38448 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

of the PRB’s members must be SES

career appointees.

(4) The agency must publish notice of

PRB appointments in the Federal

Register before service begins.

(b) Functions. (1) Each PRB must

review and evaluate the initial summary

rating, the senior executive’s response,

and the higher level official’s comments

on the initial summary rating, and

conduct any further review needed to

make its recommendations.

(2) The PRB must make a written

recommendation to the appointing

authority about each senior executive’s

annual summary rating.

(3) PRB members may not take part in

any PRB deliberations involving their

own appraisals.

§ 430.311 Training and evaluation.

(a) To assure that agency performance

management systems are effectively

implemented, agencies must provide

appropriate information and training to

supervisors and senior executives on

performance management, including

planning and appraising performance.

(b) Agencies must periodically

evaluate the effectiveness of their

performance management system(s) and

implement improvements as needed.

(c) Agencies must maintain all

performance-related records for no less

than 5 years from the date the annual

summary rating is issued, as required in

§ 293.404(b)(1) of this chapter.

§ 430.312 OPM review of agency systems.

(a) Agencies must submit proposed

SES performance management systems

to OPM for approval.

(b) OPM will review agency systems

for compliance with the requirements of

law, OPM regulations, and OPM

performance management policy.

(c) If OPM finds that an agency system

does not meet the requirements and

intent of subchapter II of chapter 43 of

title 5, United States Code, or of this

subpart, it will direct the agency to take

corrective action, and the agency must

comply.

[FR Doc. 00–15641 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–CE–66–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna

Aircraft Company Model 402C

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)

99–11–13, which currently requires

inspecting (one-time) the forward, aft,

and auxiliary wing spars for cracks on

certain Cessna Aircraft Company

(Cessna) Model 402C airplanes, and

repairing any cracks found. AD 99–11–

13 also required reporting the results of

the inspection to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) to provide data to

help FAA determine whether the

inspection should be repetitive. After reevaluating the fatigue analysis for the

wing spars on the affected airplanes,

FAA has determined that spar cap

cracking is not an isolated condition

and could continue to develop over the

life of the affected airplanes. Therefore,

the proposed AD would retain the

inspection required in AD 99–11–13,

and would make the inspection

repetitive. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to continue

to detect and correct any cracks in the

forward, aft, and auxiliary wing spars,

which could result in reduced or loss of

control of the airplane.

DATES: The FAA must receive any

comments on this rule on or before

August 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 99–CE–66–AD, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

You may get the service information

referenced in the proposed AD from the

Cessna Aircraft Company, P.O. Box

7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:

(316) 941–7550, facsimile: (316) 942–

9008. You may examine this

information at the Rules Docket at the

address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Eual Conditt, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209, telephone: (316) 946–4128;

facsimile: (316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites comments on the

proposed rule.

You may submit whatever written

data, views, or arguments you choose.

You need to include the rule’s docket

number and submit your comments in

triplicate to the address specified under

the caption ADDRESSES. The FAA will

consider all comments received on or

before the closing date specified above,

before taking action on the proposed

rule. We may change the proposals

contained in this notice in light of the

comments received.

The FAA is re-examining the writing

style we currently use in regulatory

documents, in response to the

Presidential memorandum of June 1,

1998. That memorandum requires

federal agencies to communicate more

clearly with the public. We are

interested in your comments on whether

the style of this document is clearer, and

any other suggestions you might have to

improve the clarity of FAA

communications that affect you. You

can get more information about the

Presidential memorandum and the plain

language initiative at http://

www.plainlanguage.gov.

The FAA specifically invites

comments on the overall regulatory,

economic, environmental, and energy

aspects of the proposed rule that might

necessitate a need to modify the

proposed rule. You may examine all

comments we receive before and after

the closing date for comments in the

Rules Docket. We will file a report in

the Rules Docket that summarizes each

FAA contact with the public that

concerns the substantive parts of this

proposal.

If you want us to acknowledge the

receipt of your comments, you must

include a self-addressed, stamped

postcard. On the postcard, write

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 99–CE–66-

AD.’’ We will date stamp and mail the

postcard back to you.

