37924 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

obstructions in accordance with Raytheon

Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 34–3207, dated

August 1999, and perform a general visual

inspection for corrosion of the drain valve.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

general visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘A

visual examination of an interior or exterior

area, installation, or assembly to detect

obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This

level of inspection is made under normally

available lighting conditions such as

daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or

droplight, and may require removal or

opening of access panels or doors. Stands,

ladders, or platforms may be required to gain

proximity to the area being checked.’’

(d) If no corrosion of the drain valves is

detected, prior to further flight, perform the

actions specified in either paragraph (d)(1) or

(d)(2) of this AD at the time specified.

(1) Perform the leak test specified in

paragraph (a) of this AD, and thereafter,

repeat the leak test requirements at intervals

not to exceed 300 hours time-in-service.

(2) Prior to further flight, modify any

inoperative valve in accordance with

Raytheon Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 34–

3282, dated August 1999. Thereafter, repeat

the leak test requirements of paragraph (a) of

this AD at intervals not to exceed 300 hours

time-in-service. Modification of ALL the

drain valves constitutes terminating action

for the requirement to perform repetitive leak

tests.

(e) If any drain valve is corroded, prior to

further flight: Inspect the connecting tubing

for corrosion and replace any corroded valve

or tubing with a new or serviceable valve or

tubing in accordance with Raytheon Aircraft

Service Bulletin SB 34–3207, dated August

1999. Accomplish the actions of paragraph

(e)(1) or (e)(2) of the AD at the time specified.

(1) Prior to further flight, perform the leak

test specified in paragraph (a) of this AD, and

thereafter, repeat the leak test requirements

of paragraph (a) of this AD at intervals not

to exceed 300 hours time-in-service.

(2) Prior to further flight, modify any

replaced drain valve in accordance with

Raytheon Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 34–

3282, dated August 1999. Thereafter, repeat

the leak test requirements of paragraph (a) of

this AD at intervals not to exceed 300 hours

time-in-service. Modification of ALL the

drain valves constitutes terminating action

for the requirement to perform repetitive leak

tests.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(f) 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, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ACE–

116W, FAA Small 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, Wichita ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

Special Flight Permit

(g) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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 13,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15420 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–SW–68–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter

Canada Ltd. Model BO 105 LS A–3

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to Eurocopter

Canada Ltd. Model BO 105 LS A–3

helicopters. That AD currently requires,

before further flight, creating a

component log card or equivalent

record, and determining the calendar

age and number of flights on each

tension-torsion (TT) strap, and

inspecting and removing, as necessary,

certain unairworthy TT straps. This

action would establish a life limit for

certain main rotor TT straps. This

proposal is prompted by an accident in

which a main rotor blade (blade)

separated from a Eurocopter

Deutschland GMBH (ECD) Model MBB–

BK 117 helicopter due to fatigue failure

of a TT strap. The same part-numbered

TT strap is used on the Model BO 105

LS A–3 helicopters. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent fatigue failure of a TT strap, loss

of a blade, and subsequent loss of

control of the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before August 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–SW–68–

AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also

send comments electronically to the

Rules Docket at the following address:

9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov. Comments

may be inspected at the Office of the

Regional Counsel between 9 a.m. and 3

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Harrison, Aviation Safety

Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Fort Worth,

Texas 76193–0110, telephone (817)

222–5128, fax (817) 222–5961

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

should 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 mailed

comments submitted in response to this

notice must submit a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 99–SW–68–

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, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 99–SW–68–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

On October 4, 1999, the FAA issued

AD 99–20–13, Amendment 39–11371

(64 FR 56156, October 18, 1999),

applicable to Eurocopter Canada Ltd.

Model BO 105 LS A–3 helicopters. That

AD requires, before further flight,

creating a component log card or

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37925

equivalent record and determining the

calendar age and number of flights on

each TT strap. AD 99–20–13 also

requires inspecting and removing, as

necessary, certain unairworthy TT

straps. That action was prompted by an

accident in which a blade separated

from an ECD Model MBB–BK 117

helicopter due to fatigue failure of a TT

strap. The same part-numbered TT strap

is also used on the Eurocopter Canada

Ltd. Model BO 105 LS A–3 helicopters.

The requirements of that AD are

intended to prevent failure of a TT

strap, loss of a blade, and subsequent

loss of control of the helicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, we

have determined the need to establish a

life limit for the TT strap. We have also

determined that the graduated

inspection criteria and TT strap lives

specified in the current AD are no

longer necessary after a life limit is

established.

Eurocopter Canada issued Alert

Service Bulletin BO 105 LS A–3 No.

ASB–BO 105 LS–10–10, dated

September 1, 1999 (ASB). The ASB

describes procedures for determining

the total accumulated installation time

and number of flights on each TT strap.

The ASB also specifies inspecting and

replacing, as necessary, certain

unairworthy TT straps. Transport

Canada Civil Aviation, the

airworthiness authority for Canada,

classified this ASB as mandatory and

issued AD CF–99–24R1, dated

September 22, 1999, applicable to the

Eurocopter Canada Model BO 105 LS

A–3 helicopters to ensure the continued

airworthiness of these helicopters in

Canada.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified on the ECD Model MBB–BK–

117 that is likely to exist or develop on

Eurocopter Canada Ltd., Model BO 105

LS A–3 helicopters registered in the

United States, the proposed AD would

require establishing a life limit for the

TT straps of 120 months or 25,000

flights, whichever occurs first.

The FAA estimates that 20 helicopters

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 16 work hours per

helicopter to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $10,400 per

helicopter. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the proposed AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$227,200.

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 does

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 39–11371 (64 FR

56156, October 18, 1999), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Eurocopter Canada Ltd.: Docket No. 99–SW–

68–AD. Supersedes AD 99–20–13,

Amendment 39–11371, Docket No. 99–

SW–56–AD.

Applicability: Model BO 105 LS A–3

helicopters, with part number (P/N) 2604067

(Bendix) or J17322–1 (Lord) rotor tension

torsion (TT) strap, installed, certificated in

any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For helicopters 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 failure of a TT strap,

loss of a main rotor blade (blade), and

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter,

accomplish the following:

(a) Before further flight,

(1) Create a component log card or

equivalent record for each TT strap.

(2) Review the history of each helicopter

and TT strap. Determine the age since initial

installation on any helicopter (age) and the

number of flights on each TT strap. Enter

both the age and the number of flights for

each TT strap on the component log card or

equivalent record. When the number of

flights is unknown, multiply the number of

hours time-in-service (TIS) by 5 to determine

the number of flights. If a TT strap has been

previously used at any time on Model BO–

105LS A–3 ‘‘SUPER LIFTER’’, BO–105 CB–5,

BO–105 CBS–5, BO–105 DBS–5, or any

MBB–BK 117 series helicopter, multiply the

total number of flights accumulated on those

other models by a factor of 1.6 and then add

that result to the number of flights

accumulated on the helicopters affected by

this AD.

(3) Remove any TT strap from service if the

total hours TIS or number of flights and age

cannot be determined.

(b) Remove any TT strap, P/N 2604067 or

J17322–1, that has been in service 120

months since initial installation on any

helicopter or accumulated 40,000 flights (a

flight is a takeoff and a landing). Replace the

TT strap with an airworthy TT strap.

(c) This AD revises the Airworthiness

Limitations Section of the maintenance

manual by establishing a life limit for the TT

strap, P/N 2604067 and J17322–1, of 120

months or 40,000 flights, whichever occurs

first.

(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, Regulations

Group, 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, Regulations Group.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Regulations Group.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with § 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Transport Canada Civil Aviation, Canada,

AD CF–99–24R1, dated September 22, 1999.

37926 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 9,

2000.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15425 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ092–002; FRL–6718–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arizona—

Maricopa County PM–10

Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan

for Attainment of the Annual PM–10

Standard; Reopening of Comment

Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: EPA is reopening the

comment period for its proposed action

to approve provisions of the Revised

MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan

for PM–10 for the Maricopa County

(Phoenix) Nonattainment Area,

February 2000, and the control

measures on which it relies, that

address the annual PM–10 national

ambient air quality standard. As part of

this proposal, we also proposed to grant

Arizona’s request to extend the Clean

Air Act deadline for attaining the

annual PM–10 standard in the Phoenix

area from 2001 to 2006 and to approve

two particulate matter rules adopted by

the Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department and Maricopa

County’s Residential Woodburning

Restrictions Ordinance.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal

must arrive by July 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Frances

Wicher, Air Planning Office (AIR–2),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

13, 2000, we proposed to approve the

serious area air quality plan for

attainment of the annual PM–10

standard in the Phoenix, Arizona,

metropolitan area. The proposed actions

are based on our initial determination

that this plan complies with the Clean

Air Act’s requirements for attainment of

the annual PM–10 standard in serious

PM–10 nonattainment areas.

Specifically, we proposed to approve

the following elements of the plan as

they apply to the annual PM–10

standard:

• The base year emissions inventory

of PM–10 sources,

• The demonstration that the plan

provides for implementation of

reasonably available control measures

(RACM) and best available control

measures (BACM),

• The demonstration that attainment

of the PM–10 annual standard by the

Clean Air Act deadline of December 31,

2001 is impracticable,

• The demonstration that attainment

of the PM–10 annual standard will

occur by the most expeditious

alternative date practicable, in this case,

December 31, 2006,

• The demonstration that the plan

provides for reasonable further progress

and quantitative milestones,

• The demonstration that the plan

includes to our satisfaction the most

stringent measures found in the

implementation plan of another state or

are achieved in practice in another state,

and can feasibly be implemented in the

area,

• The demonstration that major

sources of PM–10 precursors such as

nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide do

not contribute significantly to violations

of the annual PM–10 standard, and

• The transportation conformity

budget.

We also proposed to grant Arizona’s

request to extend the attainment date for

the annual PM–10 standard from

December 31, 2001 to December 31,

2006.

Finally, we are proposing to approve

Maricopa County’s fugitive dust rules,

Rules 310 and 301.01, and its residential

woodburning restriction ordinance.

The proposal action provided a 60

day public comment period that ended

on June 12, 2000. In response to a

request from City of Tempe, Arizona, we

are reopening the comment period for

an additional 14 days.

Dated: June 10, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–15394 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CA–019–FOI, FRL–6719–2]

Clean Air Act Reclassification and

Finding of Failure to Implement a State

Implementation Plan; California, San

Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area;

Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to find that the

San Joaquin Valley serious ozone

nonattainment area did not attain the 1-

hour ozone national ambient air quality

standard by November 15, 1999, the

Clean Air Act’s (CAA) attainment

deadline for serious ozone

nonattainment areas. If EPA makes final

this proposed finding, the San Joaquin

Valley nonattainment area will be

reclassified by operation of law to

severe.

EPA also proposes to find that the

approved serious area ozone State

Implementation Plan for the San

Joaquin Valley nonattainment area has

not been fully implemented. If EPA

makes final this proposed

nonimplementation finding, the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District will have to correct the

specified deficiencies within 18 months

of the final finding or be subject to

sanctions pursuant to section 179(b) of

the CAA.

DATES: Comments on these proposed

actions must be received by July 19,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: John Ungvarsky, Planning Office

(AIR–2), Air Division, EPA Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105; ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

Copies of the proposed rule, the

technical support document for this

rulemaking, and EPA policies governing

nonattainment and nonimplementation

findings are contained in the docket for

this rulemaking. The docket is available

for inspection during normal business

hours at the address listed above. A

copy of this proposed rule and the TSD

are also available in the air programs

section of EPA Region 9’s website, http:/

/www.epa.gov/region09.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Ungvarsky, Planning Office (AIR–2), Air

Division, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)

744–1286.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: