulatory Impact

Would This Proposed AD Impact

Various Entities?

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect 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,

it is determined that this proposed rule

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

Would This Proposed AD Involve a

Significant Rule or Regulatory Action?

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed 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, under 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. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD) to

read as follows:

Fairchild Aircraft Incorporated: Docket No.

2001–CE–17–AD

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

This AD affects the following airplane

models and serial numbers that are

certificated in any category:

Model Serial Nos.

SA226–AT .............................. All.

SA226–T ................................ All.

SA226–T(B) ........................... All.

SA226–TC .............................. All.

SA227–AC, SA227–AT, and

SA227–TT.

420 through

583.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to correct and prevent future malfunctioning

brake master cylinders. Malfunctioning brake

master cylinders could cause dragging

brakes, which can result in overheated brakes

and a wheelwell fire if the dragging takes

place during takeoff and the gear is later

retracted.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must do the following, unless

already done:

Actions Compliance Procedures

Replace the Skidmore-Wilheim Manufacturing

Co. Model V1–15–1000 brake master cylinders with new or overhauled Model V1–15–

1000 brake master cylinders or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers.

Upon the accumulation of 200 hours time in

service (TIS) after the effective date of this

AD or 15,000 hours total TIS on the affected brake master cylinders, whichever

occurs later. Later replacement intervals

shall be at 15,000 hours TIS

For SA226 series airplanes, do this action following the procedures in the applicable

maintenance manual. Overhaul the brake

master cylinders following the procedures in

Fairchild Service Bulletin SB 226–32–069,

issued October 24, 2001.

For SA227 series airplanes, do this action following the procedures in the applicable

maintenance manual. Overhaul the brake

master cylinders following the procedures in

Fairchild Service Bulletin SB 227–32–045,

issued October 24, 2001.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane

Certification Office (ACO), approves your

alternative. Send your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Fort Worth ACO.

Note: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

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 (e)

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 you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already–approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Werner Koch,

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Airplane

Certification Office, 2601 Meacham

Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0150;

telephone: (817) 222–5133; facsimile: (817)

222–5960.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may get copies of

the documents referenced in this AD from

Fairchild Aircraft Incorporated, P.O. Box

790490, San Antonio, Texas 78279–0490.

You may view these documents at FAA,

65666 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 11, 2001.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31298 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–57–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna

Aircraft Company 150, 172, 175, 180,

182, 185, 206, 210, and 336 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

that would have applied to certain

Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 150,

172, 175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 210, and

336 series airplanes. The proposed AD

would have affected those airplanes

equipped with 0513166 series plastic

control wheels. The proposed AD would

have required you to repetitively inspect

these wheels for cracks, conduct a pull

test on these wheels, and replace any

control wheels that are cracked or that

do not pass the pull test. Replacement

of the control wheels would have been

with ones that were FAA-approved and

were not 0513166 series plastic control

wheels. After evaluating all the

comments received on the proposal, we

have determined that the cracking or

failure of the control wheel is not a

safety hazard and that a special

airworthiness information bulletin

would be more appropriate. There have

been only four service difficulty reports

made in the FAA database; however,

there were neither associated accidents

nor incidents. Most of the affected

airplanes have dual control wheels with

each wheel having two handles for

redundancy, which would provide an

alternative means to control the airplane

should actual failure occur. For these

reasons, we are withdrawing the NPRM.

ADDRESSES: You may look at

information related to this action at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

98–CE–57–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106, between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eual

Conditt, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801

Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,

Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–

4102; facsimile: (316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

What Action Has FAA Taken to Date?

We issued a proposal to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that

would have applied to certain Cessna

Aircraft Company (Cessna) 150, 172,

175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 210, and 336

series airplanes. The proposal was

published in the Federal Register as an

NPRM on December 29, 2000 (65 FR

82954). The comment period was

extended from February 2, 2001, to

April 4, 2001 on January 22, 2001 (66

FR 6499). The proposed rule would

have required you to:

—Repetitively inspect and pull test the

0513166 series control wheels; and

—Replace any control wheels that fail

the inspection or pull test.

Was the Public Invited to Comment?

The FAA invited interested persons to

participate in the making of this

amendment. The comments, in most

part, reflect the public’s desire to have

FAA withdraw the proposal and instead

issue a special airworthiness

information bulletin or general aviation

alert. The reason for this is because

there are only four service difficulty

reports of control wheel cracks in the

FAA database and most of the affected

airplanes have dual control wheels with

each wheel having two handles for

redundancy, which would provide an

alternative means to control the airplane

should actual failure occur.

The FAA’s Determination

What Is FAA’s Final Determination on

This Issue?

After re-evaluating all information

related to this subject, we have

determined that:

—The unsafe condition is appropriately

addressed through a special

airworthiness bulletin (No. CE–01–

41);

—Because there are only four service

difficulty reports of control wheel

cracks in the FAA database regarding

this subject on the affected airplanes,

there is no need for the NPRM, Docket

No. 98–CE–57–AD; and

—We should withdraw the NPRM.

Withdrawal of this action does not

prevent us from taking or commit us to

any future action.

Regulatory Impact

Does This Proposed AD Withdrawal

Involve a Significant Rule or Regulatory

Action?

Since this action only withdraws a

proposed AD, it is not an AD and,

therefore, is not covered under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act,or DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, FAA withdraws the

notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket

No. 98–CE–57–AD, published in the

Federal Register on December 29, 2000

(65 FR 82954) with the comment period

extended from February 2, 2001, to

April 4, 2001 on January 22, 2001 (66

FR 6499).

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 11, 2001.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31299 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration

15 CFR Parts 738 and 742

[Docket No. 011019257–1257–01]

RIN 0694–AC48

Removal of Licensing Exemption for

Exports and Reexports of Missile

Technology-Controlled Items Destined

to Canada

AGENCY: Bureau of Export

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Export

Administration (BXA) is reviewing the

existing license exemption contained

within the Export Administration

Regulations (EAR) for the export of

missile technology (MT)-controlled

items to Canada, because of the

recommendations contained in the

Government Accounting Office Report

entitled: ‘‘Export Controls: Regulatory