Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58495

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletin described

previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 3 Model

SAAB 2000 series airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Required parts would be

provided by the vendor at no charge to

operators. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $180, or $60

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 cost

impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

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

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:

Saab Aircraft AB: Docket 2000–NM–221–

AD.

Applicability: Model Saab 2000 series

airplanes, certificated in any category, having

serial numbers –004 through –063 inclusive.

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 (b) 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 separation of the self-seal

couplings, which could result in loss of

engine oil pressure and a flight-crewcommanded engine shutdown, accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 3 months after the effective date

of this AD, perform a one-time general visual

inspection to ensure correct installation of

the air-cooled oil cooler (ACOC) self-seal

couplings in each nacelle, and install a new

clamp to the self-seal couplings, in

accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 2000–

79–005, dated May 22, 2000. If any coupling

is installed incorrectly, prior to further flight,

perform the corrective actions specified in

the service bulletin in accordance with the

procedures specified in the service bulletin.

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.’’

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) 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,

International Branch, ANM–116, 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, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(c) 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.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Swedish airworthiness directive 1–158,

dated May 23, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

September 25, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–24983 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–48–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; S.N.

CENTRAIR Model 201B Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to all S.N.

CENTRAIR Model 201B sailplanes. The

proposed AD would require you to

modify the rear canopy emergency

release system. The proposed AD is the

result of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information (MCAI)

issued by the airworthiness authority for

France. The actions specified in the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

the rear canopy retaining strap from not

58496 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Proposed Rules

releasing properly during the emergency

egress procedure because of the current

design of the rear canopy emergency

release system. This condition, if not

corrected, will not allow the rear canopy

to completely separate from the

sailplane and could result in potential

injury to the pilot during an emergency

egress.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this proposed rule by

October 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments in triplicate

to the FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 2000–CE–48–AD, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106. You may inspect

comments at this location between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays.

You may get service information that

applies to the proposed AD from S.N.

CENTRAIR, Aerodome—36300 Le

Blanc, France; telephone:

02.54.37.07.96; facsimile:

02.54.37.48.64. You may read this

information at the Rules Docket at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;

telephone: (816) 329–4144; facsimile:

(816) 329–4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

How do I comment on the proposed

AD? The FAA invites comments on this

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. We may amend the

proposed rule in light of comments

received. Factual information that

supports your ideas and suggestions is

extremely helpful in evaluating the

effectiveness of the proposed AD action

and determining whether we need to

take additional rulemaking action.

Are there any specific portions of the

proposed AD I should pay attention to?

The FAA specifically invites comments

on the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule that might suggest a

need to modify the rule. You may

examine all comments we receive before

and after the closing date of the rule 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 the

proposed AD.

We are 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.

How can I be sure FAA receives my

comment? If you want us to

acknowledge the receipt of your

comments, you must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard. On the

postcard, write ‘‘Comments to Docket

No. 2000–CE–48–AD.’’ We will date

stamp and mail the postcard back to

you.

Discussion

What events have caused this

proposed AD? The Direction G ́on ́orale

de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is

the airworthiness authority for France,

recently notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on all S.N.

CENTRAIR Model 201B sailplanes. The

DGAC reports an incident where a

Model 201B rear canopy strap did not

properly release during an actual

emergency egress.

The DGAC advises that the problem is

related to the unreliability of the rear

canopy from completely separating from

the sailplane during an emergency

egress procedure.

What are the consequences if the

condition is not corrected? If the rear

canopy retaining strap does not release

properly during the emergency egress

procedure, the rear canopy will not

completely separate from the sailplane.

This could result in potential injury to

the pilot during an emergency egress.

Relevant Service Information

Is there service information that

applies to this subject? S.N. CENTRAIR

has issued Service Bulletin No. 201–16,

Revision 1, dated December 12, 1999.

What are the provisions of this service

bulletin? The service bulletin:

• Specifies the installation of a

mechanism that automatically releases

the rear canopy strap when the

emergency canopy lever is actuated;

• Includes Process Sheet for Fitment

of the Release Unit for the Rear Canopy

Strap on Glider Centrair 201

‘‘Marianne’’, dated March 17, 1999. This

document includes procedures for

incorporating the modification; and

• Specifies an inspection to assure

that this modification is accomplished

correctly.

What actions did the DGAC take? The

DGAC classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued French AD

Number 1995–055(A) R1, dated

February 5, 2000, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

sailplanes in France.

Was this in accordance with the

bilateral airworthiness agreement? This

sailplane model is manufactured in

France and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the DGAC has kept FAA informed of the

situation described above.

The FAA’s Determination and an

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

What has FAA decided? The FAA has

examined the findings of the DGAC;

reviewed all available information,

including the service information

referenced above; and determined that:

• The unsafe condition referenced in

this document exists or could develop

on other S.N. CENTRAIR Model 201B

sailplanes of the same type design;

• The actions specified in the

previously-referenced service

information should be accomplished on

the affected sailplanes, except for

requiring an inspection to ensure that

the modification is accomplished

correctly and;

• AD action should be taken in order

to correct this unsafe condition.

What does the proposed AD require?

This proposed AD would require you to

install a mechanism that automatically

releases the rear canopy strap when the

emergency canopy lever is actuated.

Accomplishment of the proposed

modification would be in accordance

with the procedures in S.N. Centrair

Process Sheet for Fitment of the Release

Unit for the Rear Canopy Strap on

Glider Centrair 201 ‘‘Marianne’’, dated

March 17, 1999 (or the instructions

provided with the modification kit).

