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

70671

Vol. 65, No. 228

Monday, November 27, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–269–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10 Series

Airplanes, Model MD–10 Series

Airplanes, and Model MD–11 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–

10 series airplanes, Model MD–10 series

airplanes, and Model MD–11 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive inspections of the number 1

and 2 electric motors of the auxiliary

hydraulic pump for electrical resistance,

continuity, mechanical rotation, and

associated wiring resistance/voltage;

and corrective actions, if necessary. This

action is necessary to prevent various

failures of electric motors of the

auxiliary hydraulic pump and

associated wiring, which could result in

fire at the auxiliary hydraulic pump and

consequent damage to the adjacent

electrical equipment and/or structure.

This action is intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 11, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

269–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. Comments may be

submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: 9–

anm–nprmcomment@faa.gov.

Comments sent via fax or the Internet

must contain ‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–

269–AD’’ in the subject line and need

not be submitted in triplicate.

Comments sent via the Internet as

attached electronic files must be

formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for

Windows or ASCII text.

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, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Albert Lam, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712;

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 action may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

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 action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–269–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–269–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports that,

during ground operations or when

powered in flight by the air driven

generator, the electric motors of the

auxiliary hydraulic pump and

associated motor feeder cables failed on

certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD–

80, DC–10, MD–10, MD–11, and MD–

90–30 series airplanes. These failures

consisted of seized or difficult to turn

rotor on the pump assembly, burnt and

shorted motor feeder cables, and/or

uncontained internal electric arcing

failures with the electric motor.

Investigation revealed that these failures

may be caused by hydraulic fluid

contamination to the electric motor

portion of the pump, failed rotor

bearing, and/or degradation of the

stator’s encapsulate material. These

conditions, if not corrected, could result

in a fire at the auxiliary hydraulic pump

and consequent damage to the adjacent

electrical equipment and/or structure.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

This proposed AD affects McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10, MD–10, and

MD–11 series airplanes. The FAA is

planning to issue a separate rulemaking

70672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

action for McDonnell Douglas Model

DC–9–81,–9–82, –9–83, and –9–87

series airplanes (i.e., MD–80 series

airplanes); Model MD–88 airplanes; and

Model MD–90–30 series airplanes to

address the identified unsafe condition.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin DC10–29A142, Revision 01,

dated October 21, 1999 (for Model DC–

10 and MD–10 series airplanes); and

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin MD11–29A057, Revision 01,

dated October 21, 1999 (for Model MD–

11 series airplanes). These service

bulletins describe procedures for

repetitive inspections of the number 1

and 2 electric motors of the auxiliary

hydraulic pump for electrical resistance,

continuity, mechanical rotation, and

associated wiring resistance/voltage;

and corrective actions, if necessary.

The corrective actions involve

replacing the auxiliary hydraulic pump

with a serviceable pump,

troubleshooting, and repairing the

wiring.

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 the Proposed AD

and One of the Referenced Service

Bulletins

On May 9, 2000, the FAA issued a

Type Certificate (TC) for McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–10–10F and MD–

10–30F series airplanes. Model MD–10

series airplanes are Model DC–10 series

airplanes that have been modified with

an Advanced cockpit. The auxiliary

hydraulic systems installed on Model

MD–10–10F and MD–10–30F series

airplanes (before or after the

modifications necessary to meet the

type design of a Model MD–10 series

airplane) are identical to those auxiliary

hydraulic systems on Model DC–10

series airplanes listed in the effectivity

listing of McDonnell Douglas Alert

Service Bulletin DC10–29A142.

Therefore, all of these airplanes may be

subject to the same unsafe condition. In

addition, the manufacturer’s fuselage

number and factory serial number are

not changed during the conversion from

a Model DC–10 to Model MD–10. The

FAA finds that Model MD–10–10F and

MD–10–30F series airplanes were not

specifically identified by model in the

effectivity listing of the subject service

bulletin; however, they were identified

by manufacturer’s fuselage numbers.

Therefore, the FAA has included Model

MD–10–10F and MD–10–30F series

airplanes in the applicability of the

proposed AD.

Interim Action

This is considered to be interim

action until final action is identified, at

which time the FAA may consider

further rulemaking.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 604 Model

DC–10, MD–10, and MD–11 series

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

396 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 1 work hour

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspection, 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 $23,760, or $60 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 proposed AD were not adopted. The

cost impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

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.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2000–NM–269–

AD.

Applicability: Model DC–10 and MD–10

series airplanes, as listed in McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10–

29A142, Revision 01, dated October 21, 1999;

and Model MD–11 series airplanes, as listed

in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

MD11–29A057, Revision 01, dated October

21, 1999; 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 various failures of electric

motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pump and

associated wiring, which could result in fire

at the auxiliary hydraulic pump and

consequent damage to the adjacent electrical

equipment and/or structure, accomplish the

following:

Inspection

(a) Do a detailed inspection of the number

1 and 2 electric motors of the auxiliary

hydraulic pump for electrical resistance,

continuity, mechanical rotation, and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 70673

associated wiring resistance/voltage, per

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

DC10–29A142, Revision 01, dated October

21, 1999 (for Model DC–10 and MD–10 series

airplanes); or McDonnell Douglas Alert

Service Bulletin MD11–29A057, Revision 01,

dated October 21, 1999 (for Model MD–11

series airplanes); as applicable; at the

applicable time specified in paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD.

(1) For Model DC–10 and MD–10 series

airplanes: Inspect within 6 months after the

effective date of this AD.

(2) For Model MD–11 series airplanes that

have accumulated 3,000 flight hours or more

as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect

within 6 months after the effective date of

this AD.

(3) For Model MD–11 series airplanes that

have accumulated less than 3,000 flight

hours as of the effective date of this AD:

Inspect within 6 months after accumulating

3,000 flight hours.

Condition 1, No Failures: Repetitive

Inspections

(b) If no failures are detected during the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, repeat the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD every 5,000 flight

hours.

Condition 2, Failure of Any Pump Motor:

Replacement and Repetitive Inspections

(c) If any pump motor fails during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, before further flight, replace the

auxiliary hydraulic pump with a serviceable

pump, per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin DC10–29A142, Revision 01, dated

October 21, 1999 (for Model DC–10 and MD–

10 series airplanes); or McDonnell Douglas

Alert Service Bulletin MD11–29A057,

Revision 01, dated October 21, 1999 (for

Model MD–11 series airplanes); as

applicable. Repeat the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD every 5,000 flight

hours.

Condition 3, Failure of Any Wiring: Repair

and Repetitive Inspections

(d) If any wiring fails during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, before further flight, troubleshoot and

repair the wiring, per McDonnell Douglas

Alert Service Bulletin DC10–29A142,

Revision 01, dated October 21, 1999 (for

Model DC–10 and MD–10 series airplanes);

or McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

MD11–29A057, Revision 01, dated October

21, 1999 (for Model MD–11 series airplanes);

as applicable. Repeat the inspection required

by paragraph (a) of this AD every 5,000 flight

hours.

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. 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 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 20, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30121 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING

COMMISSION

25 CFR Part 542

RIN 3141–AA24

Minimum Internal Control Standards

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming

Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming

Commission (the Commission) proposes

to revise its regulations establishing

minimum internal control standards

(MICS) for gaming operations on Indian

land. This notice announces the

initiation of the rulemaking process and

requests information relevant to revision

of the Commission’s regulations

governing minimum internal control

standards for gaming facilities operated

on Indian land.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

March 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail,

facsimile, or delivery to: Minimum

Internal Control Standards, First

Revision Comments, National Indian

Gaming Commission, Suite 9100, 1441 L

Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. Fax

number: 202–632–7066 (not a toll-free

number). Public comments may be

delivered or inspected from 9 a.m. until

noon and from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Monday

through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe

H. Smith at 503–326–7050, or by

facsimile at 503–326–5092 (not toll-free

numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Introduction

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

(IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2701–2721, was

signed into law on October 17, 1988,

creating the Commission and

establishing a comprehensive system for

regulating gambling activities on Indian

lands. Following a thorough rulemaking

process, that included a tribal advisory

committee and public hearings, the

Commission determined that minimum

internal control standards were needed

to ensure the integrity of gaming on

Indian lands and to safeguard this

source of tribal revenues. On January 5,

1999, the Commission published its

Minimum Internal Control Standards,

25 CFR Part 542. In developing the

MICS, the Commission anticipated that

the regulation would be subject to

periodic revision to maintain

consistency with evolving technology

and sound practice in the gaming

industry. The Commission recognized

the importance of ensuring that tribal

gaming operations were not locked into

internal control systems that contained

unworkable requirements or that placed

those operations at a competitive

disadvantage. Overall, implementation

of the MICS has had a positive impact

on the ability of tribal oversight officials

and the Commission to identify

potential threats to the integrity of

Indian gaming operations. As

anticipated, however, in the period

since publication of the MICS, there

have been changes in Indian gaming and

gaming technology that may need to be

reflected in the MICS. Additionally, as

gaming tribes and the Commission have

gained practical experience with the

MICS, it has become apparent that there

are some technical errors in the

regulation and that some of the

standards themselves may not be

operating as the Commission had

intended.

2. Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

To maintain the vitality of the MICS,

the Commission has determined that the

appropriate course of action is to

publish an Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to identify MICS provisions

that may be in need of revision after

more than a year of experience with

those regulations.

3. Request for Comments

Public comment is requested to assist

the Commission in the drafting of the

first revision to 25 CFR Part 542.

Comment is requested on the following

issues:

(a) What are the major difficulties that

have been encountered in the

implementation of the MICS in Indian

gaming facilities? How might the MICS

be revised to address such difficulties?

(b) What other problems, drafting

errors or inconsistencies do the MICS