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

5350

Vol. 62, No. 24

Wednesday, February 5, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–123–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives;

Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.

(CASA) Model C–212 Series Airplanes

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 all

CASA C–212 series airplanes. This

proposal would require the

implementation of a corrosion

prevention and control program either

by accomplishing specific inspections

or by revising the maintenance

inspection program to include such a

program. This proposal is prompted by

reports of incidents involving corrosion

and fatigue cracking in transport

category airplanes that are approaching

or have exceeded their economic design

goal; these incidents have jeopardized

the airworthiness of the affected

airplanes. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

degradation of the structural capabilities

of the airplane due to the problems

associated with corrosion.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

123–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

Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.,

Getafe, Madrid, Spain. This information

may be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

Dunn, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2799; fax (206) 227–1149.

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 96–NM–123–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–NM–123–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion: Background

In April 1988, a high-cycle transport

category airplane (specifically, a Boeing

Model 737) was involved in an accident

in which the airplane suffered major

structural damage during flight.

Investigation of this accident revealed

that the airplane had numerous fatigue

cracks and a great deal of corrosion.

Subsequent inspections conducted by

the operator on other high-cycle

transport category airplanes in its fleet

revealed that other airplanes had

extensive fatigue cracking and

corrosion.

Prompted by the data gained from this

accident, the FAA sponsored a

conference on aging airplanes in June

1988, which was attended by

representatives from the aviation

industry and airworthiness authorities

from around the world. It became

obvious that, because of the tremendous

increase in air travel, the relatively slow

pace of new airplane production, and

the apparent economic feasibility of

continuing to operate older technology

airplanes rather than retire them,

increased attention needed to be

focused on the aging airplane fleet and

maintaining its continued operational

safety.

The Air Transport Association (ATA)

of America and the Aerospace

Industries Association (AIA) of America

agreed to undertake the task of

identifying and implementing

procedures to ensure the continued

structural airworthiness of aging

transport category airplanes. An

Airworthiness Assurance Working

Group (AAWG) was established in

August 1988, with members

representing aircraft manufacturers,

operators, regulatory authorities, and

other aviation industry representatives

worldwide. The objective of the AAWG

was to sponsor groups to:

1. Select service bulletins, applicable

to each airplane model in the transport

fleet, to be recommended for mandatory

modification of aging airplanes;

2. Develop corrosion-directed

inspections and prevention programs;

3. Review the adequacy of each

operator’s structural maintenance

program;

4. Review and update the

Supplemental Inspection Documents

(SID); and

5. Assess repair quality.

Development of Relevant Service

Document

CASA has completed its work on Item

2 and has developed a baseline program
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 5351

for controlling corrosion on the CASA

Model C–212 fleet. The program is

contained in CASA Document CPCP C–

212–PV01, ‘‘C–212 Corrosion

Prevention and Control Program

Document,’’ dated March 31, 1995.

(Hereafter, this publication is referred to

as ‘‘the Document.’’) The Direccio ́n

General de Aviacio ́n (DGAC), which is

the airworthiness authority for Spain,

classified this Document as mandatory

and issued Spanish Airworthiness

Directive 01/96, dated April 30, 1996, in

order to assure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

Spain.

Detailed Description of the Document

Section 2 of the Document defines

three levels of corrosion: Level 1

corrosion is that which does not exceed

certain limits; Level 2 corrosion is that

which exceeds those limits; and Level 3

corrosion is significant corrosion which

is potentially an urgent airworthiness

concern.

Section 4 of the Document provides

general rules for developing and

applying a corrosion prevention and

control program. Among other things,

these guidelines provide an outline of

the baseline program, a general

description of ‘‘Implementation Ages’’

and (repetitive) ‘‘Intervals,’’ and

description of situations necessitating a

fleet inspection.

Section 5 addresses establishing a

‘‘baseline program,’’ whose main

objective is to control corrosion to a

Level 1 or better. Specifically:

Section 5.1. describes the procedures

that entail each of the corrosion

inspections to be accomplished in each

area of the airplane zones as part of the

baseline program. As defined in this

section, a ‘‘corrosion inspection’’

includes, among other actions:

a. Gaining access for inspection,

b. Performing the actual inspection for

corrosion,

c. Removing corrosion,

d. Clearing blocked drains, and

e. Applying corrosion inhibitors and/

or water displacement fluid.

