71076 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 22, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30445 Filed 11–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–148–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10 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. This proposal would

require a general visual inspection to

detect chafing or damage of the feeder

cables of the external ground power in

the forward cargo compartment between

certain fuselage stations; and repair, if

necessary. This proposal also would

require installation of spiral wrap on the

feeder cables of the external ground

power. This action is necessary to

prevent chafing of the feeder cables

during removal of the sump panels of

the cargo floor, which could result in

electrical arcing and damage to adjacent

structure, and consequent smoke and/or

fire in the forward cargo compartment.

This action is intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

148–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 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-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent

via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–148–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:

Natalie Phan-Tran, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5343;

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.

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 notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–148–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–148–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

As part of its practice of re-examining

all aspects of the service experience of

a particular aircraft whenever an

accident occurs, the FAA has become

aware that the feeder cable of the

external ground power failed on

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10 series

airplanes. The cause of this failure is

attributed to cables being chafed during

prior removal of the sump panels of the

cargo floor, which resulted in electrical

arcing and damage to adjacent structure.

These conditions, if not corrected, could

result in smoke and/or fire in the

forward cargo compartment.

Other Related Rulemaking

The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing

and operators of Model DC–10 series

airplanes, is continuing to review all

aspects of the service history of those

airplanes to identify potential unsafe

conditions and to take appropriate

corrective actions. This proposed AD is

one of a series of actions identified

during that process. The process is

continuing and the FAA may consider

additional rulemaking actions as further

results of the review become available.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin DC10–24A147, Revision 02,

dated March 6, 2000. The service

bulletin describes procedures for a

general visual inspection to detect

chafing or damage of the feeder cables

of the external ground power in the

forward cargo compartment between

fuselage stations Y=879.000 and

Y=1019.000 left of centerline; and

repair, if necessary. The service bulletin

also describes procedures for

installation of spiral wrap on the feeder

cables of the external ground power.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Proposed Rules 71077

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 bulletin

described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 260 Model

DC–10 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 171 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

For Groups 1, 2, and 3 airplanes, it

would take approximately 5 work hours

per airplane (including gaining and

closing access) to accomplish the

proposed inspection, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed inspection AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $300 per

airplane.

For Group 1 airplanes, it would take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane (including gaining and closing

access) to accomplish the proposed

installation, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $140 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the proposed installation AD

on U.S. operators of Group 1 airplanes

is estimated to be $260 per airplane.

For Group 2 airplanes, it would take

approximately 3 work hours per

airplane (including gaining and closing

access) to accomplish the proposed

installation, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $140 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the proposed installation AD

on U.S. operators of Group 2 airplanes

is estimated to be $320 per airplane.

For Group 3 airplanes, it would take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane (including gaining and closing

access) to accomplish the proposed

installation, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $140 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the proposed installation AD

on U.S. operators of Group 3 airplanes

is estimated to be $380 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 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–148–

AD.

Applicability: Model DC–10 series

airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas

Alert Service Bulletin DC10–24A147,

Revision 02, dated March 6, 2000;

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 (b) 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 chafing of the feeder cables

during removal of the sump panels of the

cargo floor, which could result in electrical

arcing and damage to adjacent structure, and

consequent smoke and/or fire in the forward

cargo compartment, accomplish the

following:

Inspection, Installation of Spiral Wrap, and

Repair, If Necessary

(a) Within 1 year after the effective date of

this AD, do the actions specified in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD per

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

DC10–24A147, Revision 02, dated March 6,

2000.

(1) Do a general visual inspection to detect

chafing or damage of the feeder cables of the

external ground power in the forward cargo

compartment between fuselage stations

Y=879.000 and Y=1019.000 left of centerline.

If any chafing or damage is detected, before

further flight, repair the feeder cables of the

external ground power and adjacent

structure.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

general visual inspection is defined as ‘‘A

visual examination of an interior or exterior

area, installation, or assembly to detect

obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This

level of inspection is made under normally

available lighting conditions such as

daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight, and may require removal or opening of

access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or

platforms may be required to gain proximity

to the area being checked.’’

(2) Install spiral wrap on the feeder cables

of the external ground power.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angles ACO.

71078 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Special Flight Permit

(c) 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 22, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30444 Filed 11–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–112502–00]

RIN 1545–AY45

Guidance Under Subpart F Relating to

Partnerships; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public

hearing on proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document provides

notice of cancellation of a public

hearing on proposed rulemaking

relating to the treatment of a controlled

foreign corporation’s (CFC’s)

distributive share of partnership

income.

DATES: The public hearing originally

scheduled for Tuesday, December 5,

2000, at 10 a.m., is canceled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Treena Garrett of the Regulations Unit,

Office of Special Counsel

(Modernization and Strategic Planning),

at 622–7180 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice

of proposed rulemaking and notice of

public hearing that appeared in the

Federal Register on September 20, 2000

(65 FR 56836), announced that a public

hearing was scheduled for December 5,

2000, in the Internal Revenue Building,

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC. The subject of the

public hearing is proposed regulations.

The deadline for outlines of oral

comments and requests to speak expired

on November 14, 2000.

The notice of proposed rulemaking

and notice of public hearing, instructed

those interested in testifying at the

public hearing to submit a request to

speak and an outline of the topics to be

addressed. As of November 21, 2000, no

one has requested to speak. Therefore,

the public hearing scheduled for

December 5, 2000, is canceled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,

Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special

Counsel (Modernization and Strategic

Planning).

[FR Doc. 00–30448 Filed 11–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[NH–45–7172b; A–1–FRL–6906–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans and

Designations of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; State of New

Hampshire; Revision to the Carbon

Monoxide State Implementation Plan,

City of Nashua; Carbon Monoxide

Redesignation Request, Maintenance

Plan, Transportation Conformity

Budget, and Emissions Inventory for

the City of Nashua; Carbon Monoxide

Redesignation Request, Maintenance

Plan, Transportation Conformity

Budget, and Emissions Inventory for

the City of Manchester

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to

redesignate the Nashua, New Hampshire

nonattainment area to attainment for the

carbon monoxide (CO) air quality

standard and is proposing to approve a

Maintenance Plan that will insure that

the Nashua area remains in attainment.

The EPA is also proposing to

redesignate the Manchester, New

Hampshire nonattainment area to

attainment for the CO air quality

standard and is proposing to approve a

maintenance plan that will insure that

the Manchester area remains in

attainment. Under the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (the CAA),

designations can be revised if sufficient

data are available to warrant such

revisions and the request to redesignate

shows that all of the requirements of

section 107(d)(E)(3) of the CAA have

been met. EPA is proposing to approve

the New Hampshire maintenance plans

and other redesignation submittals

because they meet the maintenance plan

and redesignation requirements, and

will ensure that the two areas remain in

attainment. The approved maintenance

plans will become a federally

enforceable part of the New Hampshire

State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this

action, EPA is also proposing to approve

the New Hampshire 1990 baseline

emission inventories for both of these

areas, transportation conformity budgets

for both areas and a revision to the

inspection and maintenance (I/M) SIP

approved for the Nashua area.

In the Final Rules Section of this

Federal Register, EPA is approving the

State’s SIP submittal as a direct final

rule without a prior proposal because

the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial submittal and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

relevant adverse comments are received

in response to this rule, no further

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives

relevant adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse

comment on an amendment, paragraph,

or section of this rule and if that

provision may be severed from the

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt

as final those provisions of the rule that

are not the subject of an adverse

comment.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before December 29,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David Conroy, Manager, Air Quality

Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem

Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, New

England office, One Congress Street,

Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023.

Copies of the State submittal and EPA’s

technical support document are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

New England office, One Congress

Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA and Air

Resources Division, Department of

Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive,

P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302–0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey S. Butensky, Environmental

Planner, Air Quality Planning Unit of

the Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail

code CAQ), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, New England office,

One Congress Street, Boston, MA

02114–2023, (617) 918–1665 or at

butensky.jeff@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, see the direct