38450 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Actions Compliance times Procedures

(1) Accomplish both an external and internal inspection of the forward, aft, and auxiliary

wing spars for cracks.

(i) Initial Inspection: Upon accumulating

10,000 hours total time-in-service (TIS) on

the airplane or within the next 25 hours TIS

after June 21, 1999 (the effective date of

AD 99–11–13), whichever occurs later.

(ii) Repetitive Inspections: Within 110 hours

TIS after the last inspection required by this

AD or AD 99–11–13, whichever is applicable, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS.

Accomplish these inspections in accordance

with the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of Cessna Service Bulletin

MEB99–3, dated May 6, 1999.

(iii) The 110-hour TIS interval repetitive inspection time is established to allow this action to be accomplished with regular maintenance. The FAA initially determined that

100-hour TIS intervals would provide the

safety intent, but has since determined that

the 110-hour TIS intervals would provide

the same safety intent while providing a 10-

percent time flexibility in scheduling to coincide with regular maintenance.

(2) If any crack is found on any forward, aft, or

auxiliary wing spar during any inspection required by this AD, accomplish the following:

Prior to further flight after the inspection

where the crack is found.

Not Applicable.

(i) Obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme

from the Cessna Aircraft Company, P.O.

Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone: (316) 941–7550, facsimile: (316)

942–9008; and

(ii) Incorporate this repair scheme.

Note: The compliance times specified in

Cessna Service Bulletin MEB99–3, dated May

6, 1999, are different than those required by

this AD. The times in this AD take

precedence over those in the service bulletin.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? (1) You may use an alternative method

of compliance or adjust the compliance time

if:

(i) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(ii) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road,

Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita,

Kansas 67209.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance that

were approved in accordance with AD 99–

11–13 are considered approved as alternative

methods of compliance for this AD.

Note: 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 (e) 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 you have not eliminated the

unsafe condition, specific actions you

propose to address it.

(f) I get information about any alreadyapproved alternative methods of

compliance? You can contact Mr. Eual

Conditt, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport

Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport,

Wichita, Kansas 67209, telephone: (316) 946–

4128; facsimile: (316) 946–4407.

(g) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may obtain copies

of the documents referenced in this AD from

the Cessna Aircraft Company, P. O. Box 7706,

Wichita, Kansas 67277; or may examine this

document at FAA, Central Region, Office of

the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

(h) Does this AD action affect any existing

AD actions? This amendment supersedes AD

99–11–13, Amendment 39–11184.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June

14, 2000.

Michael K. Dahl,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15511 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–298–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737, 757, and 767 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This document revises an

earlier proposed airworthiness directive

(AD), applicable to certain Boeing

Model 737, 757, and 767 series

airplanes, that would have required

repetitive inspections of certain motor

operated hydraulic shutoff valves to

detect malfunctioning; and replacement

with new valves, if necessary. That

proposal also would have required

eventual replacement of certain existing

valves with new valves, which would

have constituted terminating action for

the repetitive inspections. That proposal

was prompted by reports that the motor

switch contacts on certain hydraulic

shutoff valves were misaligned, causing

subsequent malfunction of those valves.

This new action revises the proposed

rule by extending a certain compliance

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38451

time and revising certain actions. The

actions specified by this new proposed

AD are intended to prevent failure of the

motor operated hydraulic shutoff valves,

which could result in leakage of

hydraulic fluid to the engine fire zone,

reduced ability to retract the landing

gear, loss of backup electrical power or

other combinations of failures; and

consequent reduced controllability of

the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–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.

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:

Kenneth W. Frey, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2673; 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 98–NM–298–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.

98–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

Boeing Model 737, 757, and 767 series

airplanes, was published as a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the

Federal Register on October 27, 1999

(64 FR 57808). That NPRM would have

required repetitive inspections of

certain motor operated hydraulic shutoff

valves to detect malfunctioning; and

replacement with new valves, if

necessary. That NPRM also would have

required eventual replacement of certain

existing valves with new valves, which

would have constituted terminating

action for the repetitive inspections.

That NPRM was prompted by reports

that the motor switch contacts on

certain hydraulic shutoff valves were

misaligned, causing subsequent

malfunction of those valves. That

condition, if not corrected, could result

in failure of the motor operated

hydraulic shutoff valves, subsequent

leakage of hydraulic fluid to the engine

fire zone, reduced ability to retract the

landing gear, loss of backup electrical

power or other combinations of failures;

and consequent reduced controllability

of the airplane.

Comments Received to Previous

Proposal

Due consideration has been given to

the comments received in response to

the NPRM:

Request To Revise Inspection Category

Described in the Proposed Rule

Several commenters request that the

phrase ‘‘general visual inspection’’ be

changed to ‘‘operational check.’’ One

commenter states that it defines a

general visual inspection as a static

inspection, and the inspections

described in the alert service bulletins

are dynamic inspections and require

verification that certain criteria are met

during operation of the valves. Another

commenter states that the term ‘‘visual

inspection’’ is misleading, as the valve

failures can be identified only by the

operational checks identified in the alert

service bulletins; additionally, two

commenters state that the bulletins do

not describe a general visual inspection

and, in fact, contain instructions for

detailed operational checks. Yet another

commenter suggests the instructions for

a general visual inspection be expanded

in order to clarify what needs to be

inspected.

The FAA concurs with the

commenters’ requests to change the

phrase ‘‘general visual inspection’’ to

‘‘operational check.’’ The alert service

bulletins describe instructions for

detailed operational checks of the motor

operated shutoff valves; however, there

is no general visual inspection specified

in the bulletins. Therefore, paragraph (a)

of the supplemental NPRM (SNPRM)

has been revised to specify

accomplishment of an operational check

in lieu of a general visual inspection. In

addition, ‘NOTE 2’ of the NRPM, which

describes a general visual inspection,

has been removed.

Request for Extension of Compliance

Time

Several commenters request that the

FAA extend the proposed compliance

time for the replacement of the valves as

specified in paragraph (b) of the

proposed rule. One commenter states

that fleet safety would not be adversely

impacted if the compliance time for the

proposed terminating action were

extended to a proposed four years. The

commenter’s reasons for this statement

are the calculated mean time between

valve failures, in combination with an

unlikely event that creates the need for

only one of the valves to operate; and

the operational checks accomplished in

the interim. The commenter has been

working with the valve supplier and the

airlines to create a fleet retrofit program

and notes that it does not consider it

possible to complete the retrofit of the

affected airplanes in less than four

years. Another commenter requests a

minimum of six years to complete the

replacement of all the valves due to the

large number of valves involved.

Another commenter states that there is

concern that the parts suppliers will not

be able to supply sufficient ‘‘seed’’ units

at a turn around time adequate to

support a two-year retrofit program.

Another commenter contends that the

data should be analyzed prior to

mandating a valve replacement period

and requests that the two-year

38452 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

mandatory replacement be deleted from

the proposal. The commenter remarks

that the present six-month repetitive

operational check interval will provide

an acceptable level of safety until such

time as the valves can be retrofitted.

Another commenter requests that relief

be given to allow for installation

(replacement) of the valves past the

effective date of the proposed AD, as

long as all units on the airplane are

inspected at six-month intervals and

replaced prior to the proposed

compliance time. Yet another

commenter states that two years is a

short compliance time, considering that

a very large number of airplanes (over

2,000) with five or more Circle Seal

control valves installed that need to be

retrofitted. The commenter doubts that

this is a realistic proposal and would

like to have an extension of the

compliance date, in addition to split

compliance times for the valves used in

sensitive and non-sensitive

applications, which would reduce the

number of valves that need to be

replaced urgently. The last commenter

states that the manufacturer is

scheduled to release new service

bulletins that detail the replacement of

the valves used in sensitive and nonsensitive applications.

The FAA concurs partially with the

commenters’ requests/suggestions.

Following careful consideration of all

the comments, the FAA agrees to an

extension of the compliance time for

replacement of the valves to three years,

due to the large number of valves

involved, and in order to allow

operators to obtain the necessary parts

based on supplier ability to produce the

parts within that timeframe. However,

the FAA has determined that three years

is the maximum amount of time

allowable for this extension so that it

will not adversely affect fleet safety, in

that data received from the

manufacturer shows that a longer

extension could result in the risk of

failure of a defective valve through

normal operation of opening and closing

repeatedly. Due to this risk, the sixmonth repetitive operational check

interval, to ensure the valve is operating

and the valve motor has not burned up

due to repetitive operation, will provide

an acceptable level of safety until such

time as the valves can be retrofitted.

Therefore, paragraph (b) of the SNPRM

has been revised accordingly.

Request To Delete or Revise Paragraph

(b)(2) of the Proposed Rule

Several commenters request that

paragraph (b)(2) of the proposal be

either deleted or revised. One

commenter states that based on past

performance, there is a high probability

that installation of the fourth generation

Circle Seal valves will not adequately

address the identified unsafe condition.

The commenter requests that the option

to replace the existing valves with new

Circle Seal valves, as specified in

paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed AD, be

deleted. Another commenter states that

paragraph (b)(2) should apply only to

those valves identified in the alert

service bulletins referenced in the

proposal. The commenter notes that the

words in this paragraph could apply to

a valve installed in another location on

the airplane where failures do not have

a negative impact on safety. Another

commenter requests that the

requirement to replace the valves be

postponed until the problems being

experienced with the valves are

completely resolved. Yet another

commenter would like to have the

option of replacing a defective valve

with either a Whittaker or a Circle Seal

valve, independent of the part number

used.

The FAA concurs partially with the

commenters’ requests. The FAA has

reviewed information provided by the

manufacturer regarding the failure rate

of the valves. Based on this information,

the FAA has determined that the valves

are not an adequate replacement, in

addition to difficulty in the installation

and operational testing of the valves,

resulting in failure of numerous valves;

therefore, paragraph (a)(1) of the

SNPRM has been revised to remove all

references to replacement with Circle

Seal valves, and paragraph (b)(2) of the

NPRM has been deleted. However, the

replacement of the existing valves with

Whittaker valves required by paragraph

(b)(1) of the NPRM will remain in the

AD, and has been moved to paragraph

(b) of the SNPRM.

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 3,029 Boeing

Model 737 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 1,234 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, and that it would take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

operational check, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $148,080, or $120 per

airplane, per operational check.

There are approximately 802 Boeing

Model 757 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 558 airplanes of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, and that it would take

approximately 3 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

operational check, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $100,440, or $180 per

airplane, per operational check.

There are approximately 701 Boeing

Model 767 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 280 airplanes of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, and that it would take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

operational check, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $67,200, or $240 per

airplane, per operational check.

For all airplanes, it would take

approximately 5 work hours per valve to

accomplish the proposed replacement,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Required parts and hydraulic fluid

would cost approximately $4,316 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the valve replacements

proposed by this AD on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $4,616 per airplane,

per valve replacement. This proposed

AD would require eventual replacement

of approximately 5,000 valves.

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 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38453

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 98–NM–298–AD.

Applicability: Model 737, 757, and 767

series airplanes, certificated in any category,

as listed in the following Boeing Alert

Service Bulletins:

—737–29A1073, Revision 2, dated July 1,

1999 (for Model 737 series airplanes);

—757–29A0048, Revision 2, dated July 1,

1999 (for Model 757 series airplanes);

—767–29A0083, Revision 2, dated July 15,

1999 (for Model 767 series airplanes).

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 failure of the motor operated

hydraulic shutoff valves, which could result

in leakage of hydraulic fluid to the engine

fire zone, reduced ability to retract the

landing gear, loss of backup electrical power

or other combinations of failures, and

consequent reduced controllability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

Repetitive Operational Checks/Corrective

Action

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD: Perform an operational check to

detect malfunctioning of any Circle Seal

motor operated hydraulic shutoff valve

having a part number specified in the

‘‘Existing Part Number’’ column (including

parts marked with the suffix ‘‘R’’ after the

serial number), of Paragraph 2.E. of Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 737–29A1073,

Revision 2 (for Model 737 series airplanes),

or 757–29A0048, Revision 2 (for Model 757

series airplanes), both dated July 1, 1999; or

767–29A0083, Revision 2, dated July 15,

1999 (for Model 767 series airplanes); as

applicable; in accordance with the applicable

alert service bulletin.

(1) If any malfunction of any valve is

detected, prior to further flight, replace the

valve with a new Whittaker valve in

accordance with the applicable service

bulletin. Repeat the operational check

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months

until accomplishment of the terminating

action required by paragraph (b) of this AD

on all subject valves.

(2) If no malfunction of any valve is

detected, repeat the operational check

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months

until accomplishment of the terminating

action required by paragraph (b) of this AD

on all subject valves.

Terminating Action

(b) Within 3 years after the effective date

of this AD, accomplish the replacement of

any Circle Seal valve having a P/N specified

in the ‘‘Existing Part Number’’ column

(including parts marked with the suffix ‘‘R’’

after the serial number), of Paragraph 2.E. of

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–29A1073,

Revision 2 (for Model 737 series airplanes);

757–29A0048, Revision 2 (for Model 757

series airplanes), both dated July 1, 1999; or

767–29A0083, Revision 2, dated July 15,

1999 (for Model 767 series airplanes); with a

new Whittaker valve in accordance with the

applicable alert service bulletin.

Accomplishment of this replacement

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive operational checks required by this

AD.

Spares

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

person shall install on any airplane, any part

identified in the ‘‘Existing Part Number’’

column (including parts marked with the

suffix ‘‘R’’ after the serial number), of

Paragraph 2.E. of Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 737–29A1073, Revision 2 (for Model

737 series airplanes); 757–29A0048, Revision

2 (for Model 757 series airplanes), both dated

July 1, 1999; or 767–29A0083, Revision 2,

dated July 15, 1999 (for Model 767 series

airplanes); as applicable.

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

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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, 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 15,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15661 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010–AC43

Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in

the Outer Continental Shelf—Oil and

Gas Drilling Operations

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule

restructures the requirements for oil and

gas drilling operations on the Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS), adds some new

requirements, and converts the rule into

plain language. The proposed rule

follows the logical sequence of

obtaining approval to drill a well and

conducting operations. The proposed

rule also removes overly prescriptive

requirements and updates requirements

to reflect changes in drilling technology.

Restructuring the drilling requirements

will make the regulations easier to read,

understand, and follow. The proposed

technical changes will help ensure that

lessees conduct operations in a safe

manner.

DATES: MMS will consider all comments

we receive by September 19, 2000. We

will begin reviewing comments then

and may not fully consider comments

we receive after September 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry

comments to the Department of the

Interior; Minerals Management Service;

Mail Stop 4024; 381 Elden Street;

Herndon, Virginia 20170–4817;