Availability of NPRMs

You may obtain a copy of this NPRM

by submitting a written request to FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

99–CE–66–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Discussion

Has FAA taken any action to this

point? The FAA issued AD 99–11–13,

Amendment 39–11184 (64 FR 29781,

June 3, 1999), in order to detect and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38449

correct cracks in the forward, aft, and

auxiliary spars of Cessna Model 402C

airplanes. AD 99–11–13 requires that

you accomplish the following on the

affected airplanes:

—Inspect the forward, aft, and

auxiliary wing spars for cracks in

accordance with Cessna Service Bulletin

MEB99–3, dated May 6, 1999;

—Repair any cracks found required in

accordance with an FAA-approved

repair scheme; and

—Report the results of the inspection

to FAA.

AD 99–11–13 was the result of an

accident of one of the affected airplanes

where the right-hand wing failed just

inboard of the nacelle at Wing Station

(WS) 87. Investigation of this accident

revealed fatigue cracking of the forward

main spar that initiated at the edge of

the front spar forward lower spar cap.

What has happened to necessitate

further AD action? The reason for the

reporting requirement of AD 99–11–13

was to provide data to FAA on the

extent of cracking in the forward, aft,

and auxiliary wing spars on the affected

airplanes. After re-evaluating the fatigue

analysis for the wing spars on the

affected airplanes, FAA has determined

that spar cap cracking is not an isolated

condition and could continue to

develop over the life of the affected

airplanes.

The FAA’s Determination and an

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

What has FAA decided? After

examining the circumstances and

reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

we have determined that:

—The inspections required by AD 99–

11–13 should be repetitive; and

—AD action should be taken to

continue to detect and correct any

cracks in the forward, aft, and auxiliary

wing spars, which could result in

reduced or loss of control of the

airplane.

Is there a modification I can

incorporate instead of repetitively

inspecting the wing spars? The FAA has

determined that long-term continued

operational safety would be better

assured by design changes that remove

the source of the problem, rather than

by repetitive inspections or other

special procedures. With this in mind,

FAA is working with Cessna in

developing a strap installation that

would have the capability of carrying

airplane ultimate load if the spar cap

was fractured. The intent is that this

strap could be inspected and that the

inspections of this strap would be

incorporated into the operator’s

maintenance program, as a replacement

for the repetitive inspections required

by this AD.

The FAA may consider additional

rulemaking action if this modification is

developed and subsequently FAAapproved.

Cost Impact

How many airplanes does this

proposed AD impact? We estimate that

the proposed AD would affect 225

airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of the

proposed initial inspection for the

affected airplanes on the U.S. Register?

We estimate that it would take

approximately 3 workhours per airplane

to accomplish the proposed initial

inspection, at an average labor rate of

$60 an hour. Based on the figures

presented above, the total cost impact of

the proposed initial inspection on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $40,500, or

$180 per airplane.

What about the cost of repetitive

inspections? The FAA has no method of

determining the number of repetitive

inspections each owner/operator would

incur over the life of each of the affected

airplanes so the cost impact is based on

the initial inspection.

What is the difference between the

cost impact of this AD and the cost

impact of AD 99–11–13? The cost

impact of the proposed AD is the same

as is currently required by AD 99–11–

13. The only difference between the

proposed AD and AD 99–11–13 is the

repetitive inspections of each affected

airplane owner/operator. As discussed

above, FAA has no way of determining

the repetitive inspection costs.

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 proposed rule

would 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) 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 has been placed 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 14

CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations 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 Airworthiness Directive (AD)

99–11–13, Amendment 39–11184 (64

FR 29781, June 3, 1999), and by adding

a new AD to read as follows:

Cessna Aircraft Company: Docket No. 99–

CE–66–AD; Supersedes AD 99–11–13,

Amendment 39–11184.

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

Any Model 402C airplane, certificated in any

category, that has a serial number that falls

within one of the following ranges:

(1) 689;

(2) 402C0001 through 402C0125;

(3) 402C0201 through 402C0355;

(4) 402C0401 through 402C0528;

(5) 402C0601 through 402C0653; and

(6) 402C0801 through 402C1020.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes on the U.S. Register must

comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to detect and correct any cracks in the

forward, aft, and auxiliary wing spars, which

could result in reduced or loss of control of

the airplane.

(d) What must I do to address this

problem? To address this problem, you must

accomplish the following actions:

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