Section 5.2. describes the baseline

program instructions, including an

explanation of the form used to describe

the program and a definition of the

‘‘levels of inspection’’ to be

accomplished. The different inspection

levels defined are: General Visual

Inspection (GVI), Detailed Inspection

(DET), and Special Detailed Inspection

(SDET).

Section 5.3. contains the baseline

corrosion and prevention and control

program, including description of each

airplane zone, description of the areas of

each airplane zone to be inspected, the

inspection level, the Implementation

Age (IA), and the (repeat) Interval.

Unless otherwise indicated, the

inspections of each aircraft zone are

required on all CASA Model C–212

series airplanes whose age has reached

or exceeded the IA specified for that

area. For airplanes that have not reached

or exceeded the IA of the specific area,

the particular inspection has to be

performed before the airplane has

reached the IA for the specific area, or

before the (repeat) Interval of the

inspection area is exceeded. For

airplanes that have already reached or

exceeded the IA of the specific area, the

particular inspection has to be

performed before the (repeat) Interval of

the inspection is exceeded.

Section 6 of the Document includes a

flow diagram that provides guidance for

determining the level of corrosion

detected during the required inspections

of airplane zones.

Section 7 of the Document establishes

the procedures for reporting to CASA

the results of the inspections conducted

under the corrosion prevention and

control program.

Section 8 of the Document contains a

glossary of terms and definitions. The

Document also contains appendices that

provide guidelines for evaluating

corrosion damage.

FAA’s Conclusion

This airplane model is manufactured

in Spain and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of Section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the DGAC,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Explanation of Proposed Requirements

of the Rule

Since corrosion is likely to exist or

develop on airplanes of this type design,

an AD is proposed which would require

adoption of a corrosion prevention and

control program that is equivalent to or

better than the program specified in the

Document previously described.

Operators would be permitted to

accomplish this either by performing

the specific inspections described in the

Document (the ‘‘task-by-task method’’),

or by revising their FAA-approved

maintenance program to include such a

program.

Paragraph (a): Option 1, The Task-byTask Method

Paragraph (a) of the proposal sets

forth the proposed compliance times for

the initial corrosion inspections of each

area of the affected airplane zones.

These compliance times are measured

from a date one year after the effective

date of the final rule. (The proposed

compliance times are consistent with

those of other similar AD’s that the FAA

has issued on this subject.) Generally,

operators would be required to complete

the initial inspection before reaching the

IA for the area, as detailed in the

Document. The inspection would be

required to be repeated at a time interval

not to exceed the (repeat) Interval for

that area, as detailed in the Document.

Paragraph (a) includes paragraph

(a)(1)(iv), which states that, once the

initial compliance period has been

established for each airplane area,

accomplishment of the initial

inspections by each operator must occur

at a minimum rate equivalent to one

airplane per year, beginning one year

after the effective date of the final rule.

The FAA recognizes that this may cause

a hardship on some small operators; in

those circumstances, the FAA

anticipates evaluating requests for

adjustment to the implementation rate

on a case-by-case basis under the

provisions of paragraph (h) of the

proposed rule. (A note to this effect is

included in the proposal.)

Operators should note that the

proposal does not contain a paragraph

specifically to address repair actions.

The FAA considers that any repairs

would be carried out necessarily as a

part of each inspection action, as it is

defined in the Document. As discussed

previously, the procedures that entail a

‘‘corrosion inspection,’’ as defined in

Section 5.1. of the Document, include

not only the inspection itself, but any

necessary repairs, application of

corrosion inhibitors, and other followon procedures, as well. Paragraph (a)

contains a note to reference the portion

of the Document that defines an

inspection, and to emphasize the

importance of these corrective actions.

Paragraph (b): Option 2, Revising the

Maintenance Program

Paragraph (b) of the proposal provides

for an optional method of complying

with the rule. In lieu of performing the

task-by-task requirements proposed in

paragraph (a), operators may revise their

FAA-approved maintenance/inspection

programs to include the corrosion

prevention and control program defined

in the Document or an equivalent

program approved by the FAA.
5352 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Recordkeeping Under Option 2

Paragraph (b) also would require that,

subsequent to the accomplishment of

the initial inspection, any extensions of

the repeat inspection Intervals specified

in the Document must be approved by

the FAA.

