Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 17 /Tuesday, January 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules 3851

significant for the purposes of Executive

Order 12866 and, therefore, has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 71

require that any horses classified as EIA

reactors and accepted by a facility for

sale are to be placed in quarantined

pens at least 200 yards from all nonEIA-reactor horses or other animals,

unless moving out of the facility within

24 hours of arrival. The proposed rule

would remove the ‘‘less-than-24-hours’’

exemption: Quarantine would be

required regardless of the length of time

between an EIA reactor’s arrival and

departure from a facility. The proposed

rule would also amend the regulations

by requiring that EIA reactors be

quarantined at least 200 yards away

from all equines that are not reactors,

rather than at least 200 yards away from

all other animals.

Facilities that buy and sell horses are

included in the Small Business

Administration’s SIC (Standard

Industrial Classification) category

‘‘Livestock Services, Except Veterinary.’’

Firms in this category with annual

receipts of less than $5 million are

considered small entities. It is likely

that most, if not all, of the

approximately 200 facilities that buy

and sell horses are ‘‘small’’ under this

definition.

Most facilities that buy and sell horses

already have quarantine pens, in

accordance with current regulations.

The estimated 20 percent that do not

have quarantine pens could build or

modify existing pens for quarantine use

at a relatively minor cost: APHIS

estimates that, at most, construction of

a quarantine pen would cost about

$1,000.

However, costs of quarantine pen

construction are not attributable to this

proposed rule because quarantine, per

se, is not a new requirement. Only those

facilities that accept EIA reactors and

that always move all EIA reactors within

24 hours of arrival would need to

construct or modify pens for quarantine

purposes as a consequence of this

proposed rule. As no facility can always

be certain of movement of EIA reactors

within 24 hours, no costs should be

incurred strictly because of this

proposed rule. Moreover, by requiring

all EIA reactors at approved livestock

facilities to be quarantined, the horse

industry in general would benefit from

a further reduction in the risk of EIA

transmission.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and

regulations that are in conflict with this

rule will be preempted; (2) no

retroactive effect will be given to this

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings

will not be required before parties may

file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 71

Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry

and poultry products, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 71 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 71—GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for part 71

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111–113, 114a, 114a–

1, 115–117, 120–126, 134b, and 134f; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 71.20 [AMENDED]

2. In § 71.20, paragraph (a) would be

amended in paragraph (16)(ii) of the

sample agreement by removing the

words ‘‘or other animals, unless moving

out of the facility within 24 hours of

arrival’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of

January 1998.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–1778 Filed 1–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Part 114

[Notice 1998–3]

Definition of ‘‘Member’’ of a

Membership Association

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;

technical correction.

SUMMARY: On December 22, 1997, the

Commission published a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) setting

out proposed revisions to its rules

defining who qualifies as a ‘‘member’’ of

a membership association. The term is

defined twice in the Commission’s

rules, and the definitions are identical.

The NPRM sought comment on three

alternative definitions, but inadvertently

omitted one portion of one alternative

from one of the parallel definitions. This

technical revision to the NPRM corrects

that oversight.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Susan E. Propper, Assistant General

Counsel, or Ms. Rita A. Reimer,

Attorney, 999 E Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 219–3690

or (800) 424–9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 22, 1997, the Commission

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking seeking comment on three

alternative revisions (Alternatives A, B

and C) to its rules defining who

qualifies as a ‘‘member’’ of a

membership association. 62 FR 66832.

Each Alternative describes a range of

financial and organizational

attachments that would be sufficient to

confer membership status.

A membership association can solicit

contributions from its members to a

separate segregated fund established by

the association, and can include express

electoral advocacy in communications

to its members. 2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)(A),

441b(b)(4)(C). The Commission’s rules

for both activities are identical. Those

governing solicitations are found at 11

CFR 114.1(e), and those governing

communications are found at 11 CFR

100.8(b)(4)(iv).

In keeping with the statutory and

regulatory scheme, the Commission

intended that all three alternatives

would apply to both 11 CFR

100.8(b)(4)(iv) and 114.1(e). However,

the NPRM as published inadvertently

omitted Alternative C for paragraph

114.1(e)(2)(ii), although it included it for

parallel paragraph 100.8(b)(4)(iv)(B)(2).

See 62 FR 66837, 66838 (Dec. 22, 1997).

Under Alternative C, a person would be

considered a ‘‘member’’ of a
3852 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 17 /Tuesday, January 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

membership association if the person

was required to pay on a regular basis

a specific amount of annual dues that

are predetermined by the association.

Accordingly, the Commission is

publishing this technical correction to

the NPRM.

§ 114.1 [Corrected]

On page 66838 of the December 22,

1997 Federal Register, at the bottom of

the first column, following proposed

Alternative B for paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)–

(iv), insert the following:

Alternative C for paragraph (e)(2)(ii).

(2) Are required to pay on a regular

basis a specific amount of annual dues

that are predetermined by the

association.

Dated: January 22, 1998.

Joan D. Aikens,

Chairman, Federal Election Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–1890 Filed 1–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–99–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–31 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–

9–31 series airplanes.

This proposal would require a onetime visual inspection to determine if

all corners of the forward service door

doorjamb have been modified

previously, various follow-on repetitive

inspections, and modification, if

necessary. This proposal is prompted by

reports of fatigue cracks found in the

fuselage skin and doubler at the corners

of the forward service door doorjamb.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to detect and correct

such fatigue cracking, which could

result in rapid decompression of the

fuselage and consequent reduced

structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

99–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

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Department 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, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (562) 627–

5324; 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.

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–99–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–99–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports of

fatigue cracks in the fuselage skin and

doubler at the corners of the forward

service door doorjamb on Model DC–9–

31 series airplanes. These cracks were

discovered during inspections

conducted as part of the Supplemental

Structural Inspection Document (SSID)

program, required by AD 96–13–03,

amendment 39–9671 (61 FR 31009, June

19, 1996). Investigation revealed that

such cracking was caused by fatiguerelated stress. Fatigue cracking in the

fuselage skin or doubler at the corners

of the forward service door doorjamb, if

not detected and corrected in a timely

manner, could result in rapid

decompression of the fuselage and

consequent reduced structural integrity

of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC9–53–288, dated February 10, 1997.

The service bulletin describes the

following procedures:

1. Performing a one-time visual

inspection to determine if the corners of

the forward service door doorjamb have

been modified;

2. For airplanes on which the

modification specified in Service

Bulletin DC9–53–288 has not been

accomplished: Performing a low

frequency eddy current (LFEC) or x-ray

inspection to detect cracks of the

fuselage skin and doubler at all corners

of the forward service door doorjamb;

3. Conducting repetitive inspections,

or modifying the corner skin of the

doorjamb of the forward service door

and performing follow-on action high

frequency eddy current (HFEC)

inspections, if no cracking is detected;

4. Performing repetitive HFEC

inspections to detect cracks on the skin

adjacent to any corner that has been

modified; and

5. Modifying any crack that is found

to be 2 inches or less in length at all

corners that have not been modified and

performing follow-on repetitive HFEC

inspections.

Accomplishment of the modification

will minimize the possibility of cracks

in the fuselage skin and doubler.