Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 10571

Administration amends 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:

2001–03–07 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–12111. Docket 2000–NM–118–AD.

Applicability: Model A330 and A340 series

airplanes, certificated in any category; fitted

with any air pressurization unit

(‘‘Pressurization Unit, Air’’ or ‘‘PUA’’) having

part number (P/N) 4020 Q8–3.

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 (c) 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 simultaneous failure of two

air pressurization units, which could result

in loss of three hydraulic circuits and

consequent reduced controllability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

Inspection

(a) Within 500 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, perform a one-time

detailed visual inspection to determine the

P/N and serial number (S/N) of the pressure

reducing valve on each air pressurization

unit, per Airbus Service Bulletin A330–

29A3073 (for Model A330 series airplanes) or

A340–29A4058 (for Model A340 series

airplanes), both Revision 01, including

Appendix 01, dated April 10, 2000; as

applicable.

(1) If no P/N or S/N is identified as affected

equipment per the applicable service

bulletin, you have fulfilled the requirements

of this AD.

(2) If any P/N or S/N is identified as

affected equipment per the applicable service

bulletin: Prior to further flight, perform

applicable tests and repairs in accordance

with the applicable service bulletin.

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: An inspection per Airbus Alert

Service Bulletin A330–29A3073, dated

January 18, 2000 (for Model A330 series

airplanes), or A340–29A4058, dated January

20, 2000 (for Model A340 series airplanes),

is acceptable for compliance with the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

Note 4: The Airbus service bulletins refer

to Le Bozec Filtration & Systems Service

Bulletin 4020Q8–29–03, dated December 17,

1999, as an additional source of service

information for accomplishment of the

actions specified by this AD.

Spares

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, you

may not install any air pressurization unit

having P/N 4020 Q8–3 on any airplane,

unless all actions have been accomplished

for that part in accordance with the

requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) 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,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(d) 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.

Incorporation by Reference

(e) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A330–29A3073,

Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated

April 10, 2000; or Airbus Service Bulletin

A340–29A4058, Revision 01, including

Appendix 01, dated April 10, 2000; as

applicable. This incorporation by reference

was approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Note 6: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directives 2000–

138–118(B) and 2000–139–143(B), both dated

March 22, 2000.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

March 23, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

8, 2001.

Vi L. Lipski,

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3698 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–285–AD; Amendment

39–12113; AD 2001–03–09]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 777 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 777

series airplanes, that requires

replacement of nuts on the clevis

assemblies that support the auxiliary

tracks of the inboard leading edge slats.

This amendment is necessary to prevent

loose or missing nuts on the clevis

assemblies, which could cause the

inboard leading edge slats to be loose or

in an incorrect position and result in

partial or total failure or loss of the slats.

This action is intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective March 23, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of March 23,

2001.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan

Wood, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

10572 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2772;

fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Boeing

Model 777 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

November 15, 2000 (65 FR 68955). That

action proposed to require replacement

of nuts on the clevis assemblies that

support the auxiliary tracks of the

inboard leading edge slats.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

One commenter supports the

proposed rule. Another commenter

states that it is not affected by the

proposed rule.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 121

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

34 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

replacement, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$4,080, or $120 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the 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 adopted herein will

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 final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

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)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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:

2001–03–09 Boeing: Amendment 39–12113.

Docket 2000–NM–285–AD.

Applicability: Model 777 series airplanes,

line numbers 1 through 155 inclusive,

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 (c) 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 loose or missing nuts on the

clevis assemblies that support the auxiliary

tracks of the inboard leading edge slats,

which could cause the slats to be loose or in

an incorrect position and result in partial or

total failure or loss of the slats, accomplish

the following:

Replacement

(a) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, replace nuts having part

number NAS1805–5L on the clevis

assemblies that support the auxiliary tracks

(outboard, center, and inboard) of the inboard

leading edge slats with new nuts purchased

from the airplane manufacturer after October

31, 1999, in accordance with Boeing Special

Attention Service Bulletin 777–57–0038,

dated February 24, 2000.

Spares

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

person shall install any nut having part

number NAS1805–5L on any airplane unless

it was purchased from the airplane

manufacturer after October 31, 1999.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) 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

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, Seattle ACO.

Note 2: 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

(d) 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.

Incorporation by Reference

(e) The replacement shall be done in

accordance with Boeing Special Attention

Service Bulletin 777–57–0038, dated

February 24, 2000. This incorporation by

reference was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be

obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. Copies may be inspected at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

March 23, 2001.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 10573

1 65 FR 81335 (Dec. 26, 2000); III FERC Stats. &

Regs. ¶ 31,115 (Dec. 13, 2000). 2 18 CFR Parts 352, 357, and 385.

3 65 FR 50376 (Aug. 17, 2000), IV FERC Stats. &

Regs. ¶ 32,553 at 33,961 (July 27, 2000).

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

8, 2001.

Vi L. Lipski,

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3694 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Parts 352, 357, and 385

[Docket No. RM99–10–001; Order No.620–

A]

Revisions to and Electronic Filing of

the FERC Form No. 6 and Related

Uniform Systems of Accounts

Issued February 12, 2001.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing.

SUMMARY: The Society for the

Preservation of Oil Pipeline Shippers

(SPOPS) filed a request for clarification

and rehearing of the Commission’s Final

Rule in Order No. 620, Revisions to and

Electronic Filing of the FERC Form No.

6 and Related Uniform Systems of

Accounts. The Commission provides

clarification and denies rehearing.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary C. Lauermann (Technical

Information), Office of the Executive

Director, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

0087

Julia A. Lake (Legal Information), Office

of the General Counsel, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202) 208–2019

David H. Ulevich (Page 700

Information), Office of Markets,

Tariffs and Rates, 888 First Street,

NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202)

208–0678.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

In this order, the Commission

addresses a request for rehearing and

clarification of Order No. 620, the Final

Rule on the revisions to and electronic

filing of the FERC Form No. 6 and

related uniform systems of accounts,

issued on December 13, 2000.1 In Order

No. 620, the Commission amended Parts

352, 357, and 385 2 of its regulations in

order to better meet current and future

regulatory requirements and industry

needs; be more consistent with current

Generally Accepted Accounting

Principles; and to provide for the

electronic filing of FERC Form No. 6.

Order No. 620 is part of the

Commission’s ongoing program to

update and eliminate burdensome and

unnecessary accounting and reporting

requirements. These changes will

reduce, by about 25 percent, the burden

on regulated companies for maintaining

and reporting information under the

Commission’s regulations.

For the reasons stated below, the

Commission provides clarification and

denies rehearing.

II. Background

FERC Form No. 6, ‘‘Annual Report of

Oil Pipeline Companies,’’ collects

information on an annual basis to

enable the Commission to carry out its

responsibilities associated with the

regulation of oil pipeline companies

under the Interstate Commerce Act.

Order No. 620, among other things,

revised FERC Form No. 6 page 700,

‘‘Annual Cost of Service Based Analysis

Schedule.’’ Page 700 provides basic

cost-of-service and throughput

information that allows a shipper to

compare proposed changes in a

pipeline’s rates against the change in

level of the pipeline’s cost of service

and the change in the pipeline’s average

company-wide barrel-mile cost.

On January 12, 2001, the Society for

the Preservation of Oil Pipeline

Shippers (SPOPS) filed a timely request

for rehearing and clarification of Order

No. 620. SPOPS seeks rehearing of the

Final Rule’s requirement that pipelines

report total jurisdictional revenues on

Line 10 of page 700 rather than total

company revenues. Also, SPOPS asks

the Commission to clarify the Final Rule

regarding what cost-of-service

information must be reported on page

700.

Specifically, SPOPS argues that the

Final Rule’s requirement that oil

pipelines report total jurisdictional

revenues on Line No. 10 of page 700

results in a mismatch between the costs

and revenues reported on this page.

According to SPOPS, the Final Rule

permits oil pipeline companies to

exclude revenues earned from either

non-carrier services or nonjurisdictional carrier services which

could result in an understatement of

company revenues. SPOPS also argues

that pipelines will have an enhanced

opportunity to engage in an allocation

shell game if only jurisdictional costs

and revenues are reported on page 700.

SPOPS requests that the Commission

clarify what cost-of-service information

is to be reported on page 700: cost-ofservice data related to jurisdictional

operations or total company operations

including non-jurisdictional activities.

SPOPS cites the instructions listed on

page 700 that were effective prior to the

issuance of Order No. 620 which

required the total cost-of-service to be

computed on a total company basis

consistent with the Commission’s

Opinion No. 154–B, et al., methodology.

SPOPS argues total company cost-ofservice should be reported on page 700

although it acknowledges that pipelines

have been reporting cost-of-service data

on a jurisdictional basis.

The Association of Oil Pipelines

(AOPL) filed an answer on January 29,

2001. AOPL essentially responds that

Order No. 620, and page 700, properly

focus on jurisdictional revenues.

Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR

385.213(a)(2) (2000), prohibits answers

unless otherwise ordered by the

decisional authority. We find that good

cause exists to allow AOPL’s answer.

III. Discussion

We disagree with SPOPS’s assertion

that revised page 700, ‘‘Annual Cost of

Service Based Analysis Schedule,’’ of

FERC Form No. 6 results in a mismatch

between the costs and revenues reported

on this schedule, or that pipelines will

engage in an allocation shell game if

only jurisdictional costs and revenues

are reported on page 700.

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NOPR) issued in this proceeding, the

Commission proposed to revise

Instruction No. 3 of page 700 to require

oil pipeline companies to report total

company revenues so that it would be

consistent with the total cost of service

reported on this page.3 SPOPS had

asserted in its comments to the NOPR

that the Commission should require

pipelines to report total company costs

and total company revenues on page

700.

In its comments on the NOPR, AOPL

explained that our proposed revision to

Instruction No. 3 would in fact result in

an inconsistency. That is, the total cost

of service computed using the Opinion

No. 154–B methodology does not equate

to total company costs; rather it

represents the aggregate cost of the

pipeline’s jurisdictional services. While

AOPL did not object to reporting total