Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10243

TABLE 1—Continued

Marathon P/N Battery type Airframe manufacturer Model aircraft

30900–001 ... TSP–1754 McDonnell Douglas (Hughes) ........................................ 369HS S/N 001S thru 780S

30949–001 ... TSP–1755 McDonnell Douglas (Hughes) ........................................ 369D S/N 1309 & Sub., E S/N 125 & Sub., F S/N 55 &

sub., FF S/N 55 & Sub.

30703–001 ... TMA–5–20 Piaggio ........................................................................... P–166DL3, P–166

29248–001 ... KTCA–21H–

20

Short Brothers ................................................................ SD3–30

29487–002 ... CA–176 Sikorsky ......................................................................... S76A Series

29490–001 ... CA–376 Sikorsky ......................................................................... S76A Series

31202–001 ... SP–276 Sikorsky ......................................................................... S76B Series

27183–001 ... CA–13 McDonnell Douglas ........................................................ DC–9, MD–80

Note 1: This AD applies to each aircraft

identified in the preceding applicability

provision that incorporates one or more of

the affected batteries, regardless of whether it

has been otherwise modified, altered, or

repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For aircraft 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 within 12 months or

the next scheduled battery maintenance,

whichever occurs first.

To prevent an explosion of the battery,

structural damage, and subsequent loss of

power to the electrical systems, accomplish

the following:

(a) Visually inspect each #10–32 screw in

the battery at the terminals to verify that each

screw has two (2) rows of straight knurls (see

Figure 1). If a screw is found with only one

knurl or no knurl (see Figure 1), before

further flight, fully discharge the battery,

remove the unairworthy screw and replace it

with an airworthy screw, P/N 10488–020.

(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, Special

Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate,

FAA. Operators shall submit their requests

through an FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may concur or comment and

then send it to the Manager, Special

Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Special Certification

Office.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199 to operate the aircraft to a location

where the requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February

2, 2001.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3673 Filed 2–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–298–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–80, and C–

9 (Military) Series Airplanes; Model

MD–88 Airplanes; and Model MD–90

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

10244 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This document revises an

earlier proposed airworthiness directive

(AD), applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–80, and C–

9 (military) series airplanes; Model MD–

88 airplanes; and Model MD–90

airplanes that would have required,

among other actions, a visual check to

determine the part and serial numbers

of the upper lock link assembly of the

nose landing gear (NLG); repetitive

inspections of certain upper lock link

assemblies to detect fatigue cracking;

and replacement of the upper lock link

assembly with an assembly made from

aluminum forging material, if necessary.

Such replacement would constitute

terminating action for the requirements

of this AD. That proposal was prompted

by a report indicating that an NLG

upper lock link fractured prior to

landing and jammed against the NLG

shock strut, restricting the NLG from

fully extending. This new action revises,

among other actions, a list of suspect

parts; delays accomplishment of a

certain replacement; and revises the

initial compliance time. The actions

specified by this new proposed AD are

intended to address the identified

unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

298–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. 97–NM–298–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:

Brent Bandley, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5237; 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 action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 97–NM–98–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.

97–NM–298–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to add an airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–

80, and C–9 (military) series airplanes,

Model MD–88 airplanes, and Model

MD–90 airplanes, was published as a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

in the Federal Register on October 14,

1999 (64 FR 55644). That NPRM would

have required, among other actions, a

visual check to determine the part and

serial numbers of the upper lock link

assembly of the nose landing gear

(NLG); repetitive inspections of certain

upper lock link assemblies to detect

fatigue cracking; and replacement of the

upper lock link assembly with an

assembly made from aluminum forging

material, if necessary. Such replacement

would have constituted terminating

action for the requirements of this AD.

That NPRM was prompted by a report

indicating that, due to fatigue cracking,

a NLG upper lock link fractured prior to

landing and jammed against the NLG

shock strut, restricting the NLG from

fully extending. That condition, if not

corrected, could result in injury to

passengers and flight crew, and damage

to the airplane.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous

Proposal

Due consideration has been given to

the comments received in response to

the NPRM.