Cost Impact

How many sailplanes does the

proposed AD impact? We estimate that

the proposed AD affects 41 sailplanes in

the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of the

proposed AD on owners/operators of the

affected sailplanes? We estimate the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58497

following costs to accomplish the

proposed modification:

Labor cost Parts cost per

sailplane

Total cost per

sailplane

Total cost on

U.S. sailplane

operators

4 workhours × $60 per hour = $240 .............................................................................................. $150 $390 $15,990

Compliance Time of the Proposed AD

What is the compliance time of the

proposed AD? The compliance time of

this proposed AD is ‘‘within the next 3

months after the effective date of this

AD.’’

Why is the compliance time presented

in calendar time instead of hours timein-service (TIS)? Although the rear

canopy retaining strap not releasing

properly during the emergency egress

procedure occurs during flight, the

condition is not a direct result of

sailplane operation. The chance of this

situation occurring is the same for a

sailplane with 10 hours TIS as it would

be for a sailplane with 500 hours TIS.

A calendar time for compliance will

assure that the unsafe condition is

addressed on all sailplanes in a

reasonable time period.

What are the differences between the

French AD and the proposed AD? The

French AD requires installation of a

mechanism that automatically releases

the rear canopy strap when the

emergency canopy lever is actuated. The

French AD also requires a visual

inspection to ensure that the

modification is incorporated correctly.

The FAA does not require this

inspection because we believe that the

procedures are adequate to allow the

maintenance personnel to accomplish

the action correctly.

Regulatory Impact

Does this proposed AD impact various

entities? 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.

Does this proposed AD involve a

significant rule or regulatory action? For

the reasons discussed above, I certify

that this proposed 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, under 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 a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

S.N. CENTRAIR: Docket No. 2000–CE–48–

AD.

(a) What sailplanes are affected by this

AD? This AD applies to Model 201B

sailplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in

any category.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above sailplanes on the U.S. Register must

comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified in this AD are intended

to prevent the rear canopy retaining strap

from not releasing properly during the

emergency egress procedure because of the

current design of the rear canopy emergency

release system. This condition, if not

corrected, will not allow the rear canopy to

completely separate from the sailplane and

could result in potential injury to the pilot

during an emergency egress.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must accomplish the

following:

Actions Compliance times Procedures

(1) Install a mechanism that automatically releases the rear canopy strap when the emergency canopy lever is actuated.Within the next 3 months after the effective

date of this AD.

(i) Follow the procedures in S.N Centrair Process Sheet for Fitment of the Release Unit

for the Rear Canopy Strap on Glider

Centrair 201 ‘‘Marianne’’, dated March 17,

1999 (or the instructions provided with the

modification kit).

(ii) The document specified above is referenced in S.N. CENTRAIR Service Bulletin

No. 201–16, Revision 1, dated December

12, 1999.

(iii) The inspection referenced in the service

bulletin is not required by this AD.

(2) Do not install a rear canopy emergency release system without incorporating the modification referenced in paragraph (d)(1) of this

AD.

As of the effective date of this AD ................... Not Applicable.

58498 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any

other way? You may use an alternative

method of compliance or adjust the

compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of

compliance provides an equivalent level

of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate approves your alternative.

Send your request through an FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For sailplanes 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. You should include in the request

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) Where can I get information about

any already-approved alternative

methods of compliance? You can

contact Mike Kiesov, Aerospace

Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane

Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816) 329–4144; facsimile: (816) 329–

4090.

(g) What if I need to fly the sailplane

to another location to comply with this

AD? The FAA can issue a special flight

permit under sections 21.197 and

21.199 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199)

to operate your sailplane to a location

where you can accomplish the

requirements of this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the

documents referenced in this AD? You

may obtain copies of the documents

referenced in this AD from S.N.

CENTRAIR, Aerodome—36300 Le

Blanc, France; telephone:

02.54.37.07.96; facsimile:

02.54.37.48.64. You may read these

documents at FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French AD 1999–055(A)R1, dated

February 5, 2000.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

September 22, 2000.

Michael K. Dahl,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–24982 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00–AWP–11]

Proposed Revision of Class D

Airspace; Laughlin/Bullhead

International Airport, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise

Class D airspace at Laughlin/Bullhead

International Airport, AZ, by including

that airspace within a 4.2-mile radius of

the Laughlin/Bullhead international

Airport west of a line 1.8-miles west of

and parallel to the north/south runway.

Additional Class D airspace is required

to contain circling instrument

approaches to the west of the airport. A

review of airspace classification and air

traffic procedures has made this action

necessary.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Attn:

Manager, Airspace Branch, AWP–520,

Docket No. 00–AWP–11, Air Traffic

Division, P.O. Box 92007, Worldway

Postal Center, Los Angeles, California

90009.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Western Pacific Region,

Federal Aviation Administration, Room

6007, 15000 Aviation Boulevard,

Lawndale, California 92061.

An informational docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

at the Office of the Manager, Airspace

Branch, Air Traffic Division at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard V. Coffin Jr., Airspace Specialist

Airspace Branch, AWP–520.9, Air

Traffic Division, Western-Pacific

Region, Federal Aviation

Administration, 15000 Aviation

Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261,

telephone (310) 725–6533.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments, as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this action must submit

with the comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00–

AWP–11.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this action may be changed in light

of comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Airspace Branch, Air

Traffic Division, at 15000 Aviation

Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261,

both before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRM

The FAA is considering a revision to

part 71 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish

Class D airspace at Laughlin/Bullhead

International Airport, AZ. This action

establishes additional controlled

airspace required for circling instrument

approaches to the west of the Laughlin/

Bullhead International Airport, AZ. A

review of airspace classification and air

traffic procedures has made this action

necessary. Class D airspace is published

in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order

7400.9H, Airspace Designations and

Reporting Points, dated September 1,

2000, and effective September 16, 2000,

through September 15, 2001, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class D airspace designation

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in this Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical