This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

36095

Vol. 65, No. 110

Wednesday, June 7, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–308–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 757 Series Airplanes Powered

by Pratt & Whitney Engines

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 757 series

airplanes powered by Pratt & Whitney

engines. This proposal would require

modification of the nacelle strut and

wing structure. This proposal is

prompted by reports indicating that the

actual operational loads applied to the

nacelle are higher than the analytical

loads that were used during the initial

design. Such an increase in loading can

lead to fatigue cracking in primary strut

structure prior to an airplane reaching

its design service objective. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent fatigue cracking in

primary strut structure and consequent

reduced structural integrity of the strut.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

308–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

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:

Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2776;

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 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 99–NM–308–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.

99–NM–308–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports

indicating that the airplane

manufacturer has accomplished a

structural reassessment of the damage

tolerance capabilities of the Boeing

Model 757 series airplane powered by

Pratt & Whitney engines. This

reassessment indicates that the actual

operational loads applied to the nacelle

strut and wing structure are higher than

the analytical loads that were used

during the initial design. Subsequent

analysis and service history, which

includes numerous reports of fatigue

cracking on certain strut and wing

structure, indicate that fatigue cracking

can occur on the primary strut structure

before an airplane reaches its design

service objective of 20 years or 50,000

flight cycles. Analysis also indicates

that such cracking, if it were to occur,

would grow at a much greater rate than

originally expected. Fatigue cracking in

primary strut structure would result in

reduced structural integrity of the strut.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Boeing recently has developed a

modification of the strut-to-wing

attachment structure installed on Model

757 series airplanes powered by Pratt &

Whitney engines. This modification

significantly improves the load-carrying

capability and durability of the strut-towing attachments. Such improvement

also will substantially reduce the

possibility of fatigue cracking and

corrosion developing in the attachment

assembly.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0034,

dated May 14, 1998, which describes

procedures for modification of the

nacelle strut and wing structure. The

modification consists of replacing many

of the significant load-bearing

components of the strut (e.g., the side

link fittings assemblies, the midspar

fittings, the side load fittings, certain

fuse bolt assemblies, etc.) with

improved components.

The service bulletin contains a

formula for calculating an optional

compliance threshold for the specified

modification. This formula is intended

to be used as an alternative to the 20-

year calendar threshold specified in the

service bulletin.

In addition, Table I of the service

bulletin also identifies two related

service bulletin modifications that must

be accomplished before or at the same

time as the modification in Boeing

Service Bulletin 757–54–0034:

36096 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

• Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–

0027: The FAA has reviewed and

approved Boeing Service Bulletin 757–

54–0027, Revision 1, dated October 27,

1994, which describes procedures for

visual and eddy current inspections of

the fuse pins of the diagonal brace and

upper link, and installation of new 15–

5PH fuse pins and new shoulder bolts

for the diagonal brace and upper link.

• Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–

0036: The FAA has reviewed and

approved Boeing Service Bulletin 757–

54–0036, dated May 14, 1998, which

describes procedures for replacement of

the upper link with a new, improved

part that will increase the strength and

durability of the upper link installation.

That service bulletin also describes

procedures for modification of a wire

support bracket attached to the upper

link.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletins is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

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 AD would

require accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletins

described previously, except as

discussed below.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, although

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0034

specifies that the manufacturer may be

contacted for disposition of certain

damage conditions that may detected

during accomplishment of the

modification, this proposal would

require the repair of those conditions to

be accomplished in accordance with a

method approved by the FAA.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 317

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

278 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

It would take approximately 800 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed modification of the nacelle

strut and wing structure described in

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0034,

dated May 14, 1998, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Required

parts would be provided at no cost by

the airplane manufacturer. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of this

proposed modification on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $13,344,000, or

$48,000 per airplane.

It would take approximately 26 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

actions described in Boeing Service

Bulletin 757–54–0027, Revision 1, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would be provided at no

cost by the airplane manufacturer.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of these proposed actions on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $433,680, or

$1,560 per airplane.

It would take approximately 90 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

actions described in Boeing Service

Bulletin 757–54–0036, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would be provided at no

cost by the airplane manufacturer.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of these proposed actions on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $1,501,200,

or $5,400 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.

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 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 99–NM–308–AD.

Applicability: Model 757 series airplanes

powered by Pratt & Whitney engines, line

numbers 1 through 735 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 (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 prevent fatigue cracking in primary

strut structure and consequent reduced

structural integrity of the strut, accomplish

the following:

Modifications

(a) Modify the nacelle strut and wing

structure on both the left and right sides of

the airplane, in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 757–54–0034, dated May 14,

1998, at the later of the times specified in

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

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 37,500

total flight cycles, or within 20 years since

the date of manufacture, whichever occurs

first. Use of the optional threshold formula

described in paragraph I.D. of the service

bulletin is an acceptable alternative to the 20-

year threshold.

(2) Within 3,000 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD.

