This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

2555

Vol. 65, No. 11

Tuesday, January 18, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–227–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–

9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and

DC–9–87 (MD–87), Model MD–88

Airplanes, and Model MD–90–30 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

certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–

9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–87 (MD–87)

series airplanes, Model MD–88

airplanes, and Model MD–90–30 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

installation of a pipe support and

clamps on the hydraulic lines in the aft

fuselage; replacement of the hydraulic

pipe assembly in the aft fuselage with a

new pipe assembly; and installation of

drain tube assemblies and diverter

assemblies in the area of the auxiliary

power unit (APU) inlet; as applicable.

This proposal is prompted by reports of

smoke and odor in the passenger cabin

and cockpit due to hydraulic fluid

leaking into the APU inlet, and

subsequently, into the air conditioning

system. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

such hydraulic fluid leakage due to

fatigue vibration and cracking in the

flared radius of a hydraulic pipe in the

aft fuselage, which could result in

smoke and odors in the passenger cabin

or cockpit.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

227–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

Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group,

Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood

Boulevard, Long Beach, California

90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Dept. C1–L51 (2–60). This information

may be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Albert Lam, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5346;

fax (562) 627–5210.

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 99–NM–227–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–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

99–NM–227–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received several reports

of smoke and odor in the passenger

cabin on McDonnell Douglas Model

DC–9–82 (MD–82) series airplanes due

to failure of a hydraulic pipe in the aft

fuselage accessory compartment.

Investigation revealed that hydraulic

fluids leaked into the bilge area of the

tailcone and out of the existing drains

and were ingested into the air intake

area of the auxiliary power unit (APU),

and subsequently, into the air

conditioning system. Further

investigation revealed that the leaking

fluid was due to fatigue vibration and

cracking in the flared radius of a

hydraulic pipe in the aft fuselage. This

condition, if not corrected, could result

in smoke and odors in the passenger

cabin or cockpit.

The subject hydraulic pipe assembly

on McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81

(MD–81), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–

87 (MD–87) series airplanes, Model

MD–88 airplanes, and Model DC–90–30

series airplanes is similar to those on

the affected Model DC–9–82 (MD–82)

airplanes. Therefore, all of these

airplanes may be subject to the same

unsafe condition.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD80–29–056, dated June 18, 1996 [for

Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82

(MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–

87 (MD–87) series airplanes], which

describes procedures for installation of

a pipe support and clamps on the

hydraulic lines in the aft fuselage.

The FAA also has reviewed and

approved McDonnell Douglas Service

2556 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Bulletin MD80–29–062, Revision 01,

dated August 3, 1999 [for Model DC–9–

81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–

83 (MD–83), and DC9–87 (MD–87)

series airplanes, and Model MD–88

airplanes], which describes procedures

for replacement of the hydraulic pipe

assembly in the aft fuselage with a new

pipe assembly having a greater wall

thickness.

In addition, the FAA has reviewed

and approved McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletins MD80–53–286, dated

September 3, 1999 [for Model DC–9–81

(MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83

(MD–83), and DC–9–87 (MD–87) series

airplanes, and Model MD–88 airplanes],

and MD90–53–018, dated September 3,

1999 (for Model MD–90–30 series

airplanes), which describe procedures

for installation of drain tube assemblies

and diverter assemblies in the area of

the APU inlet.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletins listed

above is intended to adequately address

the identified unsafe condition.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletins

described previously.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletins

Operators should note that, although

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletins

MD80–29–056, dated June 18, 1996;

MD80–53–286, dated September 3,

1999; and MD90–53–018, dated

September 3, 1999; recommend

accomplishing the modifications at the

earliest practical maintenance period

(after the release of the service bulletin),

the FAA has determined that such an

interval would not address the

identified unsafe condition in a timely

manner. In developing an appropriate

compliance time for this proposed AD,

the FAA considered not only the

manufacturer’s recommendation, but

the degree of urgency associated with

addressing the subject unsafe condition,

the average utilization of the affected

fleet, and the time necessary to perform

the modifications. In light of all of these

factors, the FAA finds that an 18-month

compliance time for initiating the

proposed actions to be warranted, in

that it represents an appropriate interval

of time allowable for affected airplanes

to continue to operate without

compromising safety.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,126

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

634 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

It would take approximately 2 work

hours per airplane [for 512 Model DC–

9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–

9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–87 (MD–87)

series airplanes] to accomplish the

proposed installation of the pipe

support and clamps, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Required

parts would cost approximately $226

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of this installation proposed

by AD on U.S. operators is estimated to

be $177,152, or $346 per airplane.

It would take approximately 2 work

hours per airplane [for 634 Model DC–

9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–

9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–87 (MD–87)

series airplanes, and Model MD–88

airplanes] to accomplish the proposed

replacement, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $520 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of this replacement proposed by

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $405,760, or $640 per airplane.

It would take approximately 14 work

hours per airplane (for 22 Model MD–

90–30 series airplanes) to accomplish

the proposed installation of drain tube

assemblies and diverter assemblies, at

an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Required parts would cost

approximately $4,503 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $117,546, or $5,343 per

airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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.

