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

60047

Vol. 62, No. 215

Thursday, November 6, 1997

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Part 100

[Notice 1997–15]

Rulemaking Petition: Definition of

‘‘Express Advocacy’’; Notice of

Availability

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Rulemaking petition: Notice of

availability.

SUMMARY: On October 20, 1997, the

Commission received a Petition for

Rulemaking from James Bopp, Jr., on

behalf of the James Madison Center for

Free Speech. The Petition urges the

Commission to revise its rules defining

‘‘express advocacy’’ to conform with a

recent court decision. The Petition is

available for inspection in the

Commission’s Public Records Office,

through its FAXLINE service, and on its

Internet home page.

DATES: Statements in support of or in

opposition to the Petition must be filed

on or before December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to Susan E. Propper,

Assistant General Counsel, and must be

submitted in either written or electronic

form. Written comments should be sent

to the Federal Election Commission, 999

E Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20463.

Faxed comments should be sent to (202)

219–3923, with printed copy follow-up.

Electronic mail comments should be

sent to expressad@fec.gov. Commenters

sending comments by electronic mail

should include their full name and

postal service address within the text of

their comments. Electronic comments

that do not contain the full name,

electronic mail address and postal

service address of the commenter will

not be considered.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Susan E. Propper, Assistant General

Counsel, or Ms. Rita A. Reimer,

Attorney, 999 E Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20463, (202) 219–3690

or (800) 424–9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

petitioner is requesting the Commission

to revise the definition of ‘‘express

advocacy’’ set forth in its rules at 11

CFR 100.22 to reflect the decision in

Maine Right to Life Committee v. FEC,

914 F.Supp. 8 (D.Me. 1995), aff’d per

curiam, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996), cert.

denied, No. 96–1818 (U.S. 1997).

Specifically, the Petition urges repeal of

11 CFR 100.22(b), which was held

invalid in that case. The challenged

paragraph defines ‘‘express advocacy’’

to include communications in which

the electoral portion is ‘‘unmistakable,

unambiguous, and suggestive of only

one meaning, and reasonable minds

could not differ as to whether it

encourages actions to elect or defeat one

or more clearly identified candidate(s)

or encourages some other kind of

action.’’

The ‘‘express advocacy’’ standard is

used to determine if a disbursement

qualifies as a reportable independent

expenditure or membership

communication for purposes of the

Federal Election Campaign Act; if

independent communications by

corporations and labor organizations are

prohibited under the Act; and if

campaign communications require a

disclaimer. See 2 U.S.C. 431(17) and

(9)(B)(iii); 434(b)(4) and (c); 441b, 441d;

Federal Election Commission v.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479

U.S. 238 (1986).

Copies of the Petition for Rulemaking

are available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Records Office,

999 E Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20463, Monday through Friday between

the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Interested persons may also obtain a

copy of the Petition by dialing the

Commission’s FAXLINE service at (202)

501–3413 and following its instructions,

at any time of the day and week.

Request document #232. The text of the

petition is available on the Internet at

the Commission’s home page,

www.fec.gov.

Consideration of the merits of the

Petition will be deferred until the close

of the comment period. If the

Commission decides that the Petition

has merit, it may begin a rulemaking

proceeding. Any subsequent action

taken by the Commission will be

announced in the Federal Register.

Dated: November 3, 1997.

Joan D. Aikens,

Vice Chairman.

[FR Doc. 97–29375 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–240–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300 and 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 and A300–600

series airplanes. This proposal would

require repetitive inspections for

cracking of the lugs of hinge brackets of

inner airbrakes (spoilers) No. 1 and No.

2, and corrective action, if necessary.

This proposal is prompted by the

issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent detachment of

the spoilers and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

240–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.
60048 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles D. Huber, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2589; 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

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 97–NM–240–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

97–NM–240–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 and A300–600 series airplanes.

The DGAC advises that it received four

reports indicating that, during routine

maintenance, fatigue cracking was

detected in lugs of the center hinge

bracket of an inner airbrake (spoiler) No.

1. Fatigue cracking and failure of center

hinge brackets due to increased loading

could result in propagation of cracks of

the inner and outer hinge brackets. Such

fatigue cracking, if not detected and

corrected in a timely manner, could

result in detachment of the spoilers and

consequent reduced controllability of

the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins

A300–57–0229 (for Model A300 series

airplanes) and A300–57–6074 (for

Model A300–600 series airplanes), both

dated October 16, 1996. These service

bulletins describe procedures for

repetitive high frequency eddy current

(HFEC) inspections for cracking of the

lugs of hinge brackets of spoilers No. 1

and No. 2 of both wings; and

replacement, with a serviceable bracket,

of any bracket having a cracked lug. The

DGAC classified these service bulletins

as mandatory and issued French

airworthiness directive 97–080–

211(B)R1, dated May 21, 1997, in order

to assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in France.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France and are 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

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletins described

previously, except as described below.

Differences Between the Proposed AD

and the Service Bulletins

Airbus Service Bulletins A300–57–

6074 and A300–57–0229, both dated

October 16, 1996, specify that the

corrective actions required by this

proposed AD may be accomplished in

accordance with a method ‘‘left to the

operator’s discretion.’’ However,

operators would use a discretionary

method only if that method has been

approved by the FAA. Therefore, this

AD requires that the actions be

accomplished in accordance with the

procedures specified in Repair Drawing

R57240205 (for a center hinge bracket)

and/or R57240208 (for an inner or outer

hinge bracket), as applicable.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 102 Airbus

Model A300 and A300–600 series

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 4 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, 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

$24,480, or $240 per airplane.

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 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60049

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:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 97–NM–240–AD.

Applicability: All Model A300 and 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

otherwise 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 (c) 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 detect and correct cracking of the lugs

of hinge brackets of inner airbrakes (spoilers)

No. 1 and No. 2 of both wings, which could

result in detachment of the spoilers and

consequent reduced controllability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) Perform a high frequency eddy current

(HFEC) inspection for cracking of the lugs of

the center hinge brackets of spoilers No. 1

and No. 2, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–57–0229 (for Model A300

series airplanes) or A300–57–6074 (for Model

A300–600 series airplanes), both dated

October 16, 1996, as applicable. Accomplish

the inspection at the time specified in

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3), as

applicable, of this AD. If any discrepancy is

found, prior to further flight, perform the

follow-on actions specified in the

Accomplishment Instructions of the

applicable service bulletin. Repeat the HFEC

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 8,200 flight cycles.

(1) For airplanes that have accumulated

less than 23,200 total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Inspect prior to the

accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(2) For airplanes that have accumulated

23,200 total flight cycles or more, but less

than 36,500 total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Inspect within 500

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD.

(3) For airplanes that have accumulated

36,500 total flight cycles or more as of the

effective date of this AD: Inspect within 50

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD.

(b) Airbus Service Bulletins A300–57–6074

and A300–57–0229, both dated October 16,

1996, specify that the actions required by

paragraph (a) of this AD may be

accomplished in accordance with a method

‘‘left to the operator’s discretion.’’ [Operators

may use a discretionary method only if that

method has been approved as an alternative

method of compliance in accordance with

paragraph (c) of this AD.] Therefore, this AD

requires that the replacement of a bracket as

required by paragraph (a) be accomplished in

accordance with the procedures specified in

Repair Drawing R57240205 (for a center

hinge bracket) and/or R57240208 (for an

inner or outer hinge bracket), as applicable.

(c) 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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(d) 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 97–080–

211(B)R1, dated May 21, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October

30, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–29342 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–205–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A310 and 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 A310 and A300–600

series airplanes. This proposal would

require a one-time visual inspection to

determine the accuracy of the outer

placards of the static ports. This

proposal also would require a one-time

inspection to detect crossed connections

of the air data static system and the

static probe heating system, and

correction of any discrepancies. 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 erroneous display

of altitude information to the flight

crew, and consequent reduced

operational safety during all phases of

flight.

DATES: Comments must be received by

December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

205–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:

Manager, International Branch, ANM–

116, FAA, 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

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