[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36926-36930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17393]




[[Page 36925]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 43



Airworthiness Standards: Maintenance and Preventive Maintenance; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 36926]]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 43

[Docket No. 28273; Notice No. 95-10]
RIN 2120-AE57


Revisions to Maintenance and Preventive Maintenance Rules

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to amend the maintenance rules to allow 
properly trained pilots of aircraft type certificated for 9 or fewer 
passenger seats and operated under 14 CFR Part 135 to perform certain 
maintenance tasks on their aircraft. This NPRM also proposes to add 
certain tasks to those items considered to be preventive maintenance. 
The proposed changes are needed because a large number of exemption 
requests has demonstrated a need for pilots conducting certain types of 
operations to be able to respond more rapidly to emergency medical 
missions and to reconfigure cabins to accommodate changing needs to 
transport varying combinations of passenger and/or cargo in situations 
when a certificated mechanic is not available to perform the required 
maintenance task. The proposed rules, if adopted, would improve 
emergency response and flight turnaround times for these operations, 
and would relieve the public and agency burdens of filing and 
processing exemptions.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice should be mailed, in triplicate, to: 
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Docket No. 28273, 800 Independence 
Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591. Comments delivered must be marked 
Docket No. 28273.
    Comments may also be submitted electronically to the following 
Internet address: [email protected]. Comments may be examined in 
Room 915G weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., except on Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward L. Ortiz, General Aviation 
Commercial Branch (AFS-340), Aircraft Maintenance Division, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20591, (202) 267-9952.

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. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, 
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the 
proposals in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments should 
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments should identify the 
regulatory docket or notice number and should be submitted in 
triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments 
received on or before the closing date for comments specified will be 
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed 
rulemaking. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in 
light of comments received. All comments received 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 
substantive public contract with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. 
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this notice must include a preaddressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket No. 28273''. The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to 
the commenter.

Availability of NPRM's

    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, 
Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-430, 800 Independence Avenue, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3483. 
Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons 
interested in being placed on the mailing list for future NPRM's 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

Statement of the Problem

    Many small air carriers operating under 14 CFR part 135 (part 135) 
perform missions in locations where or during times when a certificated 
mechanic may not be available to perform certain maintenance tasks that 
need immediate attention. These air carriers provide emergency 
ambulance service; transport internal organs for emergency medical 
treatment; transport packages, parts, and electronic equipment whose 
delivery is of a time-critical nature; and provide normal passenger-
carrying service, occasionally with freight as a secondary load. 
Because the demand for these services varies and, especially in the 
case of medical emergency calls, arises at all times of the day, it is 
impossible for air carriers to anticipate airplane configuration 
requirements.
    Performing cabin conversions to aircraft operating under part 135 
is considered either maintenance (if extensive) or preventive 
maintenance (if minor), and must currently be performed by a 
certificated mechanic as required by Sec. 43.3. Similarly, the removal 
and replacement of medical oxygen bottles is considered maintenance and 
must be performed by a certificated mechanic.
    For many carriers, locating a mechanic each time a request for 
service occurs creates lengthy delays that are costly and could be 
potentially life threatening to injured or ill passengers. Similarly, 
providing a maintenance crew on ``24-hour call'' is cost prohibitive 
for many carriers.
    In addition to imposing these burdens, the current regulations also 
prohibit general aviation pilots from removing and replacing easily 
removable communication and navigation devices, and from updating 
easily replaceable data bases. Certain aviation communication and 
navigation systems are now designed for easy removal and data base 
update. Many privately-owned aircraft owners and operators prefer to 
remove this self-contained equipment (a job that normally requires only 
an allen wrench and no disassembly of the unit) to prevent theft. They 
also would like to be able to insert flight plans or update the Air 
Traffic Control (ATC) software data base. Current regulations require 
that a mechanic perform this task.

History

    As of March 1995, the FAA had addressed over 250 petitions for 
exemption from the sections of part 43 governing these ``maintenance'' 
items. A majority of these petitions were from nonhelicopter, air taxi 
operators who learned from local FAA inspectors that their pilots are 
not authorized to reconfigure their cabins or exchange medical oxygen 
bottles. The petitions for exemption highlight several common issues: 
(1) Many small part 135 air carriers operate in areas where they 

[[Page 36927]]
undergo a hardship due to their regions' lack of certificated 
mechanics; (2) many others operate during times when certificated 
mechanics are not normally on duty (these missions are usually time-
critical); and (3) many of these operators are unable to operate their 
aircraft in only one configuration. Passenger-to-cargo or passenger-to-
stretcher conversion ensures the most efficient utilization of cabin 
space on each flight. In most instances, seats, stretchers, base 
assemblies, and other items used in the conversion are approved for 
aircraft installation, and the procedures for installation and removal 
are designed to be accomplished safely by a trained person.
    Historically, the FAA has granted exemptions to permit pilots of 
aircraft operated under part 135 to perform seat removal and 
replacement tasks only if the aircraft was operated in a remote area 
such as the Alaskan bush or sparsely populated areas of the 
Northwestern United States. Certificated mechanics servicing these 
areas are scarce. Many of the operations include such essential 
services as flying food, mail, needed goods and people into and out of 
areas that may not be accessible by other modes of transportation.
    More recently, however, exemptions have been granted to part 135 
air carriers to permit their properly trained pilots to reconfigure 
cabin seats when flying missions of an emergency nature during times--
at night and on weekends--when certificated mechanics are not normally 
available, and when a time delay incurred by locating a mechanic could 
cause undue burden or create a life-threatening situation.
    The FAA has determined that if a properly trained pilot can change 
seat configurations in a remote area where a certificated mechanic is 
not available (and which might be performed under adverse conditions), 
he or she would be capable of and should be allowed to perform the same 
conversions under better conditions such as those present at the 
operator's maintenance base.
    Passenger-to-cargo and passenger-to-stretcher conversions have been 
performed safely by pilots who have been trained to do so and who are 
employed by air carriers holding exemptions allowing their pilots to 
perform the tasks. No reported incidents or accidents have been 
attributed to properly trained pilots changing aircraft cabin 
configurations. If an air taxi operator develops a program for 
performing seat conversions and appropriately instructs and trains its 
pilots according to the program, safety levels equivalent to those 
achieved by certificated mechanics would be maintained.
    Also, on January 10, 1994, the FAA published a Request for Comments 
(59 FR 1326; docket No. 27581) to solicit from the public a list of 
those regulations that are believed to be unwarranted or inappropriate. 
The agency received eight comments that addressed the maintenance and 
preventive maintenance regulations of part 43. The commenters noted 
that current regulations do not allow a pilot of a part 135 operator to 
remove and reinstall aircraft cabin seats and stretchers. The 
commenters feel that the current regulations are unnecessary and are 
financially and physically burdensome. They point out that the FAA has 
issued a number of exemptions to relieve the burden, and that the 
exemption process itself is burdensome and time consuming.
    The FAA has determined that the concern shown for this issue is 
significant, and that this rulemaking action is consistent with the 
agency's responsibility to review the continuing need for its 
regulations and to eliminate regulations that impose unnecessary 
burdens.

Related Rulemaking

    The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC), which is a 
committee composed of aviation community and FAA personnel, has been 
tasked with reviewing part 43 and Appendix A to determine what 
revisions, if any, should be made. It is anticipated that any ARAC 
action taken regarding this task would not be complete before a final 
rule resulting from this proposed rulemaking would be issued.

The Current Rule

    Part 43 requires air carriers to use certificated mechanics for 
their aircrafts' maintenance and preventive maintenance needs. This 
requirement reflects an FAA position that passengers of all aircraft be 
given a high degree of safety protection through the proper 
installation of cabin seats and appointments. As outlined in Appendix 
A, paragraph (c), of this part, removal and replacement of aircraft 
seats is considered preventive maintenance. Several years ago, the FAA 
recognized the need for pilots operating helicopters under part 135 to 
be able to perform certain preventive maintenance tasks when operating 
in remote areas. Accordingly, the agency amended part 43, effective 
January 6, 1987 (51 FR 40702, Nov. 7, 1986), by adding a new 
Sec. 43.3(h), which authorized part 135 certificate holders to allow 
their pilots, when operating rotorcraft, to perform specific preventive 
maintenance tasks, under the following conditions:
    (1) The items of preventive maintenance must be a result of a known 
or suspected mechanical difficulty or malfunction that occurred en 
route to or in a remote area.
    (2) The pilot must have satisfactorily completed an approved 
training program and is authorized, in writing, by the certificate 
holder for each item of preventive maintenance that the pilot is 
authorized to perform.
    (3) There must be no certificated mechanic available to perform 
preventive maintenance.
    (4) The certificate holder must have procedures to evaluate the 
accomplishment of a preventive maintenance item that requires a 
decision concerning the airworthiness of the rotorcraft.
    (5) The items of preventive maintenance authorized by this section 
must be those listed in paragraph (c) of Appendix A of part 43.

General Discussion of the Proposal

    This proposal addresses only those aircraft type certificated with 
9 or fewer passenger seats operating in part 135 operations. Operators 
of aircraft type certificated with 10 or more passenger seats operating 
under part 135 would not be provided relief under this rulemaking 
action because they are required to have a maintenance organization in 
place to support their part 135 operations, and their aircraft tend to 
be more complex in design and construction.
    Because certificated mechanics are not available at all times in 
all places, the current requirements of part 43 impose an economic 
hardship on some operators. The operational difficulties experienced by 
these operators and the attendant passenger inconvenience is evidenced 
in the content and quantity of exemption petitions submitted to the 
FAA. In response to these petitions, the agency proposes to add a new 
Sec. 43.3(i) to allow a pilot of a small aircraft (9 or fewer passenger 
seats) to remove and reinstall approved aircraft cabin seats, approved 
cabin-mounted stretchers, and, when no tools are required, approved 
cabin-mounted medical oxygen bottles (gaseous and liquid).
    In view of the demonstrated public benefit from permitting pilots 
to perform the relatively simple maintenance and preventive maintenance 
tasks of removing and replacing seats, stretchers, and medical oxygen 
bottles, and the demonstrated safety record of the performance of these 


[[Page 36928]]
tasks, the FAA has determined that a level of safety will be maintained 
that is equivalent to the level of safety provided when a certificated 
mechanic performs the maintenance.
    Granting the authority for pilots to perform the above maintenance 
and preventive maintenance tasks under the conditions proposed would 
not only reduce the burden of petitioning for exemption for part 135 
operators, but it would greatly expedite flight turnaround times when a 
certificated mechanic is not available, thus benefiting passengers 
requiring immediate medical evacuation.
    Given that the FAA has determined that safety would not be 
compromised, this proposed rule would not require the absence of 
certificated maintenance personnel for a trained pilot to perform 
certain tasks. The FAA realizes that this action may encourage pilots 
to undertake the maintenance tasks on a regular basis, thereby taking 
time away from pilot-related tasks that are required before flight. The 
FAA also realizes that by allowing pilots to perform certain tasks even 
when certificated maintenance personnel are present may take work from 
the maintenance personnel. This document solicits public comment on 
these two issues.
    In addition, the FAA recognizes the technological advances in 
communication and navigation systems and the ease with which these 
devices may be removed, replaced, and updated. The agency has 
determined that safety would not be compromised if pilots were allowed 
to perform certain tasks. Therefore, this proposal would amend Appendix 
A, paragraph (c), to add to the list of work items considered to be 
preventive maintenance the removal and replacement of instrument panel-
mounted, self-contained navigation and communication devices, which the 
manufacture has designed for frequent removal and replacement. This 
authorization would not extend to automatic flight control systems, 
transponders, and microwave frequency distance measuring equipment 
(DME). Similarly, this proposal would also add to the list the updating 
of Air Traffic Control (ATC) navigational software data bases, provided 
no disassembly of the unit is required and pertinent instructions are 
provided by the equipment manufacturer.
    This proposed rulemaking would also amend Appendix A, paragraph 
(c)(30)(i) to correct and editorial error. During its review of the 
regulations, a Flight Standards District Office found that the 
reference to Sec. 147.21(f) should read Sec. 147.21(e).
    In addition, the FAA has received a petition for rulemaking from 
Mr. John W. Caulkins requesting that a reference in Sec. 43.7(d) that 
currently reads ``Sec. 43.3(h)'' be corrected to read ``Sec. 43.3(i).'' 
A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on June 
21, 1993 (58 FR 33783), and one comment, which was favorable, was 
received. The FAA has determined the petition has merit, and proposes 
to correct the reference in this rulemaking action, taking into 
account, however, the proposed redesignation of current paragraph (i) 
to new paragraph (j).
    Also, current Sec. 43.11(b) makes reference to Sec. 91.30(d)(2). In 
August 1989, 14 CFR part 91 (part 91) was recodified to make the 
general operating and flight rules more understandable and easier to 
use. All references in the Federal Aviation Regulations were to be 
changed at that time to correspond with the new part 91. During this 
recodification, Sec. 91.30(d)(2) was renumbered Sec. 91.213(d)(2). The 
text of the section was unchanged. The old reference to 
Sec. 91.30(d)(2) in Sec. 43.11 was inadvertently overlooked. This 
rulemaking action will correct this error.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection requirements in the proposed amendment to 
Sec. 43.3 have been previously approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0021. For further information contact: the Information Requirements 
Division, M-34, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4735.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Executive Order 12866 established the requirement that, within the 
extent permitted by law, a Federal regulatory action may be undertaken 
only if the potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh 
the potential costs to society. In response to this requirement, and in 
accordance with Department of Transportation policies and procedures, 
the FAA has estimated the anticipated benefits and costs of this 
rulemaking action. The FAA has determined that this rule change is not 
a significant rulemaking action as defined by Executive Order 12866 
(Regulatory Planning and Review). The results are summarized in this 
section. For more detailed economic information, see the full 
regulatory evaluation contained in the docket.
    The proposed revisions are cost relieving because they would 
eliminate the need for operators to carry mechanics on trips to remote 
areas or make special trips to maintenance facilities for the purpose 
of altering seat configurations or exchanging medical oxygen bottles. 
Currently, even if a mechanic is not needed at a remote site, operators 
may have to hire the services of a local mechanic to reconfigure a 
cabin, which can be especially expensive for emergency medical 
evacuation operations conducted at night during off-duty hours. For the 
purposes of this regulatory evaluation, the FAA assumes that typical 
air taxi operators that fly into remote areas where mechanics would be 
scarce could make 36 trips per year that would require cabin 
reconfiguration. The FAA further assumes that a pilot flying into a 
remote area would have to fly the airplane for an additional hour 
(roundtrip) to a larger airport where a mechanic would be available to 
perform the required maintenance.
    The FAA estimates that a mechanic would have to be paid for \1/2\ 
hour of working time at a loaded wage rate (including benefits) of 
$18.16 per hour. The FAA also estimates that, in the event a cabin 
reconfiguration had to be performed in a remote area, the airplane 
would burn an additional 30 gallons of fuel during the one hour of 
flying time needed to reach an available mechanic, which would add $60 
to operating costs. The additional cost per trip would therefore amount 
to $69. On an annual basis, these cost-savings would amount to $2484 
($69  x  36) based on the assumption of 36 trips per year. The FAA 
further estimates that at least 30 operators per year would have a 
recurring need to reconfigure cabins in remote areas based on the 
number of requests for exemption from the requirements of Sec. 43.3 
submitted to the FAA each year. This number is a very conservative 
estimate; many air taxi operators are unaware of this option and forego 
the additional revenue that could be earned through reconfiguring their 
cabins. The FAA estimates that industry-wide cost savings from the 
proposed rule amendment would amount to $74,520 per year ($2484  x  
30). Over a 10-year period, the discounted value of these cost savings 
would amount to $523,382.
    Since January 1987, part 135 rotorcraft operators have been 
permitted to allow their pilots to perform certain preventive 
maintenance tasks, under very limited specified conditions, one of 
which is that the item of preventive maintenance must be the result of 
a malfunction that occurred en route to or in a remote area. In 
addition, numerous of the exemptions that permitted pilots 

[[Page 36929]]
of aircraft operating under part 135 to reconfigure cabins were granted 
to operators of rotorcraft. Each of the above authorizations contained 
a requirement that the pilot be properly trained for the preventive 
maintenance task that would be undertaken. Rotorcraft pilots operating 
under part 91 rules are authorized to perform preventive maintenance 
tasks under Sec. 43.3(g).
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident report 
reveals no instance of rotorcraft accidents where the removal and 
replacement of cabin seats by a rotorcraft pilot was suspected as a 
possible cause. In fact, a search of the FAA and NTSB accident and 
incident data recorded for part 91 and part 135 operations over the 
1972-present period did not reveal a single instance in which the 
performance by a pilot of any of the tasks that would be authorized 
under this proposal was suspected as having had a casual role in an 
accident. The FAA has therefore determined that this proposed rule 
would be cost relieving and would not reduce the current level of 
safety.
    The FAA solicits information from the public to refine this 
estimate of cost savings. Information of use to the agency would 
pertain to the frequency of the practices covered by this proposal 
(e.g., cabin reconfiguration) as well as the additional expenses 
involved (e.g., cost of transporting and compensating mechanics).

International Trade Impact Analysis

    The proposed rulemaking action would affect only those operators 
engaged in part 135 operations of a localized or regional nature. No 
impact is expected on international trade because these domestic 
operators seldom compete with foreign firms in the markets they serve.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and 
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires 
agencies to review rules that may have ``a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.'' The proposed rule 
amendment is of a cost relieving nature and would therefore afford cost 
savings to individual part 135 operators.
    Under FAA Order 2100.14A, the criterion for a ``substantial 
number'' is a number that is not less than 11 and that is more than one 
third of the small entities subject to the rule. This proposal would 
affect all part 135 operators who operate aircraft type certificated 
for 9 or fewer passenger seats. For operators of aircraft for hire, a 
small operator is one that owns, but not necessarily operates, nine or 
fewer aircraft.
    The FAA's criterion for a ``significant impact'' is $4,330 or more 
per year for an unscheduled operator. The extent of the cost savings 
per operator was estimated at $2484 per operator in the section on 
economic impacts. The FAA concludes, therefore, that this proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on 
a substantial number of small entities.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations proposed 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 
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the 
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the 
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed regulation is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this 
proposal, if adopted, 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. This proposal is 
considered nonsignificant under Order DOT 2100.5, Policies and 
Procedures for Simplification, Analysis, and Review of Regulations. A 
draft regulatory evaluation of the proposal, including an initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Determination and International Trade Impact 
Analysis, has been placed in the docket. A copy may be obtained by 
contacting the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 43

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 43 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations as follows:
PART 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND 
ALTERATION

    1. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354, 1421 through 1430; 49 U.S.C. 
106(g).

    2. In Sec. 43.3, paragraph (i) is redesignated as paragraph (j), 
and a new paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 43.3  Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations.

* * * * *
    (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (g) of this 
section, in accordance with an approval issued to the holder of a 
certificate issued under part 135 of this chapter, a pilot of an 
aircraft type-certificated for 9 or fewer passenger seats, excluding 
any pilot seat, may perform the removal and reinstallation of approved 
aircraft cabin seats, approved cabin-mounted stretchers, and when no 
tools are required, approved cabin-mounted medical oxygen bottles, 
provided--
    (1) The pilot has satisfactorily completed an approved training 
program and is authorized in writing by the certificate holder to 
perform each task; and
    (2) The certificate holder has procedures to evaluate the 
accomplishment of the task.
* * * * *

Appendix A to Part 43--[Amended]

    3. In Appendix A to part 43, paragraph (c)(30)(i), the reference 
``Sec. 147.21(f)'' is corrected to read ``Sec. 147.21(e) of this 
chapter''.
    4. In Appendix A to part 43, paragraphs (c)(31) and (c)(32) are 
added to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 43--Major Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive 
Maintenance

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (31) Removing and replacing self-contained, instrument panel-
mounted navigation and communication devices (excluding automatic 
flight control systems, transponders, and microwave frequency distance 
measuring equipment (DME)) if the approved unit is designed to be 
readily and repeatedly removed and replaced, and pertinent instructions 
are provided.
    (32) Updating self-contained, instrument panel-mounted Air Traffic 
Control (ATC) navigational software data bases (excluding those of 
automatic flight control systems, transponders, and microwave frequency 
distance 

[[Page 36930]]
measuring equipment (DME)) provided no disassembly of the unit is 
required and pertinent instructions are provided.


Sec. 43.7  [Amended]

    5. In section 43.7(d), the reference ``Sec. 43.3(h)'' is corrected 
to read ``Sec. 43.3(j)''.


Sec. 43.11  [Amended]

    6. In section 43.11(b), the reference ``Sec. 91.30(d)(2)'' is 
corrected to read ``Sec. 91.213(d)(2) of this chapter''.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 30, 1995.
William J. White,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 95-17393 Filed 7-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M