Any operator electing to comply with

proposed paragraph (b) would be

permitted to use an alternative

recordkeeping method to that otherwise

required by Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR) section 91.417 or

section 121.380, provided it is approved

by the FAA and is included in a

revision to the FAA-approved

maintenance/inspection program. In

response to questions raised previously

concerning recordkeeping and record

retention requirements as they relate to

the programmatic approach proposed in

this AD action and other similar

proposals that have been issued

applicable to other airplane models, the

FAA offers the following:

Sections 91.417(a)(2)(v) and

121.380(a)(2)(v) of the FAR require that

a record be made of the current status

of applicable AD’s. With regard to

proposed paragraph (b), such a record

would be required to be made when the

maintenance/inspection program is

revised to incorporate the program

specified in the Document; at that time,

paragraph (b) of the AD would be fully

complied with. Regarding paragraphs

(d) through (g) of this proposal, those

paragraphs would impose separate

requirements; therefore, except as

discussed below, separate entries would

have to be made to reflect compliance

with each of those paragraphs.

Section 121.380(a)(2)(iv) of the FAR

concerns recording ‘‘the identification

of the current inspection status of the

aircraft.’’ Section 91.417(a)(2)(iv)

contains a similar requirement. Because

proposed paragraph (b) would require

operators to revise their maintenance/

inspection program to include the

program specified in the Document,

each operator’s program would be

required to identify each inspection

(e.g., ‘‘C’’ check) at which each

inspection specified in the Document

will be performed on each airplane. By

recording the current inspection status

of each airplane, and by maintaining a

cross-reference system between these

records and the maintenance/inspection

program revision, it will be possible to

determine the current status of each

required inspection on each airplane.

Once this cross-reference system has

been established, this recording

provision of FAR sections 91 and 121

requires no additional recording beyond

what would otherwise be required

normally.

Section 121.380(a)(1) of the FAR

concerns ‘‘records necessary to show

that all requirements for the issuance of

an airworthiness release under FAR

section 121.709 have been met.’’ Section

91.417(a)(1) contains a similar

requirement. These are also referred to

as ‘‘dirty fingerprint records.’’ This

provision of sections 91 and 121

requires most of the recording that

would result from this proposed AD.

Each time an inspection is performed in

accordance with the corrosion

prevention and control program, the

operator would be required to make a

‘‘dirty fingerprint’’ record of the task,

identifying what actions were

accomplished. It should be noted,

however, that these records are not

different from the records made for any

other actions taken under the operator’s

maintenance/inspection program.

In addition to the record making

requirements, discussed above, sections

91 and 121 of the FAR impose

requirements for record retention:

FAR sections 121.380(b)(1) and

91.417(b)(1) require that the ‘‘dirty

fingerprint’’ records be retained until

the work is repeated or superseded by

other work, or for one year after the

work is performed. Therefore, most of

the records resulting from this proposed

AD would not have to be retained

indefinitely. However, such retention

might facilitate subsequent transfers, or

substantiate requests for repetitive

interval escalations, and therefore, may

be in the operator’s interest.

Section 121.380(b)(2) requires that the

records specified in paragraph

121.380(a)(2) (current status of AD’s and

current inspection status) be retained

and transferred with the airplane at the

time it is sold. Section 91.417(b)(2)

contains a similar requirement.

These recording requirements are not

considered to be unduly burdensome

and are considered the minimum

necessary to enable the cognizant FAA

Maintenance Inspector to perform

proper surveillance and to ensure that

the objectives of the proposed rule are

being fulfilled.

However, because of the numerous

concerns expressed previously by

operators regarding the recordkeeping

obligations imposed by section 121.380

with regard to similar rulemaking on

corrosion prevention and control

programs, the FAA has included in this

proposal certain provisions for

alternative recordkeeping methods.

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would

provide for the development and

implementation of such alternative

methods, which must be approved by

the FAA. For example, operators may

choose to submit proposals to record

compliance with paragraphs (d) through

(g) of the AD by a means other than they

normally use to record AD status. [The

FAA has developed guidance material

that will contain information to be

considered by FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspectors (PMI) when

reviewing proposals for alternative

recordkeeping methods.]

Paragraph (c): Increasing Inspection

Intervals

Paragraph (c) of the proposal provides

for increasing the IA or (repeat) Interval

by up to 10% (but not to exceed 3

months) in order to accommodate

unanticipated scheduling requirements.

Operators would be required to inform

the FAA within 30 days of such

increases.

This provision is intended to provide

flexibility to operators in the

maintenance scheduling of individual

airplanes on a case-by-case basis. It is

not intended to allow operators to

escalate repetitive inspection intervals

for their entire fleets.

Paragraph (d): Reporting Requirements

Paragraph (d)(1) of the proposal sets

forth the reporting actions that are

necessary to be accomplished when

Level 3 corrosion is determined to exist

on an airplane in the operator’s fleet, the

operator would be required to

accomplish one of the following actions

within 7 days after such a determination

is made:

1. submit a report of the

determination to the FAA and conduct

the relevant corrosion inspection in the

affected area on the remainder of the

Model C–212 series airplanes in the

operator’s fleet (within the 7-day

period); or

2. submit, for approval by the FAA,

either:

—A proposed schedule for performing

the relevant corrosion inspection in

the affected area on the remainder of

the operator’s Model C–212 series

fleet; or

—Data substantiating that the Level 3

corrosion was an isolated occurrence.

Paragraph (d)(2) of the proposal

specifies that the FAA may impose

schedules different from what an

operator has proposed under paragraph

(d)(1), if it is found that changes are

necessary to ensure that any other Level

3 corrosion in the operator’s Model C–

212 series fleet is detected in a timely

manner.

Paragraph (d)(3) of the proposal

would require that, within the time

schedule approved by the FAA, the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 5353

operator must accomplish the

inspections in the affected areas on the

remaining airplanes in its Model C–212

series fleet to ensure that any other

Level 3 corrosion is detected.

Paragraph (e): Procedures for Adjusting

the Program

Paragraph (e) would require that,

upon finding corrosion exceeding Level

1 during a repetitive inspection, an

operator must adjust its program to

ensure that future corrosion findings are

limited to Level 1 or better. Where

corrective action is necessary to reduce

corrosion to Level 1 or better, an

operator must submit a proposal for a

means of corrective action for the FAA’s

approval within 30 days after the

determination of corrosion is made.

That means, approved by the FAA, must

then be implemented to reduce future

findings of corrosion in that area to

Level 1 or better.

With regard to paragraph (e), it should

be noted that if corrosion is found and

it is not considered representative of the

operator’s fleet, no further corrective

action may be necessary, since a means

to reduce any corrosion to Level 1 or

better will have already been

implemented in the operator’s program

in accordance with proposed paragraph

(a) or (b). For example, if a finding of

corrosion is attributable to a particular

spill of mercury or other unique event,

or if corrosion is found on an airplane

recently acquired from another operator,

the means specified in the existing

program may be adequate for controlling

corrosion in the remainder of the

operator’s fleet. Similarly, if an operator

has already implemented means to

reduce corrosion in an airplane area

based on previous findings, no

additional corrective action may be

necessary. In reviewing the reports

submitted in accordance with the AD,

the FAA will monitor the effectiveness

of the operator’s means to reduce

corrosion. If the FAA determines that an

operator has failed to implement

adequate means to reduce corrosion to

Level 1 or better, appropriate action will

be taken to ensure compliance with this

paragraph.

Paragraph (f): Provisions Regarding

Newly Acquired Airplanes

Paragraph (f) of the proposal concerns

adding airplanes to an operator’s fleet,

and the procedures that must be

followed with regard to corrosion

prevention and control. This paragraph

differentiates between procedures

applicable to added airplanes that

previously were maintained in

accordance with this AD and those that

were not so maintained. For airplanes

that previously have been maintained in

accordance with the proposed

requirements of this AD action, the first

inspection in each airplane area to be

performed by the new operator would

be required to be performed in

accordance with either the previous

operator’s or the new operator’s

inspection schedule, whichever would

result in the earlier accomplishment

date for that task. For airplanes that

have not been maintained in accordance

with the proposed requirements of this

AD action, the first inspection in each

airplane area to be performed by the

new operator would be required to be

performed before the airplane is placed

in service, or in accordance with a

schedule approved by the FAA.

With regard to the requirements of

paragraph (f), the FAA considers it

essential that operators ensure that

transferred airplanes are inspected in

accordance with the baseline corrosion

prevention and control program on the

same basis as if there were continuity in

ownership. Scheduling of the

inspections for each airplane must not

be delayed or postponed due to a

transfer of ownership; in some cases,

such postponement could continue

indefinitely if an airplane is transferred

frequently from one owner to another.