(b) Prior to or concurrently with the

accomplishment of the modification of the

nacelle strut and wing structure required by

paragraph (a) of this AD; as specified in

paragraph I.D., Table I, ‘‘Strut Improvement

Bulletins,’’ on page 5 of Boeing Service

Bulletin 757–54–0034, dated May 14, 1998;

accomplish the actions specified in Boeing

Service Bulletin 757–54–0027, Revision 1,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 36097

dated October 27, 1994, and Boeing Service

Bulletin 757–54–0036, dated May 14, 1998,

as applicable, in accordance with those

service bulletins.

(c) If any damage to airplane structure is

found during the accomplishment of the

modification required by paragraph (a) of this

AD; and the service bulletin specifies to

contact Boeing for appropriate action: Prior

to further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. 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.

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.

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

(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 June 1,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–14315 Filed 6–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Parts 701, 724, 773, 774, 778,

842, 843, and 846

RIN 1029–AB94

Application and Permit Information

Requirements; Permit Eligibility;

Definition of Ownership and Control;

the Applicant/Violator System;

Alternative Enforcement Actions

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: On December 21, 1998 (63 FR

70580), we, the Office of Surface Mining

(OSM), proposed a rule to amend our

permanent program regulations for

surface coal mining operations under

the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.

1201, et seq., as amended (SMCRA or

the Act). We are reopening the comment

period for the proposed rule in light of

a judicial decision in a case decided

after the close of the comment period.

The comment period was originally

scheduled to close on February 19,

1999, but was subsequently extended to

March 25, 1999 (64 FR 8763; Feb. 23,

1999), then to April 15, 1999 (64 FR

15322; March 31, 1999), and ultimately

to May 10, 1999 (64 FR 23811; May 4,

1999). Shortly thereafter, on May 28,

1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit handed

down a decision in National Mining

Ass’n v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 177

F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NMA v. DOI II).

Because we incorporated certain

provisions and concepts into our

December 21, 1998 proposed rule,

which were later invalidated by the

court, we feel it advisable to obtain

input from the public on the effects of

the appeals court’s decision on our

proposed rule. By this notice, we are

reopening and extending the comment

period for an additional 30 days to seek

comments on the effects of the court

decision on our proposed rule so that

we can ensure that our final rule is

consistent with the NMA v. DOI II

decision.

DATES: We will accept written

comments until 5 p.m., Eastern time on

July 7, 2000. We will consider only

those comments received within the

allowed time period.

ADDRESSES: You may mail or handdeliver comments to the Office of

Surface Mining, Administrative Record

Room 101, 1951 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC, 20240. You may

also submit comments to OSM via the

Internet at: osmrules@osmre.gov.

Comments sent via the Internet should

be in an ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect

file, and you should avoid using special

characters and any form of encryption.

Please also include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1029–

AB94’’ and your name and return

address in your Internet message. If you

do not receive a confirmation from the

system that we have received your

Internet message, contact us directly at

(202) 208–2847.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen J. McEntegart, Office of Surface

Mining, 1951 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC, 20240.

Telephone: (202) 208–2968; e-mail:

smceteg@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Public Comment Procedures

Written comments submitted by mail,

electronically, or in person, should be

specific, confined to issues pertinent to

this reopening, and explain the bases for

the comments. Please submit three

copies of your comments if possible. We

must stress that we will consider only

comments which are germane to the

effects of the NMA v. DOI II decision on

our December 21, 1998 proposed rule:

conversely, we will not consider

comments which do not pertain to the

effects of the court decision and which

could have been submitted during the

previous comment periods. All of the

comments we received thus far are part

of the rulemaking record, and we will

consider both those comments and

comments received under the new

comment period associated with this

notice before issuing a final rule.

Therefore, commenters should not

resubmit earlier comments.

We are specifying a 30 day deadline

for comments, which we believe is

appropriate because of the limited

nature of this reopening; the fact that

the pertinent appeals court’s rulings are,

for the most part, subject to

straightforward interpretation; the fact

that we previously extended and

reopened the comment period serial

times for the initial proposed rule; and

our desire to expedite promulgation of

a final rule. In view of the above

considerations, we will not extend the

comment period beyond 30 days.

II. Summary of NMa v. DOI II as it

Affects our December 21, 1998

Proposed Rule

In June 1997, NMA filed suit in the

U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia, challenging the validity of

our April 21, 1997, interim final rule

(IFR) (62 FR 19450) on broad grounds.

On June 15, 1998, the district court

issued a decision upholding the IFR in

its entirety. National Mining Ass’n v.

Babbitt, No. 97–1418 (AER) (D.D.C. June

15, 1998).

On May 28, 1999, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit issued its decision in NMA’s

appeal of the district court’s ruling.

National Mining Ass’n. v. U.S. Dep’t of

the interior, 177 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1999)

(NMA v. DOI II). The court upheld

several provisions of the IFR, but

invalidated others. Three of the court’s

holding invalidating provisions of the

IFR are pertinent to this reopening

because we incorporated the invalidated

provisions and/or underlying concepts

into the proposed rule. Since our final

rule must be consistent with NMA v.

DOI II, we invite your comments on