Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31113

Actions Addressing the Main Deck Cargo

Door Systems

(c) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, accomplish the actions

specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3),

(c)(4), and (c)(5) of this AD in accordance

with a method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO.

(1) Modify the indication system of the

main deck cargo door to indicate to the pilots

whether the main deck cargo door is fully

closed, latched, and locked;

(2) Modify the mechanical and hydraulic

systems of the main deck cargo door to

eliminate detrimental deformation of

elements of the door latching and locking

mechanism;

(3) Install a means to visually inspect the

locking mechanism of the main deck cargo

door;

(4) Install a means to remove power to the

door while the airplane is in flight; and

(5) Install a means to prevent

pressurization to an unsafe level if the main

deck cargo door is not fully closed, latched,

and locked.

(d) Compliance with paragraphs (c)(1),

(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this AD

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this

AD, and the AFMS revision and placards

may be removed.

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 ACO. 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 3: 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 Permit

(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.

Appendix 1

Excerpt from an FAA Memorandum to

Director—Airworthiness and Technical

Standards of ATA, dated March 20, 1992

‘‘(1) Indication System:

(a) The indication system must monitor the

closed, latched, and locked positions,

directly.

(b) The indicator should be amber unless

it concerns an outward opening door whose

opening during takeoff could present an

immediate hazard to the airplane. In that case

the indicator must be red and located in

plain view in front of the pilots. An aural

warning is also advisable. A display on the

master caution/warning system is also

acceptable as an indicator. For the purpose

of complying with this paragraph, an

immediate hazard is defined as significant

reduction in controllability, structural

damage, or impact with other structures,

engines, or controls.

(c) Loss of indication or a false indication

of a closed, latched, and locked condition

must be improbable.

(d) A warning indication must be provided

at the door operators station that monitors

the door latched and locked conditions

directly, unless the operator has a visual

indication that the door is fully closed and

locked. For example, a vent door that

monitors the door locks and can be seen from

the operators station would meet this

requirement.

(2) Means to Visually Inspect the Locking

Mechanism:

There must be a visual means of directly

inspecting the locks. Where all locks are tied

to a common lock shaft, a means of

inspecting the locks at each end may be

sufficient to meet this requirement provided

no failure condition in the lock shaft would

go undetected when viewing the end locks.

Viewing latches may be used as an alternate

to viewing locks on some installations where

there are other compensating features.

(3) Means to Prevent Pressurization:

All doors must have provisions to prevent

initiation of pressurization of the airplane to

an unsafe level, if the door is not fully closed,

latched and locked.

(4) Lock Strength:

Locks must be designed to withstand the

maximum output power of the actuators and

maximum expected manual operating forces

treated as a limit load. Under these

conditions, the door must remain closed,

latched and locked.

(5) Power Availability:

All power to the door must be removed in

flight and it must not be possible for the

flight crew to restore power to the door while

in flight.

(6) Powered Lock Systems:

For doors that have powered lock systems,

it must be shown by safety analysis that

inadvertent opening of the door after it is

fully closed, latched and locked, is extremely

improbable.’’

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 10,

2000.

Vi L. Lipski,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–12249 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–105–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300–600 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Airbus Model A300–600 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive high frequency eddy current

(HFEC) or rototest inspections to detect

cracking in the area surrounding the

frame feet attachment holes between

fuselage frames (FR) 41 and FR46;

installation of new fasteners for certain

airplanes; and follow-on corrective

actions, if necessary. This proposal is

prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent cracking of

the center section of the fuselage, which

could result in rupture of the frame foot

and reduced structural integrity of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

105–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

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

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

31114 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 2000–NM–105–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.

2000–NM–105–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on all Airbus Model

A300–600 series airplanes. The DGAC

advises that, during an inspection

performed in accordance with Structure

Significant Item (SSI) Task 53–15–54,

cracking was detected in the area

surrounding the frame feet attachment

holes at fuselage frames (FR) 43 through

FR46 between stringers 24 and 30 on the

right-hand side, and at FR45 on the lefthand side. The cracking occurred on an

airplane that had accumulated 26,100

total flight cycles and 32,160 total flight

hours. Such cracking of the center

section of the fuselage, if not detected

and corrected, could result in rupture of

the frame foot and reduced structural

integrity of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The manufacturer has issued Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–53–6122, dated

February 9, 2000, which describes

procedures for repetitive high frequency

eddy current (HFEC) or rototest

inspections to detect cracking of the

frame feet attachment holes between

FR41 and FR46; installation of new

fasteners for certain airplanes; and

follow-on corrective actions, if

necessary. The follow-on corrective

actions involve subsequent performing

rotating probe inspections and repairing

certain cracking conditions. The repair

involves reaming out cracks, cold

working fastener holes, and installing

oversized fasteners. The DGAC

classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 2000–060–

303(B), dated February 9, 2000, in order

to assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in France.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in France and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the DGAC has kept the FAA informed

of the situation described above. The

FAA has examined the findings of the

DGAC, reviewed all available

information, and determined that AD

action is necessary for products of this

type design that are certificated for

operation in the United States.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

repetitive HFEC or rototest inspections

to detect cracking in the area

surrounding the frame feet attachment

holes between FR41 and FR46;

installation of new fasteners for certain

airplanes; and follow-on corrective

actions, if necessary. The actions would

be required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin

described previously, except as

discussed below.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, although

the service bulletin specifies that the

manufacturer may be contacted for

disposition of certain conditions, this

proposal would require the repair of

those conditions to be accomplished in

accordance with a method approved by

the FAA or the DGAC (or its delegated

agent). In light of the type of repair that

would be required to address the

identified unsafe condition, and in

consonance with existing bilateral

airworthiness agreements, the FAA has

determined that, for the proposed AD, a

repair approved by either the FAA or

the DGAC would be acceptable for

compliance with this proposed AD.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 75 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 6 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspections, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $27,000, or $360 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have 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 proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31115

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 2000–NM–105–AD.

Applicability: All Model A300–600 series

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

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 cracking of the center section

of the fuselage, which could result in rupture

of the frame foot and reduced structural

integrity of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) or

Rototest Inspection

(a) Perform a HFEC or rototest inspection

to detect cracking in the area surrounding the

frame feet attachment holes between fuselage

frames (FR) 41 and FR46 from stringers 24 to

28, left- and right-hand sides, in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6122,

dated February 9, 2000, at the time specified

in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable.

(1) For airplanes on which Task 53–15–54

in Maintenance Review Board Document

(MRBD), Revision 3, dated April 1998, has

NOT been accomplished as of the effective

date of this AD: Perform the inspection at the

later of the times specified in paragraphs

(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Prior to the accumulation of the total

flight-cycle or flight-hour threshold,

whichever occurs first, specified in

paragraph 1.E. (‘‘Compliance’’) of the service

bulletin; or

(ii) Within the applicable grace period

specified in paragraph 1.E. (‘‘Compliance’’) of

the service bulletin.

(2) For airplanes on which Task 53–15–54

in Maintenance Review Board Document

(MRBD), Revision 3, dated April 1998, has

been accomplished as of the effective date of

this AD: Perform the next repetitive

inspection at the later of the times specified

in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this

AD.

(i) Within the flight-cycle or flight-hour

interval, whichever occurs first, specified in

paragraph 1.E. (‘‘Compliance’’) of the service

bulletin, following the latest inspection

accomplished in accordance with the MRBD;

or

(ii) Within the grace period specified in

paragraph 1.E. (‘‘Compliance’’) of the service

bulletin.

(b) For airplanes on which no cracking is

detected during the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further

flight, install new fasteners as applicable, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–53–6122, dated February 9, 2000; and

repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to

exceed the applicable intervals specified in

paragraph 1.E. (‘‘Compliance’’) of the service

bulletin.

Corrective Actions

(c) For airplanes on which cracking is

detected during any inspection required by

this AD: Prior to further flight, except as

required by paragraph (d) of this AD,

accomplish corrective actions (e.g.,

performing rotating probe inspections,

reaming out cracks, cold working fastener

holes, and installing oversized fasteners) in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–53–6122, dated February 9, 2000.

Repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to

exceed the applicable intervals specified in

paragraph 1.E. (‘‘Compliance’’) of the service

bulletin.

(d) If cracking is detected during any

inspection required by this AD, and the

service bulletin specifies to contact the

manufacturer for an appropriate corrective

action: Prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or the

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC) (or it’s delegated agent).

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,

International Branch, ANM–116. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 2000–060–

303(B), dated February 9, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 10,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–12248 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–106186–98]

RIN 1545–AW36

Certain Corporate Reorganizations

Involving Disregarded Entities

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

and notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This document contains

proposed regulations that provide

guidance to corporations and their

shareholders about whether certain

transactions qualify as corporate

reorganizations. The proposed

regulations apply to certain mergers

under state or Federal law between two

entities, one of which is a corporation

and the other of which, for Federal tax

purposes, is disregarded as an entity

separate from its owner (for example, a

qualified REIT subsidiary, a qualified

subchapter S subsidiary, or a limited

liability company with a single

corporate owner that does not elect to be

treated as a separate corporation). This

document also provides a notice of

public hearing on these proposed

regulations.

DATES: Written or electronic comments

must be received by August 14, 2000.

Requests to speak (with outlines of oral

comments to be discussed) at the public

hearing scheduled for August 8, 2000,

must be received by July 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to

CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG–106186–98),

room 5226, Internal Revenue Service,

P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station,

Washington, DC 20044. Submissions

may be hand delivered Monday through

Friday between the hours of 8 am and

5 pm to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG–

106186–98), Courier’s desk, Internal

Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20044.

Alternatively, taxpayers may submit

comments electronically via the Internet

by selecting the ‘‘Tax Regs’’ option on

the IRS Home Page, or by submitting

comments directly to the IRS Internet

site at http://www.irs.gov/taxlregs/

reglist.html. The public hearing will be

held in room 4718, Internal Revenue

Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Concerning the proposed regulations,

Reginald Mombrun, (202) 622–7750,

concerning submissions of comments,