Support for Proposed AD

One commenter supports the

proposed AD.

Requests To Revise Compliance Time

Two commenters request that the

compliance time of paragraph (a) of the

proposed AD be revised to eliminate the

words ‘‘5,000 landings since the last

inspection in accordance with

paragraph (a) of AD 97–02–10,

[amendment 39–9895 (62 FR 3781,

January 27, 1997)] whichever occurs

first.’’ The commenters state that

paragraph (a) of AD 97–02–10 requires

classification of the subject links as

exempt or non-exempt. According to AD

97–02–10, no further action is required

if an airplane has an exempt link. One

commenter also states that the proposed

AD would require re-inspection of all

NLG links regardless of classification

findings in AD 97–02–10. As the

compliance time is currently written in

the proposed AD, the commenters state

that their airplanes could exceed the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10245

5,000-landing requirement for

previously classified ‘‘exempt’’ links.

The commenters also state that the

proposed compliance time could

severely limit the timeframe to inspect

non-exempt links approaching the

5,000-landing repetitive inspection

interval required by paragraph (c)(1) of

AD 97–02–10.

Based on the commenters’ statements

and after reviewing the wording of the

compliance time of paragraph (a) of the

proposed AD, the FAA finds that

clarification is necessary. As indicated

in the preamble of the proposed AD,

unlike in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins

MD90–32A019 and DC9–32A298, there

are no lock link assemblies specified as

‘‘exempt’’ or ‘‘non-exempt’’ in this

proposed AD. Instead, a one-time

inspection is required to determine

whether the upper lock link assembly is

from an ‘‘affected lot,’’ as specified in

Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–32–033

or DC9–32–315.

In addition, we find that operators

that are currently accomplishing the

5,000-landing repetitive inspection

required by paragraph (c)(1) of AD 97–

02–10 may have already exceeded or be

near the threshold specified in

paragraph (a) of the proposed AD [i.e.,

5,000 landings since the last inspection

accomplished in accordance with

paragraph (c)(1) of AD 97–02–10].

Therefore, we have determined that a

90-day grace period is necessary to

preclude those airplanes from being

grounded unnecessarily. In developing

an appropriate compliance time for this

action for the subject airplanes, we

considered not only the manufacturer’s

recommendation, but the degree of

urgency associated with addressing the

subject unsafe condition, the average

utilization of the affected fleet, and the

time necessary to perform the

inspections (one hour). In light of all of

these factors, we find a 90-day grace

period for initiating the proposed

actions to be warranted, in that it

represents an appropriate interval of

time allowable for affected airplanes to

continue to operate without

compromising safety.

Therefore, for airplanes on which the

inspection required by paragraph (c)(1)

of AD 97–02–10 has been accomplished,

the proposed actions required by

paragraph (a) of this AD must be

accomplished prior to accumulation of

5,000 landings since the last inspection

accomplished in accordance with

paragraph (c)(1) of AD 97–02–10, or

within 90 days after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs later. For

airplanes on which the inspection

required by paragraph (c)(1) of AD 97–

02–10 has NOT been accomplished, the

proposed actions required by paragraph

(a) of the AD must be accomplished

within 2,500 landings on the NLG after

the effective date of this AD. We have

revised paragraph (a) of the

supplemental NPRM accordingly.

Request to Clarify the Requirements of

Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of the Proposed AD

One commenter questions whether

the FAA’s intent in paragraph (c)(2)(iii)

of the proposed AD was to require both

a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)

inspection ‘‘and’’ Type 1 fluorescent

penetrant inspection or to require either

one of those inspections. The

commenter notes that the service

bulletins referenced in the proposed AD

recommend performing either an HFEC

‘‘or’’ a Type 1 fluorescent inspection,

and that AD 97–02–10 requires

accomplishment of either inspection.