The proposed rule would require that

the specified procedures be

accomplished before any operator

places into service any airplane subject

to the requirements of the proposed AD.

Paragraph (g): Reporting Level 2 and

Level 3 Corrosion Findings

Paragraph (g) of the proposal would

require that reports of Level 2 and Level

3 corrosion be submitted to CASA

within certain time periods after such

corrosion is detected. Operators are not

relieved, however, from reporting

corrosion findings as required by FAR

section 121.703 (14 CFR 121.703).

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 41 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD. It would take an average

of approximately 7 work hours per

inspection to accomplish the

inspections of the 59 airplane areas

called out in the Document; this

represents a total average of 413 work

hours. The average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators over a 4-year average

inspection cycle is estimated to be

$1,015,980, or $24,780 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is 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.

The FAA recognizes that the

obligation to maintain aircraft in an

airworthy condition is vital, but

sometimes expensive. Because AD’s

require specific actions to address

specific unsafe conditions, they appear

to impose costs that would not

otherwise be borne by operators.

However, because of the general

obligation of operators to maintain

aircraft in an airworthy condition, this

appearance is deceptive. Attributing

those costs solely to the issuance of this

AD is unrealistic because, in the interest

of maintaining safe aircraft, most

prudent operators would accomplish

the required actions even if they were

not required to do so by the AD.

A full cost-benefit analysis has not

been accomplished for this proposed

AD. As a matter of law, in order to be

airworthy, an aircraft must conform to

its type design and be in a condition for

safe operation. The type design is

approved only after the FAA makes a

determination that it complies with all

applicable airworthiness requirements.

In adopting and maintaining those

requirements, the FAA has already

made the determination that they

establish a level of safety that is costbeneficial. When the FAA, as in this

proposed AD, makes a finding of an

unsafe condition, this means that the

original cost-beneficial level of safety is

no longer being achieved and that the

proposed actions are necessary to

restore that level of safety. Because this

level of safety has already been

determined to be cost-beneficial, a full

cost-benefit analysis for this proposed

AD would be redundant and

unnecessary.

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
5354 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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:

CASA: Docket 96–NM–123–AD.

Applicability: All Model C–212 series

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

Note 1: This AD references CASA

Document Number CPCP C–212–

PV01,‘‘Corrosion Prevention and Control

Program Document,’’ dated March 31, 1995,

for inspections, compliance times, and

reporting requirements. In addition, this AD

specifies inspection and reporting

requirements beyond those included in the

Document. Where there are differences

between the AD and the Document, the AD

prevails.

Note 2: As used throughout this AD, the

term ‘‘the FAA’’ is defined differently for

different operators, as follows:

—For those operators complying with

paragraph (a), OPTION 1, of this AD, the

FAA is defined as ‘‘the Manager of the

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.’’

—For those operators operating under

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part

121 or 129 (14 CFR part 121 or part 129),

and complying with paragraph (b),

OPTION 2, of this AD, the FAA is defined

as ‘‘the cognizant Principal Maintenance

Inspector (PMI).’’

—For those operators operating under FAR

part 91 or 125 (14 CFR part 91 or part 125),

and complying with paragraph (b),

OPTION 2, of this AD, the FAA is defined

as ‘‘the cognizant Maintenance Inspector at

the appropriate FAA Flight Standards

office.’’

To prevent degradation of the structural

capabilities of the airplane due to the

problems associated with corrosion damage,

accomplish the following:

(a) Option 1. Except as provided in

paragraph (b) of this AD: Complete each of

the corrosion inspections specified in section

5.3 of CASA Document Number CPCP C–

212–PV01, ‘‘Corrosion Prevention and

Control Program Document,’’ dated March

31, 1995 (hereafter, referred to as ‘‘the

Document), in accordance with the

procedures defined in the Document and the

schedule specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and

(a)(2) of this AD.

Note 3: A ‘‘corrosion inspection’’ as

defined in Section 5.1. of the Document

includes, among other things, gaining access

for inspection, performing the actual

inspection for corrosion, removing corrosion,

clearing blocked drains, applying corrosion

inhibitors and/or water displacement fluid,

and other follow-on actions.

Note 4: Corrosion inspections completed in

accordance with the Document before the

effective date of this AD may be credited for

compliance with the initial corrosion

inspection requirements of paragraph (a)(1)

of this AD.

Note 5: Where non-destructive inspection

(NDI) methods are employed when

performing a Special Detailed Inspection

(DET), in accordance with Section 5.3 of the

Document, the standards and procedures

used must be acceptable to the FAA

Administrator in accordance with FAR

section 43.13 (14 CFR section 43.13).

(1) Complete the initial corrosion

inspection of each area of each airplane zone

specified in Section 5.3 of the Document as

follows:

(i) For airplane areas that have not yet

reached the ‘‘Implementation Age’’ (IA) as of

one year after the effective date of this AD,

initial compliance must occur no later than

the IA plus the (repeat) ‘‘Interval.’’

(ii) For airplane areas that have exceeded

the IA as of one year after the effective date

of this AD, initial compliance must occur

within the (repeat) Interval for the area,

measured from a date one year after the

effective date of this AD.

(iii) For airplanes that are 15 years or older

as of one year after the effective date of this

AD, initial compliance must occur for all

airplane areas within one (repeat) Interval, or

within 4 years, measured from a date one

year after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs first.

(iv) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(i)(i),

(a)(1)(ii), and (a)(1)(iii), in all cases, once the

initial compliance period has been

established for each airplane area,

accomplishment of the initial corrosion

inspections by each operator must occur at a

minimum rate equivalent to one airplane per

year.

Note 6: This minimum rate requirement

may cause a hardship on some small

operators. In those circumstances, requests

for adjustments to the implementation rate

will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis

under the provision of paragraph (h) of this

AD.

(2) Repeat each corrosion inspection at a

time interval not to exceed the (repeat)

Interval specified in the Document for that

inspection.

(b) Option 2. As an alternative to the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD:

Prior to one year after the effective date of

this AD, revise the FAA-approved

maintenance/inspection program to include

the corrosion prevention and control program

specified in the Document; or to include an

equivalent program that is approved by the

FAA. In all cases, the initial corrosion

inspection of each airplane area must be

completed in accordance with the

compliance schedule specified in

paragraph(a)(1) of this AD.

(1) Any operator complying with paragraph

(b) of this AD may use an alternative

recordkeeping method to that otherwise

required by FAR section 91.417 (14 CFR

91.417) or section 12.380 (14 CFR 121.380)

for the actions required by this AD, provided

it is approved by the FAA and is included

a revision to the FAA-approved

maintenance/inspection program.

(2) Subsequent to the accomplishment of

the initial corrosion inspection, extensions of

the (repeat) Intervals specified in the

Document must be approved by the FAA.

(c) To accommodate unanticipated

scheduling requirements, it is acceptable for

a (repeat) Interval to be increased by up to

10%, but not to exceed 3 months. The FAA

must be informed, in writing, of any such

extension within 30 days after such

adjustment of the schedule.

(d)(1) If, as a result of any corrosion

inspection conducted in accordance with

paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, Level 3

corrosion is determined to exist in any

airplane area, accomplish either paragraph

(d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii) of this AD within 7 days

after such determination:

(i) Submit a report of that determination to

the FAA and complete the corrosion

inspection in the affected airplane area(s) on

all Model C–212 series airplanes in the

operator’s fleet; or

(ii) Submit to the FAA for approval one of

the following:

(A) A proposed schedule for performing

the corrosion inspection(s) in the affected

airplane area(s) on the remaining Model C–

212 series airplanes in the operator’s fleet,

which is adequate to ensure that any other

Level 3 corrosion is detected in a timely

manner, along with substantiating data for

that schedule; or

(B) Data substantiating that the Level 3

corrosion found is an isolated occurrence.

Note 7: Notwithstanding the provisions of

Section 2 of the Document, which would

permit corrosion that otherwise meets the

definition of Level 3 corrosion (i.e., which is

determined to be a potentially urgent

airworthiness concern requiring expeditious

action) to be treated as Level 1 if the operator

finds that it ‘‘can be attributed to an event not

typical of the operator’s usage of airplanes in

the same fleet,’’ this paragraph requires that

data substantiating any such finding be

submitted to the FAA (ref. Note 2 of this AD)

for approval.

(2) The FAA may impose schedules other

than those proposed, upon finding that such

changes are necessary to ensure that any

other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a

timely manner.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 5355

(3) Within the time schedule approved

under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD,

accomplish the corrosion inspections in the

affected airplane areas of the remaining

Model C–212 series airplanes in the

operator’s fleet.

(e) If, as a result of any inspection after the

initial corrosion inspection conducted in

accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this

AD, it is determined that corrosion findings

exceed Level 1 in any area, within 30 days

after such determination, implement a

means, approved by the FAA, to reduce

future findings of corrosion in that area to

Level 1 or better.

(f) Before any operator places into service

any newly acquired airplane that is subject

to the requirements of this AD, a schedule for

the accomplishment of the corrosion

inspections required by this AD must be

established in accordance with either

paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of the AD, as

applicable:

(1) For airplanes previously maintained in

accordance with this AD, the first corrosion

inspection in each airplane area to be

performed by the operator must be

accomplished in accordance with either the

previous operator’s schedule or the new

operator’s schedule, whichever would result

in the earlier accomplishment date for that

inspection. After each corrosion inspection

has been performed once, each subsequent

inspection must be performed in accordance

with the new operator’s schedule.

(2) For airplanes that have not been

previously maintained in accordance with

this AD, the first corrosion inspection for

each airplane area to be performed by the

new operator must be accomplished prior to

further flight or in accordance with a

schedule approved by the FAA.

(g) Within 7 days after the date of detection

of any Level 3 corrosion, and within 3

months after the date of detection of any

Level 2 corrosion, submit a report to CASA

of such findings, in accordance with Section

7 of the Document.

(h) 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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 8: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(i) 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 January

30, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–2851 Filed 2–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–209817–96]

RIN 1545–AU19

Treatment of Obligation-Shifting

Transactions; Hearing

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service,

Treasury.

ACTION: Proposed rule; change of date

and location of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This document changes the

date and location of the public hearing

on proposed regulations relating to the

treatment of certain multiple-party

financing transactions in which one

party realizes income from leases or

similar agreements and another party

claims deductions related to that

income.

DATES: The public hearing is being held

on Wednesday, May 14, 1997, beginning

at 10:00 a.m. Requests to speak and

outlines of oral comments must be

received by April 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing

originally scheduled in the IRS

Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building,

1111 Constitution Avenue NW,

Washington, DC is changed to room

2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,

DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Vasquez of the Regulations

Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel

(Corporate), (202) 622–7180 (not a tollfree number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice

of proposed rulemaking and notice of

public hearing appearing in the Federal

Register on Friday, December 27, 1996

(61 FR 68175), announced that a public

hearing on proposed regulations relating

to the treatment of certain multipleparty financing transactions in which

one party realizes income from leases or

similar agreements and another party

claims deductions related to that

income would be held on Tuesday,

April 29, 1997, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue

Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue

NW, Washington, DC and that requests

to speak and outlines of oral comments

should be received by Tuesday, April 8,

1997.

The date and location of the pubic

hearing has changed. The hearing is

scheduled for Wednesday, May 14,

1997, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room

2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,

DC. We must receive the requests to

speak and outlines of oral comments by

Wednesday, April 23, 1997. Because of

controlled access restrictions, attenders

are not admitted beyond the lobby of the

Internal Revenue Building until 9:45

a.m.

The Service will prepare an agenda

showing the scheduling of the speakers

after the outlines are received from the

persons testifying and make copies

available free of charge at the hearing.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,

Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief

Counsel (Corporate).

[FR Doc. 97–2756 Filed 2–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 206 and 208

RIN 1010–AC09

Meeting on Proposed Rule—Oil

Valuation Establishment; Federal

Royalty and Federal Leases Royalty Oil

Sales

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) will hold public

meetings in Denver, Colorado, and

Houston, Texas, to discuss a proposed

rulemaking regarding the valuation of

crude oil and royalty oil sales produced

from mineral leases on Federal land.

The proposal was published in the

Federal Register on January 24, 1997

(62 FR 3741). The proposed rule would

replace existing valuation regulations

and represents the recommendations of

the MMS Oil Valuation Rulemaking

Committee. This proposed rule also

contains a new MMS form and solicits

comments on this information

collection. Comments on this rule must

be submitted to MMS by March 25,

1997. The purpose of these meetings is

to explain the proposed changes to the

regulations governing the valuation for

royalty purposes of crude oil produced

from Federal leases and allow all

interested parties to discuss the