Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 67315

Airplanes Modified With Original Service

Bulletin: Post-Modification Work

(h) For any airplane (L/N 1 through 1254

inclusive) on which the modification

specified in paragraph (g)(2) was

accomplished prior to the effective date of

this AD in accordance with the original issue

of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

53A2390, dated July 31, 1997: Prior to the

accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or

within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later,

accomplish post-modification work in

accordance with Figure 26 of Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747–53A2390, Revision 1;

including Appendices A, B, C, and D; dated

July 6, 2000.

Repair

(i) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of

this AD, if any cracking is detected during

any inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2390,

Revision 1; including Appendices A, B, C,

and D; dated July 6, 2000.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(j)(1) 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, Seattle

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

98–20–25, amendment 39–10791, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(k) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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

November 2, 2000,

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28723 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–CE–75–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolladen

Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH Models

LS 4 and LS 4a Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to certain

Rolladen Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH

(Rolladen Schneider) Models LS 4 and

LS 4a sailplanes. The proposed AD

would require you to inspect the

airbrake system for damage and proper

rigging, with correction, repair, or

replacement, as necessary. The

proposed AD would also require you to

report any damage found to the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA). The

proposed AD is the result of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI) issued by the airworthiness

authority for Germany. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct damage

to the airbrake locking bracket caused

by asymmetric loads. This condition

could result in the pilot’s inability to

operate the airbrake controls, with

consequent loss of sailplane control.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this proposed rule on or

before December 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 99–CE–75–AD, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106. Comments may be

inspected at this location between 8

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

Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Rolladen-Schneider Flugzeugbau

GmbH, Muhlstrasse 10, D–63329

Egelsbach, Germany; phone: ++ 49 6103

204126; facsimile: ++ 49 6103 45526.

This information also may be examined

at the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;

telephone: (816) 329–4144; facsimile:

(816) 329–4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

How do I comment on the proposed

AD? The FAA invites comments on this

proposed rule. You may submit

whatever written data, views, or

arguments you choose. You need to

include the rule’s docket number and

submit your comments in triplicate to

the address specified under the caption

ADDRESSES.The FAA will consider all

comments received on or before the

closing date. We may amend the

proposed rule in light of comments

received. Factual information that

supports your ideas and suggestions is

extremely helpful in evaluating the

effectiveness of the proposed AD action

and determining whether we need to

take additional rulemaking action.

Are there any specific portions of the

proposed AD I should pay attention to?

The FAA specifically invites comments

on the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule that might suggest a

need to modify the rule. You may

examine all comments we receive before

and after the closing date of the rule in

the Rules Docket. We will file a report

in the Rules Docket that summarizes

each FAA contact with the public that

concerns the substantive parts of the

proposed AD.

We are re-examining the writing style

we currently use in regulatory

documents, in response to the

Presidential memorandum of June 1,

1998. That memorandum requires

federal agencies to communicate more

clearly with the public. We are

interested in your comments on whether

the style of this document is clearer, and

any other suggestions you might have to

improve the clarity of FAA

communications that affect you. You

can get more information about the

Presidential memorandum and the plain

language initiative at http://

www.plainlanguage.gov.

How can I be sure FAA receives my

comment? If you want us to

acknowledge the receipt of your

comments, you must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard. On the

postcard, write ‘‘Comments to Docket

No. 99–CE–75–AD.’’ We will date stamp

and mail the postcard back to you.

Discussion

What events have caused this

proposed AD? The LBA, which is the

airworthiness authority for Germany,

recently notified FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Rolladen

Schneider Models LS 4 and LS 4a

sailplanes. The LBA reports two

occurrences of damaged airbrake

67316 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules

locking brackets found on the abovereferenced sailplanes. The damage was

the result of improper rigging of the

airbrake system. The asymmetric load

that occurs over time with an

improperly rigged airbrake system could

result in cracks in the welding region of

the airbrake tube and lateral

deformation of the airbrake locking

bracket.

What are the consequences if the

condition is not corrected? Damage to

the airbrake locking bracket, if not

detected and corrected, could result in

the pilot’s inability to operate the

airbrake controls with consequent loss

of sailplane control.

Is there service information that

applies to this subject? Rolladen

Schneider has issued Technical Bulletin

No. 4042, dated July 2, 1999.

What are the provisions of this service

bulletin? The service bulletin specifies

procedures for:

—Inspecting the airbrake locking

bracket for deformation (indicated by

cracks in paint, paint chipping off,

and/or cracks in the welding region to

the tube); and

—If any deformation exists, repairing or

modifying the airbrake locking

bracket by adding a brace that

increases the structural strength of the

bracket.

What action did the LBA take? The

LBA classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued German AD

1999–270, dated July 22, 1999, in order

to assure the continued airworthiness of

these sailplanes in Germany.

Was this in accordance with the

bilateral airworthiness agreement?

These sailplane models are

manufactured in Germany 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 LBA has

kept FAA informed of the situation

described above.

The FAA’s Determination and an

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

What has FAA decided? The FAA has

examined the findings of the LBA;

reviewed all available information,

including the service information

referenced above; and determined that:

—The unsafe condition referenced in

this document exists or could develop

on other Rolladen Schneider Models

LS 4 and LS 4a sailplanes of the same

type design;

—The actions specified in the

previously-referenced service

information should be accomplished

on the affected sailplanes; and

—AD action should be taken in order to

correct this unsafe condition.

What would the proposed AD require?

This proposed AD would require you to:

—Inspect the airbrake locking bracket

on the rear landing gear box for signs

of fatigue (cracks in the paint, paint

chips, or cracks in the welding region

to the tube) and inspect for proper

rigging of the airbrake system;

—Reassemble the airbrake system (if

improper rigging is found), and if any

sign of fatigue is evident, disassemble

the airbrake system, repair or modify

any airbrake locking bracket, and

accomplish certain adjustments after

reassembling the airbrake system; and

—Report any damage found to the FAA.

The FAA is proposing a reporting

requirement so we can get an idea of

how many sailplanes in the fleet have

damaged or incorrectly rigged airbrake

systems. We will utilize this

information in deciding whether any of

the proposed actions should be

repetitive or whether we should initiate

additional rulemaking.

Cost Impact

How many sailplanes would the

proposed AD impact? We estimate that

the proposed AD would affect 78

sailplanes in the U.S. registry.

What would be the cost impact of the

proposed AD on owners/operators of the

affected sailplanes? We estimate the

following costs to accomplish the

proposed inspection and any necessary

reassembly:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per sailplane

Total cost

on U.S. sailplane

operators

1 workhour × $60 per hour = $60 ................................ Not applicable ................................. $60 per ............................................

sailplane ..........................................

$4,680

We estimate the following costs to

accomplish any necessary modification

that would be required based on the

results of the proposed inspection. We

have no way of determining the number

of sailplanes that may need such

modification:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per sailplane

2 workhours × $60 per hour = $120 ..................................... The manufacturer will modify the airbrake bracket free of

charge.

$120 per sailplane.

Compliance Time of the Proposed AD

What would be the compliance time

of the proposed AD? The compliance

time of this proposed AD is within the

next 30 calendar days after the effective

date of this AD.

Why is the compliance time presented

in calendar time instead of hours timein-service (TIS)? Damage to the airbrake

locking brake occurs as a result of

airplane operation. However, the reason

the damage occurs is because of

incorrect rigging of the airbrake system.

We have determined that a calendar

time for compliance is necessary

because this incorrect rigging is not

directly related to sailplane operation.

The chance of this situation occurring is

the same for a sailplane with 10 hours

time-in-service (TIS) as it is for a

sailplane with 500 hours TIS. For this

reason, the FAA has determined that a

compliance based on calendar time

should be utilized in this AD in order

to assure that the unsafe condition is

addressed on all sailplanes in a

reasonable time period.

Why is the compliance time of the

proposed AD different than the German

AD and the service information? The

service information specifies the actions

required in this proposed AD ‘‘prior to

further flight’’ and the German AD

mandates these actions ‘‘prior to further

flight’’ for sailplanes registered for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 67317

operation in Germany. The FAA does

not have justification for requiring the

action prior to further flight. Instead, the

FAA has determined that 30 calendar

days is a reasonable time period for

accomplishing the actions in this

proposed AD.

Regulatory Impact

Would this proposed AD impact

various entities? The regulations

proposed herein would not have a

substantial direct effect on the States, on

the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, it is

determined that this proposed rule

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

Would this proposed AD involve a

significant rule or regulatory action? For

the reasons discussed above, I certify

that this proposed action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

A copy of the draft regulatory

evaluation prepared for this action has

been placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained by contacting the

Rules Docket at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority

delegated to me by the Administrator,

the Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD) to

read as follows:

Rolladen Schneider Flugzeugbau GMBH:

Docket No. 99–CE–75–AD.

(a) What sailplanes are affected by this

AD? This AD affects models LS 4 and LS 4a

sailplanes, serial numbers 4000 through

4852, certificated in any category.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above sailplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to detect and correct damage to the airbrake

locking bracket caused by asymmetric loads.

This condition could result in the pilot’s

inability to operate the airbrake controls with

consequent loss of sailplane control.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must accomplish the following:

Action Compliance time Procedures

(1) Inspect the airbrake locking bracket on the

rear landing gear box for signs of fatigue

(cracks in the paint, paint chips, or cracks in

the welding region to the tube) and inspect

for proper rigging of the airbrake system.

Within the next 30 calendar days after the effective date of this AD..Inspect for proper rigging in accordance with

the procedures contained in the applicable

maintenance manual. Inspect the airbrake

locking bracket in accordance with the procedures contained in Rolladen Schneider

Technical Bulletin No. 4042, dated July 2,

1999.

(2) If any sign of fatigue is evident, accomplish

the following:.

(i) Disassemble the airbrake system;

(ii) Obtain a modified airbrake locking bracket

from the manufacturer (2-day turnaround

time) and install this bracket; and

(iii) Reassemble the airbrake system and accomplish the adjustments listed in the service

bulletin

Accomplish all actions prior to further flight

after the inspection required in paragraph

(d)(1) of this AD.

Accomplish the disassembly, installation, assembly, and adjustments in accordance

with procedures contained in the applicable

maintenance manual and the procedures in

Rolladen Schneider Technical Bulletin No.

4042, dated July 2, 1999.

(3) If no signs of fatigue are found but the airbrake system is incorrectly assembled, disassemble the system and reassemble, including accomplishing the adjustments listed

in the service bulletin.

Accomplish all actions prior to further flight

after the inspection required in paragraph

(d)(1) of this AD.

Accomplish in accordance with procedures

contained in the applicable maintenance

manual and the procedures in Rolladen

Schneider Technical Bulletin No. 4042,

dated July 2, 1999.

(4) If no signs of fatigue are found and the airbrake system is correctly assembled, then no

further action is required by this AD.

AD complied with ............................................. AD complied with.

(5) If any discrepancy is found that requires additional work as required by paragraphs

(d)(2) and (d)(3) of this AD, then send information describing the discrepancies found

and the follow-on work that was necessary to

the FAA.

Within 10 days after the inspection required

by this AD or within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

Mail the information to: FAA, Small Airplane

Directorate (ACE–112), Attention: Docket

No. 99–CE–75–AD, 901 Locust, Room 301,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

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

way? You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, approves your alternative.

Submit your request through an FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For sailplanes 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

67318 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules

addressed by this AD; and, if you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Mike Kiesov, Aerospace

Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, 901

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4121; facsimile:

(816) 329–4091.

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

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your sailplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may obtain copies

of the documents referenced in this AD from

Rolladen-Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH,

Muhlstrasse 10, D–63329 Egelsbach,

Germany. You may examine these documents

at FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed

in German AD 1999–270, dated July 22, 1999.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

November 2, 2000.

Michael K. Dahl,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28832 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00–ASO–37]

Proposed Amendment of Class E

Airspace; Lexington, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

which proposed to amend the Class E

airspace at Lexington, KY. The NPRM is

being withdrawn as a result of the

determination that additional Class E

airspace to contain aircraft executing the

Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) Runway

4 (RWY 4) Standard Instrument

Approach Procedure (SIAP) developed

for Blue Grass Airport is not necessary,

as the SIAP is fully contained within

existing Class E airspace.

DATES: This proposed rule is withdrawn

as of November 9, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Shelton, Manager, Airspace

Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

00–ASO–37, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,

Georgia 30320, telephone: (404) 305–

5586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Proposed Rule

On September 25, 2000, a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking was published in

the Federal Register to amend Class E

airspace at Lexington, KY, (65 FR

57568) to provide adequate controlled

airspace to contain the NDB RWY 4

SIAP developed for Blue Grass Airport.

The initial airspace review for

Lexington, KY, determined the need for

an airspace extension. However, a

follow-up review determined the

extension was not necessary.

Conclusion

In consideration of the

aforementioned determination, action to

amend the Lexington, KY, Class E

airspace area is withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (Air).

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, Airspace

Docket No. 00–ASO–37, as published in

the Federal Register on September 25,

2000, (65 FR 57568), is hereby

withdrawn.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October

24, 2000.

Richard Biscomb,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 00–28848 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–209038–89]

RIN 1545–AO75

Foreign Trusts That Have U.S.

Beneficiaries; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed

rulemaking and notice of public

hearing.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to a notice of proposed

rulemaking and notice of public hearing

that was published in the Federal

Register on Monday, August 7, 2000 (65

FR 48185) relating to transfers of

property by U.S. persons to foreign

trusts having one or more United States

beneficiaries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Willard W. Yates at (202) 622–3880 (not

a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The notice of proposed rulemaking

and notice of public hearing that is the

subject of this correction is under

section 679 of the Internal Revenue

Code.

Need for Correction

As published, the notice of proposed

rulemaking and notice of public hearing

contains errors that may prove to be

misleading and are in need of

clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication of the

notice of proposed rulemaking and

notice of public hearing (REG–209038–

89), that was the subject of FR Doc. 00–

19897, is corrected as follows:

1. On page 48187, column 2, in the

preamble under the paragraph heading

‘‘Section 1.679–1 U.S. Transferor

Treated as Owner of Foreign Trust’’,

first full paragraph from the top of the

column, last line, the language

‘‘November 6, 2000’’ is corrected to read

‘‘August 7, 2000’’.

2. On page 48188, column 1, in the

preamble under the paragraph heading

‘‘Section 1.679–2: Trusts Treated as

Having a U.S. Beneficiary’’, third full

paragraph, last line, the language

‘‘November 6, 2000’’ is corrected to read

‘‘August 7, 2000’’.

3. On page 48188, column 3, in the

preamble under the paragraph heading

‘‘Section 1.679–3 Transfers’’, fourth

paragraph, last line, the language

‘‘November 6, 2000’’ is corrected to read

‘‘August 7, 2000’’.

4. On page 48189, column 2, in the

preamble under the paragraph heading

‘‘Section 1.679–4 Exceptions to General

Rule’’, second full paragraph, third line,

the language ‘‘trusts after November 6,

2000. Special’’ is corrected to read

‘‘trusts after August 7, 2000. Special’’.

5. On page 48189, column 3, in the

preamble under the paragraph heading

‘‘Section 1.679–5 Pre-immigration

Trusts’’, third full paragraph, last line,

the language ‘‘after November 6, 2000’’

is corrected to read ‘‘after August 7,

2000’’.

6. On page 48189, column 3, in the

preamble under the paragraph heading