The FAA’s intent was that paragraph

(c)(2)(iii) of the proposed AD require

either a HFEC inspection OR a Type 1

fluorescent penetrant inspection. We

have revised paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of the

supplemental NPRM accordingly.

Request to Delay Accomplishment of

the Replacement

One commenter, the airplane

manufacturer, requests that the FAA

revise paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) of the

proposed AD to require a second

inspection and, within 2,500 landings

following accomplishment of the second

inspection, replacement of the lock link

specified in that paragraph. The

commenter states that this second

inspection and eventual replacement

were identified in the referenced service

bulletins. The commenter also states

that the 5,000-landing delay of the

replacement is necessary because there

may be a parts-availability problem.

The FAA agrees. Our intent was to

follow the procedures recommended in

the referenced service bulletins for these

actions. We have revised paragraph (d)

of the supplemental NPRM [paragraph

(c)(2)(iii)(A) of the original NPRM]

accordingly.

Explanation of New Service

Information

Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA

has reviewed and approved Revision 01

of Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) Service

Bulletins DC9–32–315 and MD90–32–

033, both dated October 24, 2000. The

effectivity listing of Revision 01 of the

services bulletins has been revised to

remove certain manufacturer’s fuselage

numbers from the effectivity listing and

to add certain others. Revision 01 of

these service bulletins also has been

revised to:

1. Update the list of affected serial

numbers of the NLG upper lock link that

are identifed as hand forging material;

2. Redefine the type of etching

method to be used when marking

certain parts; and

3. Clarify that, under a certain

condition, the upper lock link must be

reidentified with a ‘‘black’’ paint stripe.

In addition, the revised service

bulletins clarify the wording

‘‘aluminum forging’’ as die forged

aluminum to differentiate from hand

forged aluminum and provide a method

to identify materials made from a

specific process. We have revised the

supplemental NPRM accordingly to

reference Revision 01 of the subject

service bulletins as an appropriate

source of service information.

Operators should note that Revision

01 of Boeing Service Bulletin DC9–32–

315 misidentifies the date of the original

issue as June 21, 1999. The correct date

is March 11, 1999. Boeing is planning to

correct this error in the next revision of

the service bulletin.

Explanation of Change to the

Applicability

Because the effectivity listing in these

revised service bulletins described

above reflects the most current

composition of operators and airplanes

affected by this AD, the FAA has revised

the applicability statement of the

supplemental NPRM to reference these

revised service bulletins.

Explanation of Change of Type of

Inspection

The FAA finds that it is not necessary

to perform a ‘‘detailed visual’’

inspection to to determine a certain

serial number of the lock link in

paragraph (b) of the proposed AD.

We have deleted the reference to

‘‘detailed visual’’ throughout the

supplemental NPRM and deleted NOTE

2 (definition of a detailed visual

inspection).

Conclusion

Since these changes expand the scope

of the originally proposed rule, the FAA

has determined that it is necessary to

reopen the comment period to provide

additional opportunity for public

comment.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 2,100 Model

DC–9, DC–9–80, and C–9 (military)

series airplanes; Model MD–88

airplanes; and Model MD–90 airplanes

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,400

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

10246 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

It would take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

proposed inspections of the NLG upper

lock link, at an average labor rate of $60

per work hour. Based on these figures,

the cost impact of this inspection

proposed by this AD on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $84,000, or $60 per

airplane.

It would take approximately 4 work

hours per airplane to accomplish each

proposed replacement of the NLG upper

lock link, at an average labor rate of $60

per work hour. Required parts would

cost approximately $5,803 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of each replacement proposed by this

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$8,460,200, or $6,043 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 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

removing amendment 39–9895 (62 FR

3781, January 27, 1997), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 97–NM–298–

AD. Supersedes AD 97–02–10,

Amendment 39–9895.