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 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS: Docket 99–NM–

227–AD.

Applicability: Models and series of

airplanes as listed in the applicable

McDonnell Douglas service bulletin(s)

specified in Table 1 of this AD,

certificated in any category.

TABLE 1

Model of airplane McDonnell Douglas

service bulletin(s)

DC–9–81 (MD–81),

DC–9–82 (MD–82),

DC–9–83 (MD–83),

and DC–9–87

(MD–87) series airplanes.

MD80–29–056, dated

June 18, 1996;

MD80–29–062, Revision 01, dated

August 3, 1999;

and MD80–53–286,

dated September 3,

1999.

MD–88 airplanes ....... MD80–29–062, Revision 01, dated August 3, 1999 and

MD80–53–286,

dated September 3,

1999.

MD–90–30 series airplanes.MD90–53–018, dated

September 3, 1999.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 2557

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (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 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 prevent hydraulic fluid leakage

into the auxiliary power unit (APU)

inlet due to fatigue vibration and

cracking in the flared radius of a

hydraulic pipe in the aft fuselage, which

could result in smoke and odors in the

passenger cabin or cockpit; accomplish

the following:

Installation a Pipe Support and Clamps

(a) For Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82

(MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–87

(MD–87) series airplanes, as listed in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD80–29–056, dated June 18, 1996:

Within 18 months after the effective date of

this AD, install a pipe support and clamps on

the hydraulic lines in the aft fuselage in

accordance with the service bulletin.

Replacement of the Hydraulic Pipe

Assembly

(b) For Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82

(MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–87

(MD–87) series airplanes, and Model MD–88

airplanes, as listed McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin MD80–29–062, Revision 01,

dated August 3, 1999: Within 18 months after

the effective date of this AD, replace the

hydraulic pipe assembly in the aft fuselage

with a new pipe assembly having a greater

wall thickness, in accordance with the

service bulletin. Except for Model MD–88

airplanes that have been modified in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas MD–80

Service Bulletin 29–54, dated February 2,

1993, or Revision 2, dated December 17,

1993, the requirements of this paragraph

must be accomplished concurrently with the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD

Installation of Drain Tube Assemblies and

Diverter Assemblies

(c) For Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82

(MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–87

(MD–87) series airplanes, as listed in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–

53–286, dated September 3, 1999; and Model

MD–9–30 series airplanes, as listed in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD90–

53–018, dated September 3, 1999: Within 18

months after the effective date of this AD,

install drain tube assemblies and diverter

assemblies in the area of the APU inlet, in

accordance with the applicable service

bulletin.

Spares

(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install a hydraulic pipe

assembly, part number 7936907–603, on any

airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) 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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 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 January

11, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–1118 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 206

RIN 1010–AC24

Public Workshop on Proposed Rule—

Establishing Oil Value for Royalty Due

on Indian Leases

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Public Workshop.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) is giving notice of a

public workshop concerning the

supplementary proposed Indian oil

value rule published in the Federal

Register on January 5, 2000, (65 FR

403). The proposed rule would amend

the royalty valuation regulations for

crude oil produced from Indian leases.

DATES: The public workshop will be

held in Lakewood, Colorado, on

February 8, 2000, beginning at 9 a.m.

and ending at 3 p.m., Mountain time.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held

at the Minerals Management Service,

Royalty Management Program, Denver

Federal Center, Auditorium, Building

85, Kipling Street (between 6th Avenue

and Alameda Pkwy), Lakewood, CO

80215, telephone number (303) 231–

3585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Peter Christnacht, Royalty Valuation

Division, Royalty Management Program,

Minerals Management Service, P.O. Box

25165, MS 3151, Denver, Colorado,

80225–0165, telephone number (303)

275–7252; or, Mr. David S. Guzy, Chief,

Rules and Publications Staff, Royalty

Management Program, Minerals

Management Service, P.O. Box 25165,

MS 3021, Denver, Colorado 80225–

0165, telephone number (303) 231–

3432, fax number (303) 231–3385, email David.Guzy@mms.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

workshop will be open to the public in

order to discuss the supplementary

proposed rule and gather comments. We

encourage members of the public to

attend this meeting. Those wishing to

make formal presentations should sign

up upon arrival. The sign-up sheet will

determine the order of speakers. For

building security measures, each person

will be required to sign in and may be

required to present a picture

identification to gain entry to the

meeting.

Dated: January 11, 2000.

Lucy Querques Denett,

Associate Director for Royalty Management.

[FR Doc. 00–1099 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 181–0199; FRL–6525–6]

Disapproval of Implementation Plans;

California State Implementation Plan

Revision, South Coast Air Quality

Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

disapprove Rule 1623 of the South Coast

Air Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) which has been submitted

as a revision to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Rule 1623—

Credits for Lawn and Garden Equipment

provides a mechanism for issuing

mobile source emission reduction

credits (MSERCs) to entities who

voluntarily either sell or replace old

engine-powered lawn and garden