66360 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–382–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 767–200 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 Boeing Model 767–200 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive inspections of the side panels

of the nose wheel well for broken rivets

and replacement of any broken rivets

with bolts. This proposal would also

require follow-on inspections of

adjacent areas for cracks or broken

rivets, whenever two or more adjacent

broken rivets are found; repair of any

cracks; and replacement of any broken

rivets with bolts. Finally, this proposal

provides for the optional replacement of

all rivets in the affected area with bolts,

which would terminate the repetitive

inspections. This action is necessary to

detect and correct broken rivets in the

nose wheel well side panels and top

panel, which could impair the function

of the nose landing gear and cause

fatigue cracks in the side panel and top

panel webs of the nose wheel well,

which could result in rapid cabin

depressurization during flight. This

action is intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 11, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket Number 2000–

NM–382–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–382–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 Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Craycraft, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2782;

fax (425) 227–1181.

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 notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–382–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

Number 2000–NM–382–AD, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received a report

indicating that 155 broken rivets were

found in the side and top panels of the

nose wheel well on a Boeing Model

767–200 airplane. Analysis indicates

that pressurization loads on the side

panel and top panel webs results in high

prying loads on these rivets. Broken

rivets in the side and top panels of the

nose wheel well, if not corrected, could

impair the function of the nose landing

gear and cause fatigue cracks in the side

and top panel webs of the nose wheel

well, which could result in rapid cabin

depressurization during flight.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Service Bulletin 767–53A0090,

Revision 1, dated September 14, 2000,

which describes procedures for

repetitive inspections of the nose wheel

well side panels for broken rivets and

replacement of any broken rivets with

bolts. The service bulletin also describes

procedures for follow-up inspections of

adjacent areas for broken rivets and

cracks, whenever two or more adjacent

broken rivets are found; repair of any

cracks; and replacement of any broken

rivets with bolts. Finally, the service

bulletin describes procedures for the

optional replacement of all rivets in the

affected area with bolts, which

eliminates the need for repetitive

inspections.

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 rule would

require accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin

described previously, except as

described below.

Differences Between Service Bulletin

and Proposed Rule

Operators should note that the service

bulletin specifies that if broken rivets

are found during a secondary

inspection, they must be repaired, and

that repair data should be requested

from the Boeing Company. However,

this proposed rule would require the

repair to be accomplished per a method

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66361

approved by the FAA, or per data

meeting the type certification basis of

the airplane approved by a Boeing

Company Designated Engineering

Representative who has been authorized

by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office, to make such

findings.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 62 airplanes

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 46

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 2 work hours

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 $5,520, or $120 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:

Boeing: Docket 2000–NM–382–AD.

Applicability: Model 767 series airplanes,

line numbers 1 through 62; 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, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct broken rivets in the

nose wheel well side panels and top panel,

which could impair the function of the nose

landing gear and cause fatigue cracks in the

nose wheel well side panel and top panel

webs, which could result in rapid cabin

depressurization during flight, accomplish

the following:

Initial and Repetitive Inspections

(a) Within 18 months or 3,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first: Perform a detailed visual

inspection of the nose wheel well side panels

for broken rivets, in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 767–53A0090, Revision 1,

dated September 14, 2000.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

Note 3: Inspections, replacement, and

repairs performed prior to the effective date

of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service

Bulletin 767–53A0090, dated August 3, 2000,

are considered acceptable for compliance

with the applicable actions specified in this

amendment.

(1) If no broken rivets are detected: No

further action is required as part of the initial

inspection. Repeat the inspection at intervals

not to exceed 18 months or 3,000 flight

cycles, whichever occurs first.

(2) If broken rivets are detected, but they

do not include two or more adjacent rivets:

Prior to further flight, replace the broken

rivets with bolts in accordance with the

service bulletin. Repeat the inspection at

intervals not to exceed 18 months or 3,000

flight cycles, whichever occurs first.

(3) If two or more adjacent broken rivets

are detected: Prior to further flight, perform

a secondary inspection as specified in

paragraph (c) of this AD.

Optional Terminating Action

(b) Replacement of all the rivets with bolts

in accordance with Figure 5 of Boeing

Service Bulletin 767–53A0090, Revision 1,

dated September 14, 2000, terminates the

repetitive inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD.

Secondary Inspections

(c) If two or more adjacent broken rivets are

found during any inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD: Prior to further

flight, perform a detailed visual inspection of

the side panels and the top panel of the nose

wheel well for cracks or broken rivets, in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

767–53A0090, Revision 1, dated September

14, 2000.

(1) If no cracks or additional broken rivets

are found: Prior to further flight replace all

of the rivets with bolts in accordance with

Figure 5 of the service bulletin. This

terminates the repetitive inspections required

by paragraph (a) of this AD.

(2) If any cracks or additional broken rivets

are found: Prior to further flight, repair the

cracks and replace all of the rivets, per a

method approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, or per data

meeting the type certification basis of the

airplane approved by a Boeing Company

Designated Engineering Representative who

has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle

ACO, to make such findings. For a repair

method to be approved by the Manager,

Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph,

the Manager’s approval letter must

specifically reference this AD. This

terminates the repetitive inspections required

by paragraph (a) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) 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.

66362 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Note 4: 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

(e) 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

December 17, 2001.

Kalene C. Yanamura,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31558 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–112991–01]

RIN 1545–AY82

Credit for Increasing Research

Activities

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

and notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This document contains

proposed regulations relating to the

computation of the research credit

under section 41(c) and the definition of

qualified research under section 41(d).

In addition, this document contains

proposed regulations describing when

computer software that is developed by

(or for the benefit of) a taxpayer

primarily for the taxpayer’s internal use

is excepted from the internal-use

software exclusion contained in section

41(d)(4)(E). These proposed regulations

reflect changes to section 41 made by

the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the

Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1989, the

Small Business Job Protection Act of

1996, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997,

the Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act

of 1998, and the Tax Relief Extension

Act of 1999. This document also

provides notice of a public hearing on

these proposed regulations.

DATES: Written and electronic comments

and requests to speak (with outlines of

oral comments) at the public hearing

scheduled for March 27, 2002 must be

received no later than March 6, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to:

CC:IT&A:RU (REG–112991–01), room

5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,

DC 20044. Submissions may also be

hand delivered Monday through Friday

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.

to: CC:IT&A:RU (REG–112991–01),

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC. Alternatively,

taxpayers may submit comments

electronically via the Internet by

selecting the ‘‘Tax Regs’’ option of the

IRS Home Page, or by submitting

comments directly to the IRS Internet

site at: http://www.irs.gov/tax_regs/

reglist.html. The public hearing will be

held in the IRS Auditorium (7th Floor),

Internal Revenue Building, 1111

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Concerning the regulations, Lisa J.

Shuman, 202–622–3120; concerning

submissions of comments and the

hearing, LaNita VanDyke, 202–622–

7180 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collections of information

contained in this proposed regulation

have been previously reviewed and

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) in accordance with

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and assigned OMB

Control Number 1545–1625. An agency

may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to, a

collection of information unless it

displays a valid control number

assigned by OMB.

Books or records relating to a

collection of information must be

retained as long as their contents may

become material in the administration

of any internal revenue law. Generally,

tax returns and tax return information

are confidential, as required by 26

U.S.C. 6103.

Background

On January 3, 2001, Treasury and the

IRS published in the Federal Register

(66 FR 280) final regulations (TD 8930)

relating to the computation of the credit

for increasing research activities (the

research credit) under section 41(c) and

the definition of qualified research

under section 41(d). In response to

taxpayer concerns regarding TD 8930,

on January 31, 2001, Treasury and the

IRS published Notice 2001–19 (2001–10

I.R.B. 784), announcing that Treasury

and the IRS would review TD 8930 and

reconsider comments previously

submitted in connection with the

finalization of TD 8930. Comments were

requested on all aspects of TD 8930 with

specific comments requested on

whether modifications should be made

to the documentation requirement

contained in § 1.41–4(d).

Notice 2001–19 also provided that,

upon the completion of this review,

Treasury and the IRS would announce

changes to the regulations, if any, in the

form of proposed regulations. Notice

2001–19 stated that TD 8930 would be

revised so that the provisions of the

regulations, including any changes to

TD 8930, would be effective no earlier

than the date when the completion of

this review was announced, except that

the provisions relating to internal-use

computer software (including any

revisions) generally would be applicable

for taxable years beginning after

December 31, 1985.

Explanation of Provisions

This document amends 26 CFR part 1

to provide additional rules under

section 41. Section 41 contains the rules

for the research credit. After

consideration of the statute and

legislative history, the court decisions,

TD 8930 and the comments previously

submitted in connection with the

finalization of TD 8930, and the

comments submitted in response to

Notice 2001–19, Treasury and the IRS

have revised TD 8930 to provide rules

regarding:

(i) The requirement in section

41(d)(1)(B)(i) that qualified research be

‘‘undertaken for the purpose of

discovering information which is

technological in nature’’;

(ii) The requirement in section

41(d)(1)(C) that qualified research be

research ‘‘substantially all of the

activities of which constitute elements

of a process of experimentation’’;

(iii) The type of computer software

constituting software ‘‘which is

developed by (or for the benefit of) the

taxpayer primarily for internal use by

the taxpayer’’ for purposes of section

41(d)(4)(E); and

(iv) the documentation required to

substantiate the research credit. These

and other changes to TD 8930 are

discussed below.

I. Research That Is Undertaken for the

Purpose of Discovering Information

Which Is Technological in Nature

Section 41(d)(1)(B)(i) requires that

qualified research must be ‘‘undertaken

for the purpose of discovering

information which is technological in

nature.’’ TD 8930 provided that

‘‘research is undertaken for the purpose

of discovering information only if it is

undertaken to obtain knowledge that

exceeds, expands, or refines the

common knowledge of skilled