Applicability: Model DC–9, DC–9–80, and

C–9 (military) series airplanes; Model MD–88

airplanes; and Model MD–90 airplanes; as

listed in Boeing Service Bulletins DC9–32–

315, and MD90–32–033, both Revision 01,

dated October 24, 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 (f)(1) 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 the upper lock link assembly of

the nose landing gear (NLG) from fracturing

due to fatigue cracking, and the NLG

consequently failing to extend fully, which

could result in injury to passengers and flight

crew, and damage to the airplane,

accomplish the following:

Removing and Retaining Upper Lock Link

(a) Remove and retain the upper lock link,

part number (P/N) 3914464, and attaching

parts; and do the inspections required by

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this AD, per the

applicable Boeing (McDonnell Douglas)

service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD.

The actions required by this paragraph shall

be done at the applicable time specified in

paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD. Table 1

is as follows:

TABLE 1.

Service bulletin Revision level Date Model

DC9–32–315 .................................. Original or Revision 01 ................. March 11, 1999 ............................

October 24, 2000 ..........................

DC–9, DC–9–80, and C–9 (military) series airplanes; and MD–

88 airplanes.

MD90–32–033 ............................... Original or Revision 01 ................. March 11, 1999 ............................

October 24, 2000 ..........................

MD–90 airplanes.

(1) For airplanes on which the inspection

required by paragraph (c)(1) of AD 97–02–10

has been done: Do the actions before 5,000

landings since the last inspection done per

paragraph (c)(1) of AD 97–02–10, or within

90 days after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later.

(2) For airplanes on which the inspection

required by paragraph (c)(1) of AD 97–02–10

has NOT been done: Do the actions within

2,500 landings on the NLG after the effective

date of this AD.

Inspection

(b) Do a one-time inspection of the NLG

upper lock link assembly per Revision 01 of

the applicable service bulletin listed in Table

1 of this AD to determine whether the serial

number of the lock link is identified in the

affected lot specified in Condition 1 of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Revision 01

of the applicable Boeing (McDonnell

Douglas) service bulletin listed in Table 1 of

this AD.

Condition 1 (Hand Forging Serial Number)

(1) If the serial number of the upper lock

link is not from the affected lot specified in

Revision 01 of the applicable service bulletin

(Condition 1), before further flight, do the

etch inspection required by paragraph (c) of

this AD.

(2) If the serial number of the upper lock

link is from the affected lot specified in the

Revision 01 of the applicable service bulletin

(Condition 1), before further flight, replace

the lock link with a new upper lock link, P/

N 3914464–507; a reidentified upper lock

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10247

link by adding an ‘‘F’’ to the part number,

using an electro chemical deep etch method;

or a new upper lock link assembly, P/N

5965065–507; all made from die forged

aluminum material; per the applicable

service bulletin. Accomplishment of the

replacement constitutes terminating action

for the requirements of this AD.

Etch Inspection

(c) Perform a one-time etch inspection of

the NLG upper lock link to determine

whether the lock link is made from die forged

aluminum material (Condition 2), or from

plate or bar material (Condition 3); per the

applicable Boeing (McDonnell Douglas)

service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD.

Condition 2 (Die Forged Aluminum

Material)

(1) If the upper lock link is made from die

forged aluminum material, before further

flight, restore the finish and reidentify the

lock link by adding an ‘‘F’’ to the part

number, using an electro chemical deep etch

method, per the applicable service bulletin.

Identification of the lock link as being made

from die forged aluminum material

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

Condition 3 (Plate or Bar Material)

(2) If the NLG upper lock link is made from

plate or bar material, before further flight, do

either Condition 3, Option 1, as specified by

paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this AD, or Condition 3,

Option 2, as specified by paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)

and (c)(2)(iii) of this AD.

Condition 3, Option 1

(i) Permanently remove any discrepant

upper lock link and replace with a new

upper lock link, P/N 3914464–507; a

reidentified upper lock link by adding an ‘‘F’’

to the part number, using an electro chemical

deep etch method; or a new upper lock link

assembly, P/N 5965065–507; all made from

die forged aluminum material; per the

applicable service bulletin. Accomplishment

of the replacement constitutes terminating

action for the requirements of this AD.

