29360 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules

reviewed the application of a state

statute that was similar to section 441b

to a nonprofit state chamber of

commerce. The chamber did not itself

engage in traditional business activities.

However, its bylaws set forth ‘‘varied

purposes * * * several of which [were]

not inherently political.’’ 494 U.S. at

662. For example, it distributed

information related to social, civic and

economic conditions, trained and

educated its members, and promoted

ethical business practices. The Court

noted that ‘‘[m]any of its seminars,

conventions, and publications [were]

politically neutral and focus[ed] on

business and economic issues,’’ that

were ‘‘not expressly tied to political

goals.’’ Id. Thus, even though it was not

engaged in a business for profit, ‘‘[t]he

Chamber’s nonpolitical activities * * *

suffice[d] to distinguish it from

[Massachusetts Citizens] in the context

of this characteristic.’’ Id. at 663.

With regard to the acceptance of

corporate contributions, the Court was

even more emphatic, saying that ‘‘[o]n

this score, the Chamber differs most

greatly from [Massachusetts Citizens].’’

Id. at 664. The Court said that, under

MCFL, nonprofit organizations that

accept contributions from business

corporations are not entitled to any

exemption from section 441b, and

pointed out that if the rule were

otherwise, ‘‘[b]usiness corporations

* * * could circumvent the Act’s

restriction by funneling money through

[a nonprofit organization’s] general

treasury.’’ Id. The Court concluded that,

under this standard, the Chamber was

not entitled to any exemption from the

state’s version of section 441b. ‘‘Because

the Chamber accepts money from forprofit corporations, it could, absent

application of [the state corporate

expenditure prohibition], serve as a

conduit for corporate political

spending.’’ Id.

The Commission continues to believe

that section 114.10 accurately interprets

these two Supreme Court cases, and the

decisions of several other courts support

this conclusion. In Clifton v. FEC, 114

F.3d 1309 (lst Cir. 1997), cert. denied,

118 S. Ct. 1306 (1998), the First Circuit

said the MCFL Court ‘‘stressed as

‘essential’ the fact that the anti-abortion

group there involved did not accept

contributions from business

corporations or unions * * *. This was

important to the Court because it had

previously sustained the right of

Congress to limit the election influence

of massed economic power in corporate

or union form.’’ Id. at 1312. Since the

nonprofit corporation involved in that

case accepted contributions from other

corporations, the Court concluded that

it was not entitled to the MCFL

exemption, saying that it fell

‘‘somewhere between the entity

protected in [MCFL] and that held

unprotected in Austin.’’ Id. at 1312–13.

The First Circuit also said a de minimis

rule regarding the acceptance of

corporate contributions would be

inconsistent with the Austin decision.

Id. at 1313.

In dictum, the D.C. Circuit has also

expressed support for the Commission’s

interpretation of this aspect of the MCFL

decision. ‘‘[T]he MCFL constitutional

exemption * * * requires that the

organization * * * not accept

contributions from labor unions or

corporations.’’ Akins v. FEC, 101 F.3d

731, 742 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc)

(dictum), cert. granted, 117 S. Ct. 2451

(1997).

Two district courts have also

supported the Commission’s

interpretation. In FEC v. NRA Political

Victory Fund, 778 F. Supp. 62 (D.D.C.

1991), rev’d on other grounds, 6 F.3d

821 (D.C. Cir.), cert. dismissed for want

of jurisdiction, 513 U.S. 88 (1994), the

court concluded that unless a

corporation can show that it does not in

fact accept contributions from business

corporations or unions or has a policy

‘‘equivalent to that of MCFL’’ of not

accepting such contributions, it does

‘‘not fit in the group of organizations

affected by the MCFL holding, a group

which the Court acknowledged * * *

would be ‘‘small,’’’ 778 F. Supp. at 64

(quoting MCFL, 479 U.S. at 264).

The district court in Faucher v. FEC,

743 F. Supp. 64 (D. Me. 1990), aff’d, 928

F.2d 468 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S.

820 (1991), reached a similar

conclusion.

In [MCFL], the Supreme Court made clear

that one of the ‘‘essential’’ factors for its

holding was that the nonprofit corporation

there did not receive, and had a policy of not

receiving, any corporate funds. * * *

[A]lthough the amounts received by [the

plaintiff nonprofit organization] from

corporations have been comparatively

modest, they are obviously not subject to any

control. Without an explicit policy against

contributions from corporations, the risk

remains that an organization like [the

plaintiff] could ‘‘serv[e] as [a conduit] for the

type of direct spending that creates a threat

to the political marketplace.’’ * * * It is this

potential for influence that supports the

restrictions on corporate funding.

743 F. Supp. at 69–70 (emphasis in

original; quoting MCFL, 479 U.S. at

264).

In sum, both because it is well settled

that a decision by one circuit court of

appeals is not binding in other circuits,

and because the Commission believes

the challenged regulation reflects a

correct reading of controlling Supreme

Court precedent and is therefore

constitutional, the Commission has

decided not to open a rulemaking in

response to this Petition.

Therefore, at its open meeting of May

21, 1998, the Commission voted not to

initiate a rulemaking to revise its

regulations regarding qualified

nonprofit corporations, found at 11 CFR

114.10. Copies of the General Counsel’s

recommendation on which the

Commission’s decision is based are

available for public inspection and

copying in the Commission’s Public

Records Office, 999 E Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1120

or toll-free (800) 424–9530. Interested

persons may also obtain a copy by

dialing the Commission’s FAXLINE

service at (202) 501–3413 and following

its instructions. Request document #233.

Dated: May 22, 1998.

Joan D. Aikens,

Chairman, Federal Election Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–14193 Filed 5–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–30–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus

Aircraft Ltd. Model PC–7 Airplanes

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 Pilatus

Aircraft Ltd. Model PC–7 airplanes. The

proposed AD would require replacing

the seal unit on both main landing gear

(MLG) legs and the nose landing gear

(NLG) leg. The proposed AD is the

result of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information (MCAI)

issued by the airworthiness authority for

Switzerland. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent MLG or NLG failure caused by

deterioration of a MLG or NLG leg seal

unit, which could result in damage to

the airplane or airplane controllability

problems during takeoff, landing, or taxi

operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules 29361

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–CE–30–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

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

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison

Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland;

telephone: +41 41 619 6509; facsimile:

+41 41 610 3351. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roman T. Gabrys, Aerospace Engineer,

Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane

Certification Service, FAA, 1201

Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone: (816) 426-6932;

facsimile: (816) 426–2169.

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

should 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 that

summarizes 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 No. 98–CE–30–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, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 98–CE–30–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

The Federal Office for Civil Aviation

(FOCA), which is the airworthiness

authority for Switzerland, recently

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Pilatus

Model PC–7 airplanes. The FOCA of

Switzerland reports two cases of

improper landing gear extension after

take-off. These incidents are attributed

to deterioration of the MLG or NLG seal

unit.

These conditions, if not corrected in

a timely manner, could result in MLG or

NLG failure and cause airplane damage

or airplane controllability problems

during takeoff, landing, or taxi

operations.

Relevant Service Information

Pilatus has issued Service Bulletin

No. 32–018, dated March 6, 1998, which

specifies procedures for replacing the

seal unit, on both MLG legs and the

NLG leg, with improved design seal

units.

The FOCA of Switzerland classified

this service bulletin as mandatory and

issued Swiss AD HB 98–069, dated

March 23, 1998, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in Switzerland.

The FAA’s Determination

This airplane model is manufactured

in Switzerland 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 FOCA has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above.

The FAA has examined the findings

of the FOCA; reviewed all available

information, including the service

information referenced above; and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Pilatus PC–7 airplanes

of the same type design registered in the

United States, the FAA is proposing AD

action. The proposed AD would require

replacing the seal unit on both MLG legs

and the NLG leg. Accomplishment of

the proposed installation would be in

accordance with Pilatus Service Bulletin

No. 32–018, dated March 6, 1998.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 5 airplanes in

the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 8 workhours per airplane

to accomplish the proposed action, and

that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost

approximately $932 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $7,060, or $1,412 per

airplane.

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 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, 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.
29362 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Pilatus Aircraft LTD.: Docket No. 98–CE–30–

AD.

Applicability: Model PC–7 airplanes, serial

numbers MSN 001 through MSN 609,

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 (d) 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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent main landing gear (MLG) or

nose landing gear (NLG) failure caused by

deterioration of a MLG or NLG leg seal unit,

which could result in damage to the airplane

or airplane controllability problems during

takeoff, landing, or taxi operations,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice after the effective date of this AD,

replace the seal unit on both MLG legs and

the NLG leg in accordance with the

ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS

section of Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 32–

018, dated March 6, 1998.

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person may install a MLG leg or NLG leg that

does not have an improved seal unit installed

in accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of Pilatus Service

Bulletin No. 32–018, dated March 6, 1998.

(c) 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.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106. The request shall be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Small Airplane

Directorate.

(e) Questions or technical information

related to Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 32–

018, dated March 6, 1998, should be directed

to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison

Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland;

telephone: +41 41 619 6509; facsimile: +41

41 610 3351. This service information may be

examined at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.

12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Swiss AD HB 98–069, dated March 23,

1998.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May

21, 1998.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14192 Filed 5–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–03–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model B.121 Series 1, 2,

and 3 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM);

Reopening of the comment period.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revise an earlier proposed airworthiness

directive (AD) that would have required

the following on certain British

Aerospace Model B.121 Series 1, 2, and

3 airplanes: installing an inspection

opening in the area of the main spar

web, repetitively inspecting the area at

the main spar web for cracks and the

area of the wing to fuselage attach bolt

holes for corrosion, and repairing or

replacing any cracked or corroded part.

The proposed AD was the result of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MCAI) issued by the

airworthiness authority for the United

Kingdom. Since issuing the NPRM,

British Aerospace has developed

additional service information to that

referenced in the previous proposal to

include the installation of nuts of

improved design at the wing to fuselage

main-spar attachment fittings and the

deletion of the inspection of the area of

the wing to fuselage attach bolt holes for

corrosion. The improved design nuts

provide better torque retention than the

nuts originally installed. The Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) has

determined that the above-referenced

changes in the revised service

information should be incorporated into

the NPRM, and that the comment period

for the proposal should be reopened and

the public should have additional time

to comment. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent structural failure of the main

spar web area caused by fatigue cracking

or separation of the wing caused by

loose nuts at the wing to fuselage mainspar attachment fittings, which could

result in loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–CE–03–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

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

British Aerospace (Operations) Limited,

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft,

Prestwick International Airport,

Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland;

telephone: (01292) 479888; facsimile:

(01292) 479703. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roger Chudy, Aerospace Engineer,

Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, 1201 Walnut, suite

900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;

telephone: (816) 426–6932; facsimile:

(816) 426–2169

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

should 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 that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this