Condition 3, Option 2

(ii) Restore the link finish and reidentify

the upper lock link by adding a black paint

stripe adjacent to the part number, indicating

that the part is not made from die forged

aluminum material, per the applicable

service bulletin.

(iii) Do a high frequency eddy current

(HFEC) or Type I fluorescent penetrant

inspection of the upper lock link assembly,

P/N 3914464—(any configuration), to detect

cracking of the assembly; per McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9–32A298,

Revision 02 [for Model DC–9, DC–9–80, and

C–9 (military) series airplanes; and Model

MD–88 airplanes], or Alert Service Bulletin

MD90–32A019, Revision 02 (for Model MD–

90 airplanes), both dated October 29, 1997;

as applicable.

Actions Following the Inspection Required

by Paragraph (c)(2)(iii)

(d) If no crack is detected during the HFEC

or Type I fluorescent penetrant inspection

required by paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this AD,

within 2,500 landings on the NLG since

accomplishment of the inspection performed

per paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this AD, as

applicable, do that inspection a second time.

If no crack is detected during this second

inspection, within 2,500 landings after

accomplishment of the second inspection,

replace the upper lock link with a new upper

lock link, P/N 3914464–507; a reidentified

upper lock link by adding an ‘‘F’’ to the part

number, using an electro chemical deep etch

method; or a new upper lock link assembly,

P/N 5965065–507; all made from die forged

aluminum material; per the applicable

Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) service bulletin

listed in Table 1 of this AD. Accomplishment

of the replacement action constitutes

terminating action for the requirements of

this AD.

(e) If any crack is detected during the HFEC

or Type I fluorescent penetrant inspection

required by paragraph (c)(2)(iii) or (d) of this

AD, before further flight, replace the

discrepant NLG upper lock link with a new

upper lock link, P/N 3914464–507; a

reidentified upper lock link by adding an ‘‘F’’

to the part number, using an electro chemical

deep etch method; or a new upper lock link

assembly, P/N 5965065–507; all made from

die forged aluminum material; per the

applicable Boeing (McDonnell Douglas)

service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD.

Accomplishment of the replacement

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(f)(1) 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.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

97–02–10, amendment 39–9895, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

Special Flight Permits

(g) 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 February

8, 2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3700 Filed 2–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1, 31 and 301

[REG–107186–00]

RIN 1545–AY50

Electronic Payee Statements

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

by cross reference to temporary

regulations and notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: The IRS is proposing

regulations under sections 6041 and

6051 relating to the voluntary electronic

furnishing of payee statements on Forms

W–2. The proposed regulations also

provide rules under section 6050S

relating to the voluntary electronic

furnishing of statements to individuals

for whom Forms 1098–T, ‘‘Tuition

Payments Statement,’’ and Forms 1098–

E, ‘‘Student Loan Interest Statement,’’

are filed. The proposed regulations will

affect persons required by the foregoing

Internal Revenue Code sections to

furnish these statements (furnishers)

who wish to furnish these statements

electronically. The proposed regulations

will also affect individuals, principally

employees, students, and borrowers

(recipients), who consent to receive

these statements electronically. The text

of temporary regulations published in

the Rules and Regulations section of this

issue of the Federal Register serves as

the text of these proposed regulations.

These proposed regulations do not affect

the requirement to file copy A of Forms

W–2 with the Social Security

Administration or the requirement to

file Forms 1098–T or Forms 1098–E

with the IRS.

DATES: Written or electronic comments

and requests to speak (with outlines of

oral comments) at a public hearing

scheduled for June 4, 2001, at 10 a.m.

must be submitted by May 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to:

CC:M&SP:RU (REG–107186–00), room

5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,

DC 20044. Submissions may be hand

delivered Monday through Friday

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

to: CC:M&SP:RU (REG–107186–00),

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 Regulations’’ option

on the IRS Home Page, or by submitting

comments directly to